Origins: The Butterfly Enigma

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 4 ноя 2024

Комментарии • 31

  • @MrWholphin
    @MrWholphin 5 лет назад +3

    Nice to see Paul Nelson on the show

  • @comanche66100
    @comanche66100 5 лет назад +9

    Evo-lunacy is on life support!

  • @2fast2block
    @2fast2block 5 лет назад +11

    One of the tons of reasons God says in Romans @ "...so that people are without excuse."
    Praise God for all of His designs!!!

  • @WienArtist
    @WienArtist 4 года назад +3

    Great video! I truly enjoy how Dr. Nelson explains the very serious problem(s) that face Darwinian evolution. Foresight has always been an unsolved issue with atheistic evolutionists, and yet they merely continue to vehemently shout, "Evolution is a fact!", without adequately addressing this issue. That's because they cannot honestly answer the questions. Thank you very much for sharing this video with us!

    • @patldennis
      @patldennis 3 года назад

      Well you are a mammal, in case you forgot.

  • @rlunnerstall
    @rlunnerstall 5 лет назад +2

    Thank You
    Gentlemen 🌈🕊

  • @flaguy999
    @flaguy999 6 лет назад +17

    After watching this how could anyone still believe that this incredible transformation is the product of blind random chance processes.

    • @annanoelroduner
      @annanoelroduner 5 лет назад +2

      Exactly! God created everything! Incidentally Darwin was not a scientist anyway, he was an arrogant theologian who missed halve the Scriptures ->> as many do today.

    • @Andreiiul
      @Andreiiul 5 лет назад +3

      That's because it's not random. Life is far from chaos just mixing around and life forms pop out. It's a phenomenon driven by the laws of nature. See the Fibonacci distribution, why do you think it pops up allover in nature.

    • @gemguy6812
      @gemguy6812 5 лет назад +5

      @@Andreiiul laws of nature without a lawgiver- that's a miracle!

    • @MrWeezer55
      @MrWeezer55 3 года назад

      @@gemguy6812 Nope. When a scientist uses the word "law" he's describing observable phenomena. Your use of "law" is more on the order of "an edict passed down from on high". Totally different.

    • @slushyislush5077
      @slushyislush5077 3 года назад

      RUclips would never allow this to go viral. Or show up in a random search.

  • @stealthhits93
    @stealthhits93 5 лет назад +2

    The mind is the answer

  • @chrisjones-rd8it
    @chrisjones-rd8it 3 года назад +2

    I know why butterflies exist the way they do............God wanted it to grow that way...simple answer

  • @2fast2block
    @2fast2block 5 лет назад +2

    So much truth to 'a fool has no delight in understanding'. So much truth to Satan being the father of lies out to deceive others. NO ONE can be so ignorant, stupid, dumb, foolish, etc, to think this just came about by mere chance, it could ONLY happen by deception. A deception that those deceived were looking to be deceived. They chose deception over the truth because they don't like where the truth led, to a supernatural creator, God.

    • @tdoc666___
      @tdoc666___ 9 месяцев назад +1

      you took the words from my mouth hahaha, i was about to say that...

  • @vitaquasus1120
    @vitaquasus1120 4 года назад +2

    cut it out, you know in 76 quint-zillion years the Darwinist will fill in a gap here and a gap there...
    this was a great discussion thank you for it

  • @terreliv
    @terreliv 4 года назад

    The picture sucks. You can swim the border. That said, I get the idea.
    The microevolution of "A" would prolly be a rhombus/diamond, square, and trapezoid.

  • @richardguerrero3315
    @richardguerrero3315 2 года назад

    What does the bible say about alien life in the Universe?

  • @Actuary1776
    @Actuary1776 5 лет назад +1

    I like how they promote science when it doesn’t contradict their dogma then piss it to the wind otherwise - see YEC.

    • @geoant9802
      @geoant9802 4 года назад

      a statement that can be applied to every human and organization on the planet. Were you intending to apply this to naturalists or to creationists?