Thank you all for watching and engaging with this video! 🙏 Our goal with "Creation vs. Evolution: The Great Debate" was to spark respectful conversation and open-minded dialogue about these profound topics. 🌍✨ Whether you lean toward science, faith, or a mix of both, your thoughts matter here. Let’s keep this a space for curiosity, mutual respect, and learning from one another. Share your perspectives-what resonated with you most? Or what questions do you still have? Let’s continue this journey together. 💡💬
Thank you for your comment. For many, the evidence for evolution is compelling, but for others, their belief in creation comes from a deeply personal or spiritual place. Both sides often find meaning in their respective views, making the discussion significant for those involved. For more thought-provoking discussions, feel free to join our community by subscribing if you haven’t already-we’d love to have you!
@@D3-DiscoverDeepDreams "...belief in creation comes from a deeply personal or spiritual place..." And this is why there is no debate. The only facts to come from a "deeply personal..place" are those that simply relate to how you feel. These however, have no bearing on how the outside world is in reality. For truth about the broader universe you have to ask the Universe itself to tell you how it functions.
@@gladishilton1943 Thank you for sharing your perspective! It's true that deeply personal beliefs, including those rooted in spirituality, often reflect inner values and experiences rather than external observations. However, many who hold creationist views see their beliefs as complementary to scientific exploration, not necessarily in opposition to it. The idea of "asking the universe" is a beautiful way to frame the scientific pursuit of understanding-using observation, experimentation, and evidence to uncover truths about the cosmos. Whether through faith, science, or both, the journey to understand our existence is something that unites us all in curiosity and wonder. 🌌 If you’re enjoying these conversations, don’t forget to subscribe for more thoughtful discussions and fascinating explorations! 🚀
@@D3-DiscoverDeepDreams Thanks for your reply but I find it amusing/disturbing/objectionable that you can report with a straight face and in such a neutral tone how creationists view the value of their own beliefs. It is of course absurd to suggest that the beliefs of creationists can in any possible way be " *complementary* " to any understanding we have gained through science......particularly if we agree that beliefs only reveal the inner state of an individual rather than any truth about the broader Universe. I'll be charitable and assume you're motivated by good intentions to encourage respectful discussion but you can't ignore that your fence-sitting neutrality give creationist views an air of legitimacy, which is as objectionable as suggesting that we should respect shear guess-work or gut-feelings as having the same level of merit as a scientifically established Theory. Sorry, but this kind of behavior is as useful to the intellectual progress of our species as a dragging anchor is on a ship. Happy New Year and apologies for the terse start to 2025.
For sure! Family discussions on this topic can definitely get lively! It’s amazing how something as universal as our origins can spark such passionate conversations. Hopefully, those debates lead to some learning and understanding and not estrangement!
This debate never gets old, does it? Are we the result of divine creation or billions of years of evolution? Uhm, I’m all for facts, but honestly, who really knows? Or am I just sitting on the fence here? I just don’t know.
It’s okay to be undecided-some of the greatest discoveries have come from asking questions and not being afraid to say, "I don’t know." Staying curious and open-minded can lead to incredible insights on both sides of the debate. Stay curious My Friend!
One is a search for answers, the other claims to know already. What's to debate when there can be no resolution. Neither side will convince the other or be convinced by the other. Interesting? Perhaps, but pointless.
It’s true that these discussions can feel like a stalemate at times, but sometimes the value lies in the conversation itself. Sharing perspectives can deepen understanding, even if no resolution is reached. For more thought-provoking discussions, feel free to join our community by subscribing if you haven’t already-we’d love to have you!
Everything in the world of humanity is by intelligent design, Your house, your car and the computer you are now reading this on. All processes work that way. No one drives with a blindfold on. Yet there are those who think life, more complex than anything else we know, is by chance. On top of that, just about everything in science is repeatable. Evolution is not. Yes, they point to animals changing colour or size or diet but these are mutations. They do not lead to a completely new functionality.
Thank you for sharing your perspective-it's clear you've given this a lot of thought, and the analogy of intelligent design in human creations like houses, cars, and computers is a thought-provoking way to approach the topic. The idea that something as intricate as life could be the result of random chance can indeed feel counterintuitive, especially when we consider the order and complexity we observe in nature. It’s natural to draw comparisons between human-made systems and the systems we see in biology, and these analogies have been central to the intelligent design argument for years. While this perspective resonates with many, others argue that natural processes, while seemingly "blind," are governed by consistent laws and principles, much like a set of rules that guide the outcomes we observe. The interplay of chance and necessity in evolution-random mutations paired with natural selection-can result in highly organized and complex systems without requiring foresight, which is a fascinating concept to explore. Our goal in these discussions isn’t to convince anyone of a singular truth but to appreciate the depth and richness of these perspectives. By engaging with questions like these, we not only learn more about the world but also about each other. If you enjoy these kinds of thought-provoking discussions, consider subscribing to join us as we explore more!
@@D3-DiscoverDeepDreams What about the second half of my comments? Why can't evolutionists, who number in the millions, are amongst the smartest people who ever lived, have access to super computers and understand genetic engineering reproduce macro evolution in the laboratory? What is more, I have never seen a worked mathematical equation for evolution. Before I, or an engineer, make something we sit down with paper and pen and do the maths. All I see from evolutionists is a blackboard of Greek letters. Why can't they predict through maths that "x" happens then show to the world "x" happening?
@@milanterzic859 Thank you for your follow-up! These are great questions, and they really get to the heart of some of the key debates in the science of evolution. Let’s break it down a bit: 1. **Why can't we reproduce macroevolution in the lab? ** Macroevolution refers to large-scale evolutionary changes that occur over long periods of time. It's a complex process involving the accumulation of small, genetic changes over millions of years. While we can observe microevolution (small changes within a species) quite readily in the lab, recreating the vast timescales of macroevolution is challenging. Evolution occurs over many generations, and with living organisms having lifespans that are much shorter than evolutionary timescales, observing macroevolution in real-time is not feasible. That said, there are examples in nature, like the development of new species or adaptation to new environments, that offer indirect evidence of macroevolution happening. 2. **Mathematical equations for evolution: ** You’re right to say that engineering and scientific models often rely on mathematical equations. Evolutionary biology does use mathematical modeling, though it’s often more probabilistic and complex, especially when factoring in natural selection, genetic drift, mutation rates, and gene flow. Evolution doesn't follow a deterministic path-it's a process shaped by random events, selection pressures, and environmental factors that are difficult to predict with precision in the way engineering designs can be. That’s why models tend to focus on probabilities and patterns rather than exact predictions of "x" leading to "y." 3. **Why no clear prediction? ** This ties into the above point. Evolutionary processes are shaped by a combination of random genetic mutations and environmental pressures, which makes them inherently unpredictable. What evolutionists can do is observe and identify patterns (like the rise of antibiotic resistance or speciation events), and they can use those patterns to inform predictions. However, predicting specific evolutionary outcomes is much harder because it involves so many variables. These are difficult, nuanced issues, and it's important to recognize that science doesn't always provide answers that fit perfectly into neat equations or models, especially in complex, long-term processes like evolution. The beauty of science, though, is that it’s always evolving and improving our understanding.
@@D3-DiscoverDeepDreams Atheist: I will believe in God when I see a miracle. Fundamentalist: I will believe in evolution when I see a feathered lizard (in the now) or hear a talking chimpanzee. Atheist: I can point you to what happened in the past. Fundamentalist: The Bible describes miracles that happened in the past. Stalemate. Unless you come up with something in the now, you can say whatever you like and it is water off a duck's back.
@@milanterzic859 Thank you for sharing your perspective. I understand that the debate between evolution and creationism often feels like a stalemate, especially when it comes to evidence that is not directly observable in the present. Science, by its nature, works by providing evidence through observations and experiments that can be tested and repeated. While we don’t have a feathered lizard or a talking chimpanzee in the "now," evolution provides us with a wealth of indirect evidence that points to its processes over time-such as fossil records, genetic similarities between species, and observed speciation in various organisms. As for the mathematical modeling of evolution, it’s a challenging task, but scientists have used computational models to predict evolutionary processes, including how traits are passed down through generations, how populations evolve under different environmental pressures, and even how genetic mutations can lead to new species over long periods of time. While we may not have a neat mathematical equation for macroevolution that satisfies every expectation, there are many models in evolutionary biology that help us understand how changes accumulate over time. Ultimately, this discussion comes down to how we interpret evidence-whether it's through the lens of science, which focuses on what can be observed and tested, or through belief systems, which often involve interpreting past events in ways that may not be directly testable. Both perspectives aim to understand the world, but they do so through different frameworks. I appreciate the thoughtfulness behind your question, and I agree that having open discussions about evidence-whether in science or in faith-is an essential part of moving the conversation forward.
Thank you all for watching and engaging with this video! 🙏 Our goal with "Creation vs. Evolution: The Great Debate" was to spark respectful conversation and open-minded dialogue about these profound topics. 🌍✨ Whether you lean toward science, faith, or a mix of both, your thoughts matter here. Let’s keep this a space for curiosity, mutual respect, and learning from one another. Share your perspectives-what resonated with you most? Or what questions do you still have? Let’s continue this journey together. 💡💬
There's no debate to be had. It's a vast body of evidence versus no evidence at all.
Thank you for your comment. For many, the evidence for evolution is compelling, but for others, their belief in creation comes from a deeply personal or spiritual place. Both sides often find meaning in their respective views, making the discussion significant for those involved. For more thought-provoking discussions, feel free to join our community by subscribing if you haven’t already-we’d love to have you!
Could not have said it more simply and clearly!👍
@@D3-DiscoverDeepDreams "...belief in creation comes from a deeply personal or spiritual place..." And this is why there is no debate.
The only facts to come from a "deeply personal..place" are those that simply relate to how you feel.
These however, have no bearing on how the outside world is in reality.
For truth about the broader universe you have to ask the Universe itself to tell you how it functions.
@@gladishilton1943 Thank you for sharing your perspective! It's true that deeply personal beliefs, including those rooted in spirituality, often reflect inner values and experiences rather than external observations. However, many who hold creationist views see their beliefs as complementary to scientific exploration, not necessarily in opposition to it. The idea of "asking the universe" is a beautiful way to frame the scientific pursuit of understanding-using observation, experimentation, and evidence to uncover truths about the cosmos. Whether through faith, science, or both, the journey to understand our existence is something that unites us all in curiosity and wonder. 🌌
If you’re enjoying these conversations, don’t forget to subscribe for more thoughtful discussions and fascinating explorations! 🚀
@@D3-DiscoverDeepDreams Thanks for your reply but I find it amusing/disturbing/objectionable that you can report with a straight face and in such a neutral tone how creationists view the value of their own beliefs.
It is of course absurd to suggest that the beliefs of creationists can in any possible way be " *complementary* " to any understanding we have gained through science......particularly if we agree that beliefs only reveal the inner state of an individual rather than any truth about the broader Universe.
I'll be charitable and assume you're motivated by good intentions to encourage respectful discussion but you can't ignore that your fence-sitting neutrality give creationist views an air of legitimacy, which is as objectionable as suggesting that we should respect shear guess-work or gut-feelings as having the same level of merit as a scientifically established Theory.
Sorry, but this kind of behavior is as useful to the intellectual progress of our species as a dragging anchor is on a ship.
Happy New Year and apologies for the terse start to 2025.
It’s a HOT topic among my family members. Want a good fight at family gatherings…..talk about this subject.
For sure! Family discussions on this topic can definitely get lively! It’s amazing how something as universal as our origins can spark such passionate conversations. Hopefully, those debates lead to some learning and understanding and not estrangement!
This debate never gets old, does it? Are we the result of divine creation or billions of years of evolution? Uhm, I’m all for facts, but honestly, who really knows? Or am I just sitting on the fence here? I just don’t know.
It’s okay to be undecided-some of the greatest discoveries have come from asking questions and not being afraid to say, "I don’t know." Staying curious and open-minded can lead to incredible insights on both sides of the debate. Stay curious My Friend!
One is a search for answers, the other claims to know already. What's to debate when there can be no resolution. Neither side will convince the other or be convinced by the other. Interesting? Perhaps, but pointless.
It’s true that these discussions can feel like a stalemate at times, but sometimes the value lies in the conversation itself. Sharing perspectives can deepen understanding, even if no resolution is reached. For more thought-provoking discussions, feel free to join our community by subscribing if you haven’t already-we’d love to have you!
Everything in the world of humanity is by intelligent design, Your house, your car and the computer you are now reading this on. All processes work that way. No one drives with a blindfold on. Yet there are those who think life, more complex than anything else we know, is by chance. On top of that, just about everything in science is repeatable. Evolution is not. Yes, they point to animals changing colour or size or diet but these are mutations. They do not lead to a completely new functionality.
Thank you for sharing your perspective-it's clear you've given this a lot of thought, and the analogy of intelligent design in human creations like houses, cars, and computers is a thought-provoking way to approach the topic. The idea that something as intricate as life could be the result of random chance can indeed feel counterintuitive, especially when we consider the order and complexity we observe in nature. It’s natural to draw comparisons between human-made systems and the systems we see in biology, and these analogies have been central to the intelligent design argument for years. While this perspective resonates with many, others argue that natural processes, while seemingly "blind," are governed by consistent laws and principles, much like a set of rules that guide the outcomes we observe. The interplay of chance and necessity in evolution-random mutations paired with natural selection-can result in highly organized and complex systems without requiring foresight, which is a fascinating concept to explore.
Our goal in these discussions isn’t to convince anyone of a singular truth but to appreciate the depth and richness of these perspectives. By engaging with questions like these, we not only learn more about the world but also about each other. If you enjoy these kinds of thought-provoking discussions, consider subscribing to join us as we explore more!
@@D3-DiscoverDeepDreams What about the second half of my comments? Why can't evolutionists, who number in the millions, are amongst the smartest people who ever lived, have access to super computers and understand genetic engineering reproduce macro evolution in the laboratory? What is more, I have never seen a worked mathematical equation for evolution. Before I, or an engineer, make something we sit down with paper and pen and do the maths. All I see from evolutionists is a blackboard of Greek letters. Why can't they predict through maths that "x" happens then show to the world "x" happening?
@@milanterzic859 Thank you for your follow-up! These are great questions, and they really get to the heart of some of the key debates in the science of evolution. Let’s break it down a bit:
1. **Why can't we reproduce macroevolution in the lab? **
Macroevolution refers to large-scale evolutionary changes that occur over long periods of time. It's a complex process involving the accumulation of small, genetic changes over millions of years. While we can observe microevolution (small changes within a species) quite readily in the lab, recreating the vast timescales of macroevolution is challenging. Evolution occurs over many generations, and with living organisms having lifespans that are much shorter than evolutionary timescales, observing macroevolution in real-time is not feasible. That said, there are examples in nature, like the development of new species or adaptation to new environments, that offer indirect evidence of macroevolution happening.
2. **Mathematical equations for evolution: **
You’re right to say that engineering and scientific models often rely on mathematical equations. Evolutionary biology does use mathematical modeling, though it’s often more probabilistic and complex, especially when factoring in natural selection, genetic drift, mutation rates, and gene flow. Evolution doesn't follow a deterministic path-it's a process shaped by random events, selection pressures, and environmental factors that are difficult to predict with precision in the way engineering designs can be. That’s why models tend to focus on probabilities and patterns rather than exact predictions of "x" leading to "y."
3. **Why no clear prediction? **
This ties into the above point. Evolutionary processes are shaped by a combination of random genetic mutations and environmental pressures, which makes them inherently unpredictable. What evolutionists can do is observe and identify patterns (like the rise of antibiotic resistance or speciation events), and they can use those patterns to inform predictions. However, predicting specific evolutionary outcomes is much harder because it involves so many variables.
These are difficult, nuanced issues, and it's important to recognize that science doesn't always provide answers that fit perfectly into neat equations or models, especially in complex, long-term processes like evolution. The beauty of science, though, is that it’s always evolving and improving our understanding.
@@D3-DiscoverDeepDreams Atheist: I will believe in God when I see a miracle. Fundamentalist: I will believe in evolution when I see a feathered lizard (in the now) or hear a talking chimpanzee. Atheist: I can point you to what happened in the past. Fundamentalist: The Bible describes miracles that happened in the past. Stalemate. Unless you come up with something in the now, you can say whatever you like and it is water off a duck's back.
@@milanterzic859 Thank you for sharing your perspective. I understand that the debate between evolution and creationism often feels like a stalemate, especially when it comes to evidence that is not directly observable in the present. Science, by its nature, works by providing evidence through observations and experiments that can be tested and repeated. While we don’t have a feathered lizard or a talking chimpanzee in the "now," evolution provides us with a wealth of indirect evidence that points to its processes over time-such as fossil records, genetic similarities between species, and observed speciation in various organisms.
As for the mathematical modeling of evolution, it’s a challenging task, but scientists have used computational models to predict evolutionary processes, including how traits are passed down through generations, how populations evolve under different environmental pressures, and even how genetic mutations can lead to new species over long periods of time. While we may not have a neat mathematical equation for macroevolution that satisfies every expectation, there are many models in evolutionary biology that help us understand how changes accumulate over time.
Ultimately, this discussion comes down to how we interpret evidence-whether it's through the lens of science, which focuses on what can be observed and tested, or through belief systems, which often involve interpreting past events in ways that may not be directly testable. Both perspectives aim to understand the world, but they do so through different frameworks.
I appreciate the thoughtfulness behind your question, and I agree that having open discussions about evidence-whether in science or in faith-is an essential part of moving the conversation forward.