Wow! This episode struck a nerve with the evolutionists! Notice how their responses resort to name-calling, ad hominem attacks, and a lack of engagement with the science.
At 9:15 you point and say there is no oxygen when there is H2O in the text on screen. And the intelligence needed to set up the design can be solved for when you consider the amount of planets we have in our galaxy (let alone the entire universe) and the probability that these fairly common elements were in an adequate mixture. Life is rare because it takes a lot of dice rolls, but the math says that we are the lucky roll and that somewhere out there other planets most likely got a similar roll. Scientists are actually bit confused why there isn't more life in the galaxy (this is known as the fermi paradox). No name calling, sticking to only your argument, and discussed only scientific principals.
@@damienmcgirl3577 but you haven't though have you. You ain't brought any scientific evidence, just speculation and assertions. That's not empirical evidence dude, these guys have brought empirical evidence, their also scientists. Making sweeping statement's isn't evidence. Dice rolling argument your using is outdated and older than Joan Collins. There's not one shred of evidence of life out there in the universe, not one shred. Unless you believe in science fiction of course. Stat cool.
So you are spreading misinformation about science and when people call you out on it you think you hit a nerve? You want to talk about a lack of engagement with science yet you are literally going against everything that science says and you aren't doing it in the realm of science, no you are doing it on RUclips. Edit: BTW its funny that you are calling people out for name calling when you literally justed used name calling in your post. You use the name 'evolutionist' to name call people who accept establish science. You are trying make 'evolutionist' into a derogatory term and you are complaining about people making ad-hominids. If you really cared about science then you would have done things correctly and put your ideas through the scientific method. You won't because you know that what you are saying is wrong.
If your definition of evolution is simply change . Change occurs. Adaptation occurs. Natural selection occurs. No creationists deny that. There is no scientific proof for evolution. From microbe to microbiologist. Evolution cannot be demonstrated in a laboratory. Evolution requires a belief in abiogenesis. First scientific law of biology is life comes from life. Louis Pasteur . DNA . Definitely No Accident. Nonliving matter cannot give rise to life. No life . No evolution. And all the time in the universe can’t change that
Depending on what you mean by "evolve". That's quite a subjective word to throw around. Creation scientists acknowledge mutations happening which cause change to a degree but those mutations have their limits. Like fruit flies, they tried to see how far those mutations could go in a laboratory, from the flies having 4 wings, 2 wings, and other parts changed but eventually the flies died out, and did not turn into a totally new insect. That's what creation scientists have known and believed all along. We've known about KINDS, like dogs, having many different variations within the kind, but DOGS never "evolve" into another totally new kind of animal. They always remain DOGS. People've known this for thousands of years when they see different breeds of dogs, but that's NOT "evolution". Yet this is where the "evolutionary" propagandists want to muddy the waters and make people assume "ape to man evolution" is a fact, simply because of variations within a kind. It's a scam and we're not falling for it.
Guys, I’m not going to come into your community and call names, etc, but you all should really explore claims like this for yourselves. Not listen to commentators reading a prepared script. It’s not that these types of videos lie, it’s that the grossly misrepresent the science and conclusions reached as a result of said science. What’s really going on with DNA, genetics, evolution, etc., is very cool; wondrous even. I don’t share your claims about the origin of the universe, but I will argue that evolution is a far, far BETTER claim for God than everything being created thousands of years ago. Evolution in zero way disproves God. But in the modern era, we all have access to this data, and all people deserve to not be mislead.
Just so you know CMI isn't just a few people with a youtube channel. It's an international organization that employs and get contribution from many highly accomplished scientists. People who are very qualified to talk about these subjects. They also publish a peer reviewed journal. The purpose of the youtube channel and their articles on their site is to present the information in more laymen terms since papers written by phd scientists go far over most people's heads.
@@ryandodrill6904 who are these "scientists" and are they esteemed or creationist hacks (since there can not be a highly regarded creationist, thats an oxymoron.
@@ΓιάννηςΜεταξάς-ρ5φ they have a list on their site. There are doctors in every field. Some have worked for NASA, I know of one who designed highly accurate clocks for testing relativity, one developed a device for injecting genes into seeds, and other have contributed to various fields. That said you’re engaging in an ad hominem fallacy against the organization and their contributors. One wonders why if your position is so secure you must engage logical fallacies.
"It’s not that these types of videos lie, it’s that the grossly misrepresent the science and conclusions reached as a result of said science." So they lie.
"Complexity" is also something that evolutionists seem to simply dismiss. They don't understand that there is a difference between shattered glass and a windowpane... And most are not open to learning the difference. Why? My guess is that the reason is more subconscious... (John 3:19-20)
@@jessebryant9233that's a rather rude comparison to the Bible isn't it? Scientists who study life are separated into countless subjects to study the immense complexity of life. It is not something that's merely dismissed. The answers are out there, if you would care to look for them
@@fallout921 "The [faith] is strong in this one." Yes, when folks claim there is no such thing as irreducible complexity and ignore all the intricacies and what we do know, yes, they are dismissing the obvious. "Nature dun it" isn't a viable option here.
@@jessebryant9233 can you provide specific examples of people ignoring the complexities of life? Not just claiming they do, can you show me a peer reviewed paper that glosses over something complex? Can you show me hundreds? Can you point out where in the scientific literature every single published paper ignores the facts?
@@fallout921 You find them in the RUclips comments denying irreducible complexity all the time. And that's all I was referring to. So maybe you should tell me why so many of the Darwinian faithful deny it?
1. Humans and chimpanzees were separately created. 2. Humans and chimpanzees have a large number of ERVs in the same corresponding locations in both the human genome and the chimpanzee genome. 3. When a retrovirus inserts itself into the genome it lands in a random location. 4. The probability that retroviruses would land that way is basically 0. 5. Therefore, ERVs are not from viruses.
@@vesuvandoppelganger ERVs have mutated to the point that they don't do anything. They just exist in our DNA. ERVs can get into sperm and eggs, which is how they are passed down generationally. Scientists have been able to slightly mutate human cells in a petri dish and get the virus active again. And yeah, when ERVs attach to the DNA, it's utterly random. We could see the virus in both DNA, but said virus attaching at the same location for both humans and chimps would be close to impossible. If 12 ERVs inserted into the DNA of humans and chimps in the exact same location, the odds of that happening would be greater that the number of atoms that exist in the observable universe. Humans and chimps share ERV insertions in 205 identical locations. The odds of that happening is 1 in 5.88^1418. That is 588 followed by 1,418 zeros. We call pure chance on a number that large as "evolution". Chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor. But I would love to read this channel's article explaining how 205 ERVs are inserted in the same place in the DNA of humans and chimps through the magic of creation.
This is you, "I'm so smart, I believe everything came from nothing for no reason or purpose, I also believe all the complex information that is necessary for all living organisms came into existence without the need for a mind, I believe that matter moves toward life despite the observation that it only obeys laws, I believe that matter without a mind can solve real world problems that requires high levels of knowledge in physics, chemistry, math, engineering, foresight, and does all of these without the ability to 'think'. I believe that DNA pops into existence even though it is made from proteins and you need DNA to make the proteins" God is inline with all known observations, that the source of complexity and information is ALWAYS a mind, you can pretend that this isn't true so can you believe the absurdity that stuff just happens and creates matter, energy, laws, fine tuning, complexity, and all the paradoxes that naturalism can never explain. Your entire life revolves around intelligently designed technology but you yourself are orders of magnitude more complex than any technology mankind has devised and yet you truly believe that you did not require design. As with all evolutionists, you use intelligence to argue your brain did not require intelligence to design but is the product of unguided chemical processes, how silly is that notion? T
You know, if you want you debunk evolution, you may want you actually be talking about evolution. regardless of the take on it, evolution requires life to already exist, abiogenesis necessarily comes before life and therefore before evolution. If you want to try and debunk or disprove evolution, heres an idea of what it is: changes of life over multiple generations due to various factors/ stimuli including, but not limited to reproduction ( or there lack of), environmental pressures, and mutatuons ( which are basically incorrect copying of genes/ dna/ etc, sometimes for the better in a given circumstance, and sometimes for the worse, and mostly neither). Basically, if you want to give a take on a subject, make sure it is that subject, as well as whats actually said about it, and preferably have up to date confirmed information and scources, though thats not vital if its just opinion
FYI - Way back in 1960 an evolutionist explained how 'evolution' can describe more than just biological change. “There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the ‘Special Theory of Evolution’ and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found in future experimental work and not by the dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place.” -Kerkut, G.A. (1927-2004), Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960
@@CMIVideo Then why didn't you name the video "The Complexity of Human DNA Destroys the General Theory of Evolution"? I also didn't hear you mention that in the video, but that may be my fault. If you did, could you give me a time?
@@CMIVideo Again, you intentionally misquote to support your narrow view. Kerkut is stating that scientists cannot sit back on their laurels, believing they have solved the beginning of life on Earth. They must continue to look and research to fill in gaps in the evolutionary chain. Quite a lot has happened in the past 63 years since he wrote that.
Omg guns must have been brought to us, by lisa the rainbow giraffe, I mean no person could come up with an AR-15 from having no guns at all. And the same goes for cars, nevermind the fact, that before fully automatic guns, there were X-action guns, that then just were further developed. Just because the protein is complex doesn't mean it was the first one to do that job.
That's because you are talking about a field you don't understand. You have no standing in the field. Thanks for broadcasting your ignorance for everyone to see.
Not at all, one is constantly developing faults and messing up, the other is computer code, which whilst that does sometimes, it's due to deliberate action to destroy it or incompetence with the code itself, where as evolution is constantly making changes to life, most not amounting to anything good or bad, or at best being better suited to specific scenarios rather than being outright good or bad for the lifeform, unlike say a Malicious code in computing, which is solely bad, or a properly implemented upgrade, which is purely beneficial, and I don't think code is written at random, for some reason
@captainkelley2339 I think it's funny when creationists say dumb things like 'just blind chemistry' when chemistry doesn't see at all. No one needs to direct nature processes. It's the same kind of willful ignorance that lead people into once thinking that the rain, wind and lightning were directed by some god. Just like how we now know how and why it rains and we don't need to invoke a thinking agent behind it. We know the how and why for the diversity of life without the need for any thinking agency being behind it. Using god as an explanation for anything is the laziest thing that you can do. It's literally no different than invoking magic to explain an unknown.
Summary of this entire channel: "Anything that is to complex for me to understand must have been created by a god. And not just any god, the god I was taught about in the country where I was born."
Totally correct. I was so lucky as a Christian not to have been born to Hindu or Muslim parents. YUK! I broke my programming and now am a happy, free-thinking and much kinder atheist. Actually, there should not even be a word to describe something totally nonsense that no one should believe in. We don't have an ABigfootist do we?
No, anything that is too complex to occur by chance must be created by an intelligent mind. Newton, Keppler, Heisenberg, Einstein and many others thought that way. Not just a god, the God who makes sense; the God who became one of us, out of love for us, bled and died for our transgressions, so that we might stand in His presence, and have eternal life (please read John 3 verse 16 from the Bible for that). It makes a lot of sense, you should be interested, because it is for you.
@@farcovidiu3110 Beautiful fantasy without evidence is still fantasy. Why do you believe 2000 year old religions dogma over modern demonstrable science. The Bible was written by men that killed animals and poured their blood over the alter of their desert god.
So two completely clueless guys talking about a subject that they know nothing about. DNA is actually one of the strongest pieces of evidence in support of evolution and the only argument these fools have against it is that DNA is complex. Yet the completely fail to tell anyone, is that DNA is that complex because of BILLIONS of years of small changes. All of those small changes over billions of years is going to lead to very complex life forms. Even the simplest cell today is highly complex because its the product of billions of years of evolution. DNA is such strong evidence for evolution because we can use it to connect different animals together, much like following foot prints in the sand. We can trace and see where the different species split off.
You are the fool, do you not understand the impossibilities of evolution, even a simple protein folding by chance yields a probability greater than all the estimated molecules in the cosmos. You can have trillions of years and you still won't get life. Matter does not move toward life, unguided molecules do not generate information, matter obeys laws and can do nothing else, it has no thoughts. Its amazing that you can understand 'John loves Susan' carved into a tree requires an intelligent agent but DNA, the most complex information ever discovered created itself for no reason or purpose and came into existence without the need for a mind. DNA is made from proteins and you need DNA to make the proteins, so how does your Narnia paradigm solve this paradox, one of many that the fantasy evolution cannot overcome. Stop watching stupid evolution RUclips channels, ease up on the Marvel movies and the penny will drop that life was designed by God.
You can't prove "billions of years". That's an atheist wishful thinking to deny Gods existence. Your billions of years is imaginary and not science. The hypocrisy of atheists claiming that God is not science because we cannot put God in a laboratory to see, but then turn around and believe in blind faith that "billions of years" in the excuse they have to how everything came about. Stop. DNA is a code system far more advanced than human coding, but you think we're dumb enough to think it "came about by chance!" ? No, not happening.
Fred Hoyle, who was a staunch atheist, even said that the universe and life existing by mindless chance is as improbable as a universe full of blind men all solving their own rubik's cube all at the same time. Not happening. Atheism is delusion.
Great are the works of The Lord! His vast intelligence and wisdom is displayed within them. Thousands of years of science, yet still so much more to learn. How can we even think to understand the limits of His mercy and love?
There will ALWAYS be new things to learn. It's called life. His mercy and love, like giving people cancer, viruses, diseases, blindness, deafness, extra or less digits, teeth so crooked that it will actually cause problems before the person is 30, rape, murder, war, insects that lay their eggs on you and when they hatch eat through your eyes, starvation, dehydration.... I can keep going. Yes, that's a VERY loving and merciful god. More important though, why is YOUR god the right one, and not any of the other ones, including one's that are older than yours? Because you have a book?
There will ALWAYS be new things to learn. It's called life. His mercy and love, like giving people cancer, viruses, diseases, blindness, deafness, extra or less digits, teeth so crooked that it will actually cause problems before the person is 30, rape, murder, war, insects that lay their eggs on you and when they hatch eat through your eyes, starvation, dehydration.... I can keep going. Yes, that's a VERY loving and merciful god. More important though, why is YOUR god the right one, and not any of the other ones, including one's that are older than yours? Because you have a book?
Your lack of understand how evolution works doesn’t disprove evolution, nor demonstrate your vague god concept. Debunking evolution would never demonstrate any gods, let alone your favorite one.
Evolution does not work at all. It is a pseudo-scientific conception, full of errors, it results from the preconception that God does not exist and from the subsequent twisting of the data. My fellow creationists have shown that in this and other videos and materials. The fact that the theory of evolution is not true means that the world as we know it did not appear by itself, and the logical conclusion is that some type of God (or whatever you want to call Him) made it be as it is. Our favorite God, as you called Him, not only made the world as it is, but so loved the world that He became a man and suffered for your sins, so that you might have eternal life (as it is written in His book, at John 3 verse 16). It makes a lot of sense. You should be at least interested about this. If this is true, you may understand why we creationists do what we do, we want you and many others to consider this offer. May God bless you.
Did you come up with that yourself or recycle it from Reddit? lol anyway with that mocking comment you have, it sounds like you're trying to put people down so you can feel better about your "view." Why does it bother you, it's a step in the right direction. If it were wrong it wouldn't bother you. Just like it wouldn't bother you when I tell you you should drive a KIA instead of a Honda. You're fine with your Honda and don't get mad at or mock the person that suggested you drive a KIA. Anyway go do whatever bud, I'm just trying to put some weight on the other side of the scale (the correct side)
@@tommylafontaine4472 But you did nothing but try to insult them. How is that adding any weight to the other side? And the guys in this video have zero idea what they're talking about, all a script written by someone else that has no idea what they're talking about. They just used a bunch of large numbers and pretended like that was impossible yet never give an actual reason. OP's mocking actually fits quite well to what the video says, "This sounds impossible therefore a god must have done it." That is not now nor has it ever been a good answer.
@@tommylafontaine4472 They are not just wrong, but lying. The Miller/Urey experiment was not designed to create life but to see if under the conditions they thought was the early earth that amino acids would form. Guess what? they were right. They got amino acids.
@@tommylafontaine4472 Yes, these two magic believers misinforming people bothers me. I’d like my fellow citizens to base their decisions & actions in reality, not 2k yr old fairytales because I have to share the planet/country/neighborhood with them.
@@22rsx Dear friend, I do not intend to justify the Bible, at least not in this comment section. Here I have used the Bible to present one of its key claims. I thought it is important and will interest you or other readers. Finally, no one forces you to believe what the Bible or any other book says. God bless you
@@farcovidiu3110 My book says "The boy trod with a sigh to his father's hut and stood still. The house his father had built that time had a compact structure that reminded him of a gnarled. dead tree stump, and gave a general appearance of ugliness and depression." You can't use the bible and say you are not trying to justify it, because that is exactly what you are doing. 'My book about my god says this, so I will use my book.' Your book trips over itself everywhere. Your book says the flood was for 40 days and nights, then later says it was for 150 days. MY book doesn't trip over itself. Also, you REALLY think the highest peak on Earth was less than 30 feet even 10,000 years ago?
And then you reveal your ignorance. There would be very little oxygen in the atmosphere, then the first plants evolved, increasing the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, leading to the first mass extinction since oxygen would have been toxic to much of the life back then. Anyway, this wouldn't have mattered much since life is hypothesised to have emerged in deep oceans, around thermal vents.
Now do a special about the churches special insurance clause for chil sexual assault claims. Also instead of falsely debunking science, just show proof of God. One time...
@@tommylafontaine4472 No problem. The ‘proof’ of biological evolution(descent with modification) is the observation that life descends with modification.
Another thing you are lying about is that evolution states how life started. It does not. It discusses how life changes, but not how it started. You are conflating abiogenesis with evolution.
So you don't know that 'evolution' has multiple meanings? Here's an evolutionist to clear it up for you: “There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the ‘Special Theory of Evolution’ and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found in future experimental work and not by the dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place.” -Kerkut, G.A. (1927-2004), Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960
And you'd be just as clueless about abiogenesis. Explain in detail just how inanimate material became living organisms. What was present and available in a prebiotic world? Enzymes? Carbohydrates? Lipids?
@@sarahferguson-i8h I know enough to know that the subjects are different, with different claims and supporting evidence on different hypotheses. I am not trying to dishonestly conflate the two in order to construct a strawman.
You mean the prize not price? Who would want one. Montagnier got one for finding HIV which turned out to be a unicorn with a dodo mouth and before he got the prize not the price, Gallo tried to steal the thunder when Margaret Heckler just announced it and btw Crick et al. also just announced DNA ........... his wife painted the double helix ................ I suppose that is why biology became cartoons so that people can think 'scientists' know what they do ..........
Do you define ‘blueprint’ as requiring intelligence to create it? If so, then you need to evidence DNA was created by intelligence before you claim DNA as blueprints. You already accept biological evolution occurs. You just don’t know what it actually is.
So no matter what, you're going to keep moving the goalposts. We can't create simple molecules in a lab. Oh we can. Then we can't create self-replicating molecules. Oh we can. Well this all happens in a lab so I win.
Ye, I would report them for misinformation. They said that lab experiment didn't use oxygen while showing a graphic that listed H2O. Either they are very uneducated, or willfully ignorant.
@@avafury4584 You MIGHT wanna google that instead of just saying "No you can't". There are articles about it from over 15 years ago. JfC. I'd link you one but I don't think it's allowed. A 10 second search and you can't even do that.
Why is this information being presented by an actor and an electrician instead of a biologist and an engineer? Because a biologist would tell you that DNA corroborates evolution by allowing us to track the changes in allele frequencies, and an engineer would tell you that complexity is a feature of poor design. If you're going to intentionally mislead people about science, the last thing you want is an actual scientist.
@@elhilo1972 It is. The more complex a system is, the greater the chance of a catastrophic failure of the system. More moving parts equals more that can go wrong. The purpose of design is to make a system as simple as possible while still achieving its purpose. You want a proper example of intelligent design, go study a hammer.
@@captainkelley2339 To begin with, there are examples of simple and efficient designs throughout nature. Our hand is an example of it: an aunassuming design that can carry out a myriad of different functions. However, to state that a good design _has_ to be simple is philosophically idiotic. No one in their right mind will say a hammer is better designed than a laptop simply because it's simpler. They serve different functions, and therefore require different levels of complexity. In both of these examples, furthermore, it is crystal clear that intelligence was responsible for both.
@@elhilo1972 The human hand is not a system, it is a component of a system. Ironically it is one of the most complex components in the human body containing dozens of tiny bones connected by multiple muscles and ligaments. Did you know the muscles that control our fingers are actually in our forearm? Seems pretty complex to me. My hammer doesn't glitch out or malfunction nearly as much as my laptop does, so again a simpler system has less problems. You are correct that systems of different purpose require different levels of design; however by making that argument, you must now show what the purpose of the human body is and show that it is only as complex as necessary to achieve that purpose. Remember, any unnecessary components, flaws, or redundancies will debunk your argument- so be thorough in your assessment. And no taking individual components out of the system like the hand or the eye, you must address the entire system because we're talking about the entire system.
@captainkelley2339 I'm genuinely struggling to understand your reasoning here. The human body facilitates significant interaction with the outside world in a variety of ways, including reproduction. According to Christianity, it was made in the image of God to reflect His glory. You may not agree with this, but to say that the human body has no purpose, and therefore no designer, is simply absurd. That conclusion doesn't follow. And redundancies debunk an argument for design? The redundancies in your laptop somehow negates the conclusion that intelligence was responsible for its creation? It seems you're arguing quite strongly against the concept of intentional design by using arguments that simply don't make sense. You're reaching because the conclusion that we are intelligently designed is an obvious one. And I think you realize that.
@@AcmeAstro Don't take my word for it. Ask actual experts in the field. You know people who have devoted their lives to the study. But calling someone who lies a liar is NOT ad hoc. Either they know what they presented is easily provable false and are lying OR They don't know anything in the field and so don't know what their saying is false, in which case they are lying about their expertise in the field. Either way, its lying. If you can't tell they are lying, that just shows you are incredibly uneducated in the subject. This is not an attack. Nobody can be an expert in all areas, but it does mean that you're unqualified to talk about the material. The lies presented here are so blatantly false, the burden of proof is on them to back up even the slightest of their claims with peer reviewed scientific evidence, which they have not done. They are lying to you.
@@dariuszanzibar474 Can you point out a single lie? Darwin himself said " If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case." Darwin knew nothing of DNA or machines encoded for on the DNA that repair DNA. He did not know about spin selectivity, or the 4 dimensions of DNA. These are not lies. Yes many, many scientists believe in evolution. It is what they are taught but it does not make it right. Science is not consensus. Argumentum ad populum. If their arguments are so easily disproveable as you suggest off the cuff, show us where they have failed. I have studied this topic diligently for three decades. Why? Because the Christian faith is based on evidence and actual history not just "blind faith". Naturalism or raw materialism is nothing more than magic. It turns nothing into your god along with time and chance. Both of these are sorely abused because no matter how mich time and chance you have physics cannot do the impossible. Not all things are possible because particles obey the laws of Newtonian dynamics and physics. To be a atheist requires more faith than I have.
Thank you so much for your clear and very interesting explanations, I love watching your presentations especially as it’s impossible to get any content like this on mainstream TV here in the UK they only vaguely present one view.
You can question evolution, for sure, science is built on challenging assumptions. Evolution has persisted this long because the general concept can answer those questions well, if only you care to hear those answers.
Then head on out and write a paper, have it published in a reputable journal, and have it go through peer-review. Also, these two don't deal in facts, except when they are twisting them into a Gordian Knot.
I don't know if I should assume you two are ignorant of the science, or willfully dishonest. Neither is a good look. You can say things like "impossible" or "major problem" but that doesn't make it true. "It's not fact" then why don't you perform some of the tests that you say are invalid? You can easily replicate their methodology and prove the results aren't valid. I don't want to be rude or presumptuous, but some of this video comes across as intellectually dishonest. "Junk DNA" is not as cut and dry as the presenters assert. There is healthy discourse over what should count as junk DNA, and how much there is. Presenting only the extreme upper estimates of junk DNA with the broadest definition makes me question the amount of research that goes into this video. The foundational building blocks of RNA (Essentially half of DNA) can be found under natural conditions before life. Even if some iterations of those tests were flawed, science doesn't rely on one foundational text to form a dogma, that's religion. The molecules can be shown to form inside various soils, through various experiments. I should mention that the primordial soup is more of a pop culture thing than a science thing, to my knowledge. I could go on, but I implore you all to accept that your beliefs are pure religion. Science can answer most questions, like how did something evolve, or where something originated. Im not saying it's wrong to be religious, but it is wrong to misrepresent science
To summarize: It is claimed that "evolutionists" can't answer my questions In actuality, many of these so called problems are either fields of active study or quite thoroughly explored by scientists from a wide variety of disciplines I could go on for hours correcting individual points here, but I feel like it would be a waste of time
I would argue that they clearly did do a lot of research to find those cherry picked stats. I honestly think it was very intentional on their part. And even then it doesn't hold up to actual science.
"It deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe."
I look forward to a time where Theists are honest. No selective quoting No deliberate misleading examples No ignoring modern research that shows we know a LOT more than science did 100+ years ago. No pretending that if you poke holes in Darwin that it disproves evolution, because it does not, we know a million times more than Darwin did. etc etc etc etc . It was learning truth about these sorts of things that made me an Atheist, christianity depends on lies.
That's right, you don't have to disprove it. However that doesn't mean it's not true, it just means your willfully ignorant toward it. It's just a greasy cop out loop hole to ignore a view you don't like. Not trying to sound rood but sometimes you just gotta open your mind and quit being such a bigot.
@@tommylafontaine4472 if a theory does not have evidence, than its not a theory nor a fact, it is a guess at best. Also for someone trying not to be "rood" you seem to be throwing the word "bigot" out an awful lot. I recall jesus christ saying something along the lines of "being kind to one's neighbors".
Dude, they have Canada in their titles.... Got to assume they are in Canada. We have enough of our own kooks(looking at you Matt and Kent), don't try to pin these 2 on us. Plus, the guy with the beard said his first language was German, so again, got to assume he's German.
I am amazed at how the jump is made to 'the God of the bible'... Nature sure looks programmed and I've always believed that would indicate a programming agent of some sort... but 'the God of the bible'? I don't think so.
God or not, Christianity is a laughably false religion whose origins can be clearly traced back to the ideas of some cult leader worshipping zealots in the first century.
I thought recently about the genetic mutation and how it works, and I think I came up with a good analogy. Imagine you're copying a book from 500 years ago. You're bound to make mistakes, and some words will turn out as gibberish - those are the deleterious mutations. But sometimes mistakes can lead to something interesting. Apparently 500 years ago the word "answer" was written "answere" (whether that is true or not is not important). Imagine if while rewriting the book, you make a copying mistake and rewrite the word "answere" into "answer". That's a genetic mutation right there (removal of the last letter), but is it 100% deleterious? For modern readers it can be a beneficial mutation, because they know the word as it is today and it will cause less confusion while reading it, BUT for purists and people who appreciate historical accuracy, it will be deleterious because the original word has changed and they do not appreciate it. And about evolution - to all people here it will be obvious that nothing new will appear in the book - we're COPYING the book, not writing anything of our own. This explains how mutations always remove/distort information (because new information can not appear out of nowhere), and how it sometimes could lead to something RELATIVELY positive (good in some environment, bad in another). Do you guys think this explanation of beneficial mutations is accurate?
Far more mistakes would accrue, and language doesn't really evolve via copying mistakes. Plus, the meaning and information was already contained in the abstract understanding of the word. They used to write s's as "f"s in the middle of words; thorn used to be a single letter for 'th.' Back in the day, they spelt the same word in multiple different ways; only modern dictionaries changed that with one 'correct' way to spell. Shakespeare even said people that cannot spell a word multiple ways are intellectual deficient But the argument is that beneficial mistakes have to accrue faster than detrimental ones, otherwise the lifeform would deteriorate and either not be able to reproduce or just outright die and waste away Plus, all the latest research indicates DNA is even far more complicated because it isn't the software that instructs how to build; lifeforms somehow know how to build the morphology of a body despite being put in situations where the DNA could not possibly instruct it. The DNA merely builds the proteins, which are the hardware of the cells (to use the analogy); the software is entirely unknown. Other than that, your explanation might be accurate
@@pyropulseIXXIto some extent that is correct, but considering the majority of creatures have and do die out, and most mutations are neither beneficial nor delaterious, it kind of points more towards evolution that deliberate design, unless said designer was incompetent or wanted things to go awry from it's initial state
@@christophermonteith2774 The creation story already takes care of this; Adam and Eve fell grace, thus becoming mortal. Before, life never decayed and was immortal.
@@CMIVideo imagine cultivating an audience so scientifically illiterate that THIS videos content is 'above their head'............ and lets be clear, you are not 'helping' with your lies, omissions, cherry picking and distortions in the name of your particular interpretation of your particular sects interpretation of your particular religion............ you are simply demonstrating to the world how religions like yours can not survive in the open, honest marketplace of ideas..............
No, that's not how I like my steak, at all. Your brain is well done though if you think this video was actually accurate instead of feeding into your own beliefs.
@@themeek351 Your book that was completely written after everyone had died, where the first half was passed down orally for centuries before they learned writing, the book that was chosen by men what went into it, the book where there is self-contradiction everywhere within its pages, the book that looks more like 2 different deities? THAT book? Got it lol Every single thing in your book was taken from religions that came before it. Even your holidays were adapted from pagan holidays to get people to convert. The morning star and god are as real as every other god that ever existed. Curious about something though: Why are you protecting satan? That's the only reason to put someone behind you, unless you are in a line.
Not a single argument is less than 50 years old. Are you assuming there hasn't been any research into the topic in the last 50 years? Maybe look into research done in the last couple decades to maybe find the answer to these points you're bringing up. But then that would be honest wouldn't it? We can't have that.
Next week I am making video about quantum physics in details. Stay tuned, just waiting my high school diploma to kick in. Whaaaat … if this to guys can … I can do it too …
@@tommylafontaine4472 You don’t need to be a biologist to know these two don’t know wtf they’re talking about. BTW, you already accept biological evolution happens. You just don’t know what it actually is.
The appendix is not a vestigial, like those oafs claimed. The appendix stores beneficial gut bacteria such that it can replenish the gut bacteria biome in events where it is 'destroyed' or 'wiped out' for whatever reason.
@@sciencerules8525what was it’s original function then? The appendix has two functions that aid our immune system to keep us healthy: First, it serves as a reservoir of good bacteria in case of a gut infection. Second, it contains some important immune cells to help us fight off infections. Repeating a hundred year old falsehood isn’t “science.”
@@sciencerules8525 I expect that you can't get through to them. Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology. It has been proven, in colloquial terms, multiple ways. We have observed it in multiple ways. It is better understood than the theory of gravity. These guys think that they can disprove it in a RUclips video. 😅🤣😂
@@sciencerules8525 No, it is not vestigial at all. I literally pointed out to you what it does, and what it has always done; it has not degraded. Humans erroneously assigning a 'past function' to an organ they thought was near useless in modern times does not make that organ vestigial, or their past assigning function of it correct.
@@Ottawa411 Modern science literally says the appendix is not vestigial; it is you guys that are ignoring the science, which is hilarious You honestly sound like a bot. You just repeat what is told to you, and you believe the Priestly class.
@@CMIVideo Too bad you misinformed people on what it was meant to accomplish and what it DID accomplish. BTW, you already accept biological evolution occurs. You just don’t understand what it actually is.
9:20 Oh look, it's the Miller-Urey "Problem: No oxygen"-Guys - the guys who obviously don't know what the "O" in "H2O" stands for*. *it stands for OXYGEN!
My fascination with the complexity of DNA and its many functions give me chills. How a person can look at this yet still try to convince themselves it arose by natural Radom processes is beyond. The fact that many hate the idea of a creator is in itself personal, not scientific.
But we dont? Accepoting the fact that current liveforms came from the process of evolution is not "hating the creator", its accepting the facts. And accepting the existence of creator is, toi borrow your words, personal, not scientific. Since theres no evidence for creator except yours " the world is amazing, it mustve been created". If thats not a personal argument I dont know what is...
There is nothing you can say to those who hate Christ. Not even God appearing himself would persuade them. That being said, this is a treasure for those who love Truth.
I don't think I hate jesus christ, I didn't know him. And if god appeared to me, I'd certainly believe it. I don't think I'd worship him but I would have to believe it.
Sadly most secular scientists and layman would never admit to this crushing data being they would lose their jobs or credibility in academia and amongst peers. Thanks for your great work as always!
Wow! This episode struck a nerve with the evolutionists!
Notice how their responses resort to name-calling, ad hominem attacks, and a lack of engagement with the science.
Name-calling is all they have, kids in a schoolyard resort to name calling, I rest my case.
At 9:15 you point and say there is no oxygen when there is H2O in the text on screen. And the intelligence needed to set up the design can be solved for when you consider the amount of planets we have in our galaxy (let alone the entire universe) and the probability that these fairly common elements were in an adequate mixture. Life is rare because it takes a lot of dice rolls, but the math says that we are the lucky roll and that somewhere out there other planets most likely got a similar roll. Scientists are actually bit confused why there isn't more life in the galaxy (this is known as the fermi paradox). No name calling, sticking to only your argument, and discussed only scientific principals.
@@damienmcgirl3577 but you haven't though have you. You ain't brought any scientific evidence, just speculation and assertions.
That's not empirical evidence dude, these guys have brought empirical evidence, their also scientists.
Making sweeping statement's isn't evidence. Dice rolling argument your using is outdated and older than Joan Collins.
There's not one shred of evidence of life out there in the universe, not one shred. Unless you believe in science fiction of course.
Stat cool.
So you are spreading misinformation about science and when people call you out on it you think you hit a nerve? You want to talk about a lack of engagement with science yet you are literally going against everything that science says and you aren't doing it in the realm of science, no you are doing it on RUclips.
Edit: BTW its funny that you are calling people out for name calling when you literally justed used name calling in your post. You use the name 'evolutionist' to name call people who accept establish science. You are trying make 'evolutionist' into a derogatory term and you are complaining about people making ad-hominids.
If you really cared about science then you would have done things correctly and put your ideas through the scientific method. You won't because you know that what you are saying is wrong.
I thought you were supposed to turn the other cheek. Did you even read that book you hold so near and dear?
We know thing can and do evolve. We've never observed, demonstrated, or theorized how anything can be created.
If your definition of evolution is simply change . Change occurs. Adaptation occurs. Natural selection occurs. No creationists deny that. There is no scientific proof for evolution. From microbe to microbiologist. Evolution cannot be demonstrated in a laboratory. Evolution requires a belief in abiogenesis. First scientific law of biology is life comes from life. Louis Pasteur . DNA . Definitely No Accident. Nonliving matter cannot give rise to life. No life . No evolution. And all the time in the universe can’t change that
Depending on what you mean by "evolve". That's quite a subjective word to throw around. Creation scientists acknowledge mutations happening which cause change to a degree but those mutations have their limits. Like fruit flies, they tried to see how far those mutations could go in a laboratory, from the flies having 4 wings, 2 wings, and other parts changed but eventually the flies died out, and did not turn into a totally new insect. That's what creation scientists have known and believed all along. We've known about KINDS, like dogs, having many different variations within the kind, but DOGS never "evolve" into another totally new kind of animal. They always remain DOGS. People've known this for thousands of years when they see different breeds of dogs, but that's NOT "evolution". Yet this is where the "evolutionary" propagandists want to muddy the waters and make people assume "ape to man evolution" is a fact, simply because of variations within a kind. It's a scam and we're not falling for it.
Guys, I’m not going to come into your community and call names, etc, but you all should really explore claims like this for yourselves. Not listen to commentators reading a prepared script. It’s not that these types of videos lie, it’s that the grossly misrepresent the science and conclusions reached as a result of said science. What’s really going on with DNA, genetics, evolution, etc., is very cool; wondrous even. I don’t share your claims about the origin of the universe, but I will argue that evolution is a far, far BETTER claim for God than everything being created thousands of years ago. Evolution in zero way disproves God. But in the modern era, we all have access to this data, and all people deserve to not be mislead.
Just so you know CMI isn't just a few people with a youtube channel. It's an international organization that employs and get contribution from many highly accomplished scientists. People who are very qualified to talk about these subjects. They also publish a peer reviewed journal. The purpose of the youtube channel and their articles on their site is to present the information in more laymen terms since papers written by phd scientists go far over most people's heads.
@@ryandodrill6904 who are these "scientists" and are they esteemed or creationist hacks (since there can not be a highly regarded creationist, thats an oxymoron.
@@ΓιάννηςΜεταξάς-ρ5φ they have a list on their site. There are doctors in every field. Some have worked for NASA, I know of one who designed highly accurate clocks for testing relativity, one developed a device for injecting genes into seeds, and other have contributed to various fields.
That said you’re engaging in an ad hominem fallacy against the organization and their contributors. One wonders why if your position is so secure you must engage logical fallacies.
"It’s not that these types of videos lie, it’s that the grossly misrepresent the science and conclusions reached as a result of said science."
So they lie.
@@TrevoltIV we were objectively *not* created by a god. Therefore whoever believes it is at best misguided and at worst a hack.
"Complexity" is what confuses people. It's not just complex, it is directed, ordered and programmed.
"Complexity" is also something that evolutionists seem to simply dismiss. They don't understand that there is a difference between shattered glass and a windowpane... And most are not open to learning the difference. Why? My guess is that the reason is more subconscious... (John 3:19-20)
@@jessebryant9233that's a rather rude comparison to the Bible isn't it? Scientists who study life are separated into countless subjects to study the immense complexity of life. It is not something that's merely dismissed. The answers are out there, if you would care to look for them
@@fallout921
"The [faith] is strong in this one." Yes, when folks claim there is no such thing as irreducible complexity and ignore all the intricacies and what we do know, yes, they are dismissing the obvious. "Nature dun it" isn't a viable option here.
@@jessebryant9233 can you provide specific examples of people ignoring the complexities of life? Not just claiming they do, can you show me a peer reviewed paper that glosses over something complex? Can you show me hundreds? Can you point out where in the scientific literature every single published paper ignores the facts?
@@fallout921
You find them in the RUclips comments denying irreducible complexity all the time. And that's all I was referring to. So maybe you should tell me why so many of the Darwinian faithful deny it?
Two words: Endogenous Retroviruses. Let me see you "scientists" explain those thru your magical sky daddy.
We already have. See: creation.com/search?q=erv#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=erv&gsc.page=1
@@CMIVideo And now you delete my reply to your "research" of ERVs . Afraid people will know you are just making things up?
1. Humans and chimpanzees were separately created.
2. Humans and chimpanzees have a large number of ERVs in the same corresponding locations in both the human genome and the chimpanzee genome.
3. When a retrovirus inserts itself into the genome it lands in a random location.
4. The probability that retroviruses would land that way is basically 0.
5. Therefore, ERVs are not from viruses.
@@vesuvandoppelganger ERVs have mutated to the point that they don't do anything. They just exist in our DNA. ERVs can get into sperm and eggs, which is how they are passed down generationally. Scientists have been able to slightly mutate human cells in a petri dish and get the virus active again. And yeah, when ERVs attach to the DNA, it's utterly random. We could see the virus in both DNA, but said virus attaching at the same location for both humans and chimps would be close to impossible. If 12 ERVs inserted into the DNA of humans and chimps in the exact same location, the odds of that happening would be greater that the number of atoms that exist in the observable universe.
Humans and chimps share ERV insertions in 205 identical locations. The odds of that happening is 1 in 5.88^1418. That is 588 followed by 1,418 zeros. We call pure chance on a number that large as "evolution". Chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor. But I would love to read this channel's article explaining how 205 ERVs are inserted in the same place in the DNA of humans and chimps through the magic of creation.
This is you, "I'm so smart, I believe everything came from nothing for no reason or purpose, I also believe all the complex information that is necessary for all living organisms came into existence without the need for a mind, I believe that matter moves toward life despite the observation that it only obeys laws, I believe that matter without a mind can solve real world problems that requires high levels of knowledge in physics, chemistry, math, engineering, foresight, and does all of these without the ability to 'think'. I believe that DNA pops into existence even though it is made from proteins and you need DNA to make the proteins"
God is inline with all known observations, that the source of complexity and information is ALWAYS a mind, you can pretend that this isn't true so can you believe the absurdity that stuff just happens and creates matter, energy, laws, fine tuning, complexity, and all the paradoxes that naturalism can never explain.
Your entire life revolves around intelligently designed technology but you yourself are orders of magnitude more complex than any technology mankind has devised and yet you truly believe that you did not require design. As with all evolutionists, you use intelligence to argue your brain did not require intelligence to design but is the product of unguided chemical processes, how silly is that notion?
T
You know, if you want you debunk evolution, you may want you actually be talking about evolution. regardless of the take on it, evolution requires life to already exist, abiogenesis necessarily comes before life and therefore before evolution. If you want to try and debunk or disprove evolution, heres an idea of what it is: changes of life over multiple generations due to various factors/ stimuli including, but not limited to reproduction ( or there lack of), environmental pressures, and mutatuons ( which are basically incorrect copying of genes/ dna/ etc, sometimes for the better in a given circumstance, and sometimes for the worse, and mostly neither). Basically, if you want to give a take on a subject, make sure it is that subject, as well as whats actually said about it, and preferably have up to date confirmed information and scources, though thats not vital if its just opinion
FYI - Way back in 1960 an evolutionist explained how 'evolution' can describe more than just biological change.
“There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the ‘Special Theory of Evolution’ and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found in future experimental work and not by the dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place.”
-Kerkut, G.A. (1927-2004), Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960
@@CMIVideo Then why didn't you name the video "The Complexity of Human DNA Destroys the General Theory of Evolution"? I also didn't hear you mention that in the video, but that may be my fault. If you did, could you give me a time?
@@CMIVideo Again, you intentionally misquote to support your narrow view. Kerkut is stating that scientists cannot sit back on their laurels, believing they have solved the beginning of life on Earth. They must continue to look and research to fill in gaps in the evolutionary chain. Quite a lot has happened in the past 63 years since he wrote that.
@@CMIVideowhy are you so incredibly disingenuous
Omg guns must have been brought to us, by lisa the rainbow giraffe, I mean no person could come up with an AR-15 from having no guns at all. And the same goes for cars, nevermind the fact, that before fully automatic guns, there were X-action guns, that then just were further developed.
Just because the protein is complex doesn't mean it was the first one to do that job.
As a computer programmer I always say the idea that DNA is just blind chemistry is like saying a modern computer is just blind electromagnetism.
Well that's why you aren't a biologist. You don't understand the differences between living things and a computer.
That's because you are talking about a field you don't understand. You have no standing in the field. Thanks for broadcasting your ignorance for everyone to see.
Not at all, one is constantly developing faults and messing up, the other is computer code, which whilst that does sometimes, it's due to deliberate action to destroy it or incompetence with the code itself, where as evolution is constantly making changes to life, most not amounting to anything good or bad, or at best being better suited to specific scenarios rather than being outright good or bad for the lifeform, unlike say a Malicious code in computing, which is solely bad, or a properly implemented upgrade, which is purely beneficial, and I don't think code is written at random, for some reason
A simile is when you compare two different but similar things using the word "like" or "as".
@captainkelley2339 I think it's funny when creationists say dumb things like 'just blind chemistry' when chemistry doesn't see at all. No one needs to direct nature processes. It's the same kind of willful ignorance that lead people into once thinking that the rain, wind and lightning were directed by some god. Just like how we now know how and why it rains and we don't need to invoke a thinking agent behind it. We know the how and why for the diversity of life without the need for any thinking agency being behind it.
Using god as an explanation for anything is the laziest thing that you can do. It's literally no different than invoking magic to explain an unknown.
Summary of this entire channel: "Anything that is to complex for me to understand must have been created by a god. And not just any god, the god I was taught about in the country where I was born."
For real. These people would be livid if I claimed Odin was the one who invented these structures.
Totally correct. I was so lucky as a Christian not to have been born to Hindu or Muslim parents.
YUK!
I broke my programming and now am a happy, free-thinking and much kinder atheist.
Actually, there should not even be a word to describe something totally nonsense that no one should believe in.
We don't have an ABigfootist do we?
Inshallah brother! 👳🏾♀️🙏🏼🇵🇸
No, anything that is too complex to occur by chance must be created by an intelligent mind. Newton, Keppler, Heisenberg, Einstein and many others thought that way. Not just a god, the God who makes sense; the God who became one of us, out of love for us, bled and died for our transgressions, so that we might stand in His presence, and have eternal life (please read John 3 verse 16 from the Bible for that). It makes a lot of sense, you should be interested, because it is for you.
@@farcovidiu3110 Beautiful fantasy without evidence is still fantasy. Why do you believe 2000 year old religions dogma over modern demonstrable science. The Bible was written by men that killed animals and poured their blood over the alter of their desert god.
So two completely clueless guys talking about a subject that they know nothing about. DNA is actually one of the strongest pieces of evidence in support of evolution and the only argument these fools have against it is that DNA is complex. Yet the completely fail to tell anyone, is that DNA is that complex because of BILLIONS of years of small changes. All of those small changes over billions of years is going to lead to very complex life forms. Even the simplest cell today is highly complex because its the product of billions of years of evolution.
DNA is such strong evidence for evolution because we can use it to connect different animals together, much like following foot prints in the sand. We can trace and see where the different species split off.
Perfect - nicely said.
Billions of years made such a complexity, even 32 chess pieces can not sit at correct position by itself even if let them tens of billions of years
You are the fool, do you not understand the impossibilities of evolution, even a simple protein folding by chance yields a probability greater than all the estimated molecules in the cosmos. You can have trillions of years and you still won't get life. Matter does not move toward life, unguided molecules do not generate information, matter obeys laws and can do nothing else, it has no thoughts. Its amazing that you can understand 'John loves Susan' carved into a tree requires an intelligent agent but DNA, the most complex information ever discovered created itself for no reason or purpose and came into existence without the need for a mind. DNA is made from proteins and you need DNA to make the proteins, so how does your Narnia paradigm solve this paradox, one of many that the fantasy evolution cannot overcome. Stop watching stupid evolution RUclips channels, ease up on the Marvel movies and the penny will drop that life was designed by God.
You can't prove "billions of years". That's an atheist wishful thinking to deny Gods existence. Your billions of years is imaginary and not science. The hypocrisy of atheists claiming that God is not science because we cannot put God in a laboratory to see, but then turn around and believe in blind faith that "billions of years" in the excuse they have to how everything came about. Stop.
DNA is a code system far more advanced than human coding, but you think we're dumb enough to think it "came about by chance!" ? No, not happening.
Fred Hoyle, who was a staunch atheist, even said that the universe and life existing by mindless chance is as improbable as a universe full of blind men all solving their own rubik's cube all at the same time. Not happening. Atheism is delusion.
Great are the works of The Lord! His vast intelligence and wisdom is displayed within them. Thousands of years of science, yet still so much more to learn. How can we even think to understand the limits of His mercy and love?
What lord? Where?
Just so you know the video is wrong. About nearly everything. Maybe try some education.
There will ALWAYS be new things to learn. It's called life. His mercy and love, like giving people cancer, viruses, diseases, blindness, deafness, extra or less digits, teeth so crooked that it will actually cause problems before the person is 30, rape, murder, war, insects that lay their eggs on you and when they hatch eat through your eyes, starvation, dehydration.... I can keep going. Yes, that's a VERY loving and merciful god.
More important though, why is YOUR god the right one, and not any of the other ones, including one's that are older than yours? Because you have a book?
There will ALWAYS be new things to learn. It's called life. His mercy and love, like giving people cancer, viruses, diseases, blindness, deafness, extra or less digits, teeth so crooked that it will actually cause problems before the person is 30, rape, murder, war, insects that lay their eggs on you and when they hatch eat through your eyes, starvation, dehydration.... I can keep going. Yes, that's a VERY loving and merciful god.
More important though, why is YOUR god the right one, and not any of the other ones, including one's that are older than yours? Because you have a book?
Did anyone else click thinking this was going to be satire? Because these guys have no clue.
Your lack of understand how evolution works doesn’t disprove evolution, nor demonstrate your vague god concept.
Debunking evolution would never demonstrate any gods, let alone your favorite one.
Evolution does not work at all. It is a pseudo-scientific conception, full of errors, it results from the preconception that God does not exist and from the subsequent twisting of the data. My fellow creationists have shown that in this and other videos and materials. The fact that the theory of evolution is not true means that the world as we know it did not appear by itself, and the logical conclusion is that some type of God (or whatever you want to call Him) made it be as it is. Our favorite God, as you called Him, not only made the world as it is, but so loved the world that He became a man and suffered for your sins, so that you might have eternal life (as it is written in His book, at John 3 verse 16). It makes a lot of sense. You should be at least interested about this. If this is true, you may understand why we creationists do what we do, we want you and many others to consider this offer. May God bless you.
"This is complex and I don't understand it, therefore GAWDDIDIT!" 🙄 Same old ignorance based fallacy.
Did you come up with that yourself or recycle it from Reddit? lol anyway with that mocking comment you have, it sounds like you're trying to put people down so you can feel better about your "view." Why does it bother you, it's a step in the right direction.
If it were wrong it wouldn't bother you. Just like it wouldn't bother you when I tell you you should drive a KIA instead of a Honda. You're fine with your Honda and don't get mad at or mock the person that suggested you drive a KIA.
Anyway go do whatever bud, I'm just trying to put some weight on the other side of the scale (the correct side)
@@tommylafontaine4472 But you did nothing but try to insult them. How is that adding any weight to the other side? And the guys in this video have zero idea what they're talking about, all a script written by someone else that has no idea what they're talking about. They just used a bunch of large numbers and pretended like that was impossible yet never give an actual reason. OP's mocking actually fits quite well to what the video says, "This sounds impossible therefore a god must have done it." That is not now nor has it ever been a good answer.
@@tommylafontaine4472 They are not just wrong, but lying. The Miller/Urey experiment was not designed to create life but to see if under the conditions they thought was the early earth that amino acids would form. Guess what? they were right. They got amino acids.
@@tommylafontaine4472 Yes, these two magic believers misinforming people bothers me. I’d like my fellow citizens to base their decisions & actions in reality, not 2k yr old fairytales because I have to share the planet/country/neighborhood with them.
There was literally zero evidence for the existence of God. I feel very bad for these people
ignorance is bliss. If they are this committed to their religion, they are probably happy with it
Let God respond to you. Please read Romans 1, verses 19 and 20. And just look around you. God bless you!
@@farcovidiu3110 you can’t use the bible to justify the bible.
@@22rsx Dear friend, I do not intend to justify the Bible, at least not in this comment section. Here I have used the Bible to present one of its key claims. I thought it is important and will interest you or other readers. Finally, no one forces you to believe what the Bible or any other book says. God bless you
@@farcovidiu3110 My book says "The boy trod with a sigh to his father's hut and stood still. The house his father had built that time had a compact structure that reminded him of a gnarled. dead tree stump, and gave a general appearance of ugliness and depression."
You can't use the bible and say you are not trying to justify it, because that is exactly what you are doing. 'My book about my god says this, so I will use my book.' Your book trips over itself everywhere. Your book says the flood was for 40 days and nights, then later says it was for 150 days. MY book doesn't trip over itself. Also, you REALLY think the highest peak on Earth was less than 30 feet even 10,000 years ago?
And then you reveal your ignorance. There would be very little oxygen in the atmosphere, then the first plants evolved, increasing the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, leading to the first mass extinction since oxygen would have been toxic to much of the life back then. Anyway, this wouldn't have mattered much since life is hypothesised to have emerged in deep oceans, around thermal vents.
not to mention the obvious O in H2O.
only question remains, are they lying on purpose or because they are dumb?
Can't it be both?
@@Syrph. Ding! Ding! Ding!
Now do a special about the churches special insurance clause for chil sexual assault claims. Also instead of falsely debunking science, just show proof of God. One time...
Matthew 16:4 Only an evil, adulterous generation would demand a miracle sign, but the only sign I will give them is the sign of the prophet Jonah.
You do realise "falsely debunking science" isnt actually an argument. Sounds like a quick way to ignore a view you dont like...
Instead of falsely debunking science, just show proof of evolution. One time...
@@quantumfrost9467 Maybe if they didn't lie about what the miller/Urey experiment was about.
@@tommylafontaine4472 No problem. The ‘proof’ of biological evolution(descent with modification) is the observation that life descends with modification.
Another thing you are lying about is that evolution states how life started. It does not. It discusses how life changes, but not how it started. You are conflating abiogenesis with evolution.
So you don't know that 'evolution' has multiple meanings? Here's an evolutionist to clear it up for you:
“There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the ‘Special Theory of Evolution’ and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found in future experimental work and not by the dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place.”
-Kerkut, G.A. (1927-2004), Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960
@@CMIVideo No. You are deliberately twisting definitions to lie about the theory.
@@CMIVideo you are aggressively dishonest, eh?
And you'd be just as clueless about abiogenesis. Explain in detail just how inanimate material became living organisms. What was present and available in a prebiotic world? Enzymes? Carbohydrates? Lipids?
@@sarahferguson-i8h I know enough to know that the subjects are different, with different claims and supporting evidence on different hypotheses. I am not trying to dishonestly conflate the two in order to construct a strawman.
Prefer these longer talks. The shorter bite sized clips are ok but like snacks, not truly satisfying . Keep up the good work.
Misinforming you is ‘good work’? I disagree.
@@AsixA6 Wow. I'm convinced. Thank you so much for your intelligent and thoughtful insight 🤪.
@@Zebhammer Oops! You forgot to answer the question.
@@AsixA6 Are you pretending that dumb question was actual debate?
Where is your nobel price?
You mean the prize not price? Who would want one. Montagnier got one for finding HIV which turned out to be a unicorn with a dodo mouth and before he got the prize not the price, Gallo tried to steal the thunder when Margaret Heckler just announced it and btw Crick et al. also just announced DNA ........... his wife painted the double helix ................ I suppose that is why biology became cartoons so that people can think 'scientists' know what they do ..........
A blueprint within a blueprint within a blueprint.
Do you define ‘blueprint’ as requiring intelligence to create it? If so, then you need to evidence DNA was created by intelligence before you claim DNA as blueprints.
You already accept biological evolution occurs. You just don’t know what it actually is.
So no matter what, you're going to keep moving the goalposts. We can't create simple molecules in a lab. Oh we can. Then we can't create self-replicating molecules. Oh we can. Well this all happens in a lab so I win.
Ye, I would report them for misinformation. They said that lab experiment didn't use oxygen while showing a graphic that listed H2O. Either they are very uneducated, or willfully ignorant.
No you can't
@@avafury4584giyf my very overconfident friend
And it's created with lab grade purified components that already exist. So it's already there. You evolutionists fail to see that. Start from scratch.
@@avafury4584 You MIGHT wanna google that instead of just saying "No you can't". There are articles about it from over 15 years ago. JfC. I'd link you one but I don't think it's allowed. A 10 second search and you can't even do that.
Why is this information being presented by an actor and an electrician instead of a biologist and an engineer? Because a biologist would tell you that DNA corroborates evolution by allowing us to track the changes in allele frequencies, and an engineer would tell you that complexity is a feature of poor design. If you're going to intentionally mislead people about science, the last thing you want is an actual scientist.
"Complexity is a feature of poor design" lol, yeah, man. You can't make this stuff up.
@@elhilo1972 It is. The more complex a system is, the greater the chance of a catastrophic failure of the system. More moving parts equals more that can go wrong. The purpose of design is to make a system as simple as possible while still achieving its purpose. You want a proper example of intelligent design, go study a hammer.
@@captainkelley2339 To begin with, there are examples of simple and efficient designs throughout nature. Our hand is an example of it: an aunassuming design that can carry out a myriad of different functions. However, to state that a good design _has_ to be simple is philosophically idiotic. No one in their right mind will say a hammer is better designed than a laptop simply because it's simpler. They serve different functions, and therefore require different levels of complexity. In both of these examples, furthermore, it is crystal clear that intelligence was responsible for both.
@@elhilo1972 The human hand is not a system, it is a component of a system. Ironically it is one of the most complex components in the human body containing dozens of tiny bones connected by multiple muscles and ligaments. Did you know the muscles that control our fingers are actually in our forearm? Seems pretty complex to me.
My hammer doesn't glitch out or malfunction nearly as much as my laptop does, so again a simpler system has less problems. You are correct that systems of different purpose require different levels of design; however by making that argument, you must now show what the purpose of the human body is and show that it is only as complex as necessary to achieve that purpose. Remember, any unnecessary components, flaws, or redundancies will debunk your argument- so be thorough in your assessment. And no taking individual components out of the system like the hand or the eye, you must address the entire system because we're talking about the entire system.
@captainkelley2339 I'm genuinely struggling to understand your reasoning here. The human body facilitates significant interaction with the outside world in a variety of ways, including reproduction. According to Christianity, it was made in the image of God to reflect His glory. You may not agree with this, but to say that the human body has no purpose, and therefore no designer, is simply absurd. That conclusion doesn't follow. And redundancies debunk an argument for design? The redundancies in your laptop somehow negates the conclusion that intelligence was responsible for its creation?
It seems you're arguing quite strongly against the concept of intentional design by using arguments that simply don't make sense. You're reaching because the conclusion that we are intelligently designed is an obvious one. And I think you realize that.
These guys are lying. Lying is a sin. These guys are sinning liars. What they've said does not stand up to scrutiny.
Ad hoc attacks. Point out the lies instead of just calling them liars. Otherwise I am bound to think your lying.
@@AcmeAstro Don't take my word for it. Ask actual experts in the field. You know people who have devoted their lives to the study. But calling someone who lies a liar is NOT ad hoc. Either they know what they presented is easily provable false and are lying OR They don't know anything in the field and so don't know what their saying is false, in which case they are lying about their expertise in the field. Either way, its lying. If you can't tell they are lying, that just shows you are incredibly uneducated in the subject. This is not an attack. Nobody can be an expert in all areas, but it does mean that you're unqualified to talk about the material. The lies presented here are so blatantly false, the burden of proof is on them to back up even the slightest of their claims with peer reviewed scientific evidence, which they have not done. They are lying to you.
@@AcmeAstro "Ad hominem" not 'Ad Hoc". Their liars.
@@vladtheemailer3223 thank you, sorry slipped on terms.
@@dariuszanzibar474 Can you point out a single lie? Darwin himself said " If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case."
Darwin knew nothing of DNA or machines encoded for on the DNA that repair DNA. He did not know about spin selectivity, or the 4 dimensions of DNA. These are not lies. Yes many, many scientists believe in evolution. It is what they are taught but it does not make it right. Science is not consensus. Argumentum ad populum. If their arguments are so easily disproveable as you suggest off the cuff, show us where they have failed. I have studied this topic diligently for three decades. Why? Because the Christian faith is based on evidence and actual history not just "blind faith". Naturalism or raw materialism is nothing more than magic. It turns nothing into your god along with time and chance. Both of these are sorely abused because no matter how mich time and chance you have physics cannot do the impossible. Not all things are possible because particles obey the laws of Newtonian dynamics and physics. To be a atheist requires more faith than I have.
I’m crying laughing what is this
Thank you so much for your clear and very interesting explanations, I love watching your presentations especially as it’s impossible to get any content like this on mainstream TV here in the UK they only vaguely present one view.
Fantastic information! I think even someone with a gentle hold on maths would have to question the evolutionary narrative once they knew the facts!
You can question evolution, for sure, science is built on challenging assumptions. Evolution has persisted this long because the general concept can answer those questions well, if only you care to hear those answers.
Then head on out and write a paper, have it published in a reputable journal, and have it go through peer-review. Also, these two don't deal in facts, except when they are twisting them into a Gordian Knot.
We've never observed, demonstrated, or theorized how anything can be created.
You think misinformation is fantastic?
I don't know if I should assume you two are ignorant of the science, or willfully dishonest. Neither is a good look. You can say things like "impossible" or "major problem" but that doesn't make it true. "It's not fact" then why don't you perform some of the tests that you say are invalid? You can easily replicate their methodology and prove the results aren't valid.
I don't want to be rude or presumptuous, but some of this video comes across as intellectually dishonest.
"Junk DNA" is not as cut and dry as the presenters assert. There is healthy discourse over what should count as junk DNA, and how much there is. Presenting only the extreme upper estimates of junk DNA with the broadest definition makes me question the amount of research that goes into this video.
The foundational building blocks of RNA (Essentially half of DNA) can be found under natural conditions before life. Even if some iterations of those tests were flawed, science doesn't rely on one foundational text to form a dogma, that's religion. The molecules can be shown to form inside various soils, through various experiments. I should mention that the primordial soup is more of a pop culture thing than a science thing, to my knowledge.
I could go on, but I implore you all to accept that your beliefs are pure religion. Science can answer most questions, like how did something evolve, or where something originated. Im not saying it's wrong to be religious, but it is wrong to misrepresent science
To summarize:
It is claimed that "evolutionists" can't answer my questions
In actuality, many of these so called problems are either fields of active study or quite thoroughly explored by scientists from a wide variety of disciplines
I could go on for hours correcting individual points here, but I feel like it would be a waste of time
They are willfully dishonest. This is not my first time running into them.
I would argue that they clearly did do a lot of research to find those cherry picked stats. I honestly think it was very intentional on their part. And even then it doesn't hold up to actual science.
"It deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe."
Yep, read it with zero problems.
I look forward to a time where Theists are honest.
No selective quoting
No deliberate misleading examples
No ignoring modern research that shows we know a LOT more than science did 100+ years ago.
No pretending that if you poke holes in Darwin that it disproves evolution, because it does not, we know a million times more than Darwin did.
etc etc etc etc .
It was learning truth about these sorts of things that made me an Atheist, christianity depends on lies.
They can only quote their book which is very old and very self-contradicting, so I don't think they know how to use newer info.
The burden proof lies with the intelligent designers. I do not have to disprove the existence of an intelligent designer. How did these coml
That's right, you don't have to disprove it. However that doesn't mean it's not true, it just means your willfully ignorant toward it. It's just a greasy cop out loop hole to ignore a view you don't like. Not trying to sound rood but sometimes you just gotta open your mind and quit being such a bigot.
@@tommylafontaine4472 Intelligent design went to court and lost. The judge was a Christian.
@@tommylafontaine4472To be ‘willfully ignorant’ requires the evidence to have been presented, but that hasn’t occurred yet for ID.
@@tommylafontaine4472 if a theory does not have evidence, than its not a theory nor a fact, it is a guess at best. Also for someone trying not to be "rood" you seem to be throwing the word "bigot" out an awful lot. I recall jesus christ saying something along the lines of "being kind to one's neighbors".
Please keep this in America, don't export it.
Dude, they have Canada in their titles.... Got to assume they are in Canada. We have enough of our own kooks(looking at you Matt and Kent), don't try to pin these 2 on us. Plus, the guy with the beard said his first language was German, so again, got to assume he's German.
Charlton Heston lives!
This… is one of the best videos I’ve ever seen . Thank you
Wow! Thank you! Be sure to check out the articles in the description where the content for this episode came from.
I am amazed at how the jump is made to 'the God of the bible'... Nature sure looks programmed and I've always believed that would indicate a programming agent of some sort... but 'the God of the bible'? I don't think so.
God or not, Christianity is a laughably false religion whose origins can be clearly traced back to the ideas of some cult leader worshipping zealots in the first century.
I thought recently about the genetic mutation and how it works, and I think I came up with a good analogy. Imagine you're copying a book from 500 years ago. You're bound to make mistakes, and some words will turn out as gibberish - those are the deleterious mutations. But sometimes mistakes can lead to something interesting. Apparently 500 years ago the word "answer" was written "answere" (whether that is true or not is not important). Imagine if while rewriting the book, you make a copying mistake and rewrite the word "answere" into "answer". That's a genetic mutation right there (removal of the last letter), but is it 100% deleterious? For modern readers it can be a beneficial mutation, because they know the word as it is today and it will cause less confusion while reading it, BUT for purists and people who appreciate historical accuracy, it will be deleterious because the original word has changed and they do not appreciate it.
And about evolution - to all people here it will be obvious that nothing new will appear in the book - we're COPYING the book, not writing anything of our own.
This explains how mutations always remove/distort information (because new information can not appear out of nowhere), and how it sometimes could lead to something RELATIVELY positive (good in some environment, bad in another).
Do you guys think this explanation of beneficial mutations is accurate?
Far more mistakes would accrue, and language doesn't really evolve via copying mistakes. Plus, the meaning and information was already contained in the abstract understanding of the word. They used to write s's as "f"s in the middle of words; thorn used to be a single letter for 'th.' Back in the day, they spelt the same word in multiple different ways; only modern dictionaries changed that with one 'correct' way to spell. Shakespeare even said people that cannot spell a word multiple ways are intellectual deficient
But the argument is that beneficial mistakes have to accrue faster than detrimental ones, otherwise the lifeform would deteriorate and either not be able to reproduce or just outright die and waste away
Plus, all the latest research indicates DNA is even far more complicated because it isn't the software that instructs how to build; lifeforms somehow know how to build the morphology of a body despite being put in situations where the DNA could not possibly instruct it.
The DNA merely builds the proteins, which are the hardware of the cells (to use the analogy); the software is entirely unknown.
Other than that, your explanation might be accurate
A very basic incomplete idea, but accurate
@@pyropulseIXXIto some extent that is correct, but considering the majority of creatures have and do die out, and most mutations are neither beneficial nor delaterious, it kind of points more towards evolution that deliberate design, unless said designer was incompetent or wanted things to go awry from it's initial state
@@christophermonteith2774 The creation story already takes care of this; Adam and Eve fell grace, thus becoming mortal. Before, life never decayed and was immortal.
@@pyropulseIXXI How do you know?
This video is amazing. Frankly a lot of it is above my head, but it's awesome to hear it explained.
Glad it was helpful!
It was explained poorly and colored black by bias
@@CMIVideo imagine cultivating an audience so scientifically illiterate that THIS videos content is 'above their head'............
and lets be clear, you are not 'helping' with your lies, omissions, cherry picking and distortions in the name of your particular interpretation of your particular sects interpretation of your particular religion............ you are simply demonstrating to the world how religions like yours can not survive in the open, honest marketplace of ideas..............
Well done!
Yes, they did a great job of misinforming people. Good thing there’s no ‘god’ to punish them for their ‘sin’.
No, that's not how I like my steak, at all. Your brain is well done though if you think this video was actually accurate instead of feeding into your own beliefs.
Stand behind me Satan, comes to mind from scripture!
@@themeek351 Your book that was completely written after everyone had died, where the first half was passed down orally for centuries before they learned writing, the book that was chosen by men what went into it, the book where there is self-contradiction everywhere within its pages, the book that looks more like 2 different deities? THAT book? Got it lol Every single thing in your book was taken from religions that came before it. Even your holidays were adapted from pagan holidays to get people to convert.
The morning star and god are as real as every other god that ever existed.
Curious about something though: Why are you protecting satan? That's the only reason to put someone behind you, unless you are in a line.
Not a single argument is less than 50 years old. Are you assuming there hasn't been any research into the topic in the last 50 years? Maybe look into research done in the last couple decades to maybe find the answer to these points you're bringing up. But then that would be honest wouldn't it? We can't have that.
Praise GOD, and thanks for sharing this
Yes, praise Loki.
*_God Bless_*
And yet somehow we share 50% of our DNA with chickens...
And 50% with bananas.
😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Awesome video. very good summary of DNA/RNA
Glad you liked it!
No, it most certainly isn't a good summary in any way.
awful video. wrong summary
Next week I am making video about quantum physics in details. Stay tuned, just waiting my high school diploma to kick in.
Whaaaat … if this to guys can … I can do it too …
You don't need to be a mathematician to realize 1+1=2...
@@tommylafontaine4472
Hmmm … are you sure?
@@tommylafontaine4472 You don’t need to be a biologist to know these two don’t know wtf they’re talking about.
BTW, you already accept biological evolution happens. You just don’t know what it actually is.
The appendix is not a vestigial, like those oafs claimed. The appendix stores beneficial gut bacteria such that it can replenish the gut bacteria biome in events where it is 'destroyed' or 'wiped out' for whatever reason.
Vestigial doesn't mean useless. Vestigial means having lost or been degraded from the original function. The human appendix is indeed vestigial.
@@sciencerules8525what was it’s original function then?
The appendix has two functions that aid our immune system to keep us healthy: First, it serves as a reservoir of good bacteria in case of a gut infection. Second, it contains some important immune cells to help us fight off infections.
Repeating a hundred year old falsehood isn’t “science.”
@@sciencerules8525 I expect that you can't get through to them. Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology. It has been proven, in colloquial terms, multiple ways. We have observed it in multiple ways. It is better understood than the theory of gravity. These guys think that they can disprove it in a RUclips video. 😅🤣😂
@@sciencerules8525 No, it is not vestigial at all. I literally pointed out to you what it does, and what it has always done; it has not degraded.
Humans erroneously assigning a 'past function' to an organ they thought was near useless in modern times does not make that organ vestigial, or their past assigning function of it correct.
@@Ottawa411 Modern science literally says the appendix is not vestigial; it is you guys that are ignoring the science, which is hilarious
You honestly sound like a bot. You just repeat what is told to you, and you believe the Priestly class.
The Miller-Urey experiment!
I used to think it was the Miller _urea_ experiment. 🤦♂️
:) Glad we could clear that up for you!
@@CMIVideo Too bad you misinformed people on what it was meant to accomplish and what it DID accomplish.
BTW, you already accept biological evolution occurs. You just don’t understand what it actually is.
A little off topic, but the beard looks to epic today!
9:20 Oh look, it's the Miller-Urey "Problem: No oxygen"-Guys - the guys who obviously don't know what the "O" in "H2O" stands for*.
*it stands for OXYGEN!
Ha, brilliant. The Lord is a genius indeed.
Love the new beard brother dude, super cool.
God bless you both.
Trash. Which one is the biologist?
Is Richard the long lost brother of Bruce Boxleitner?
Joined YT March 14 2011, 608 videos, 20400 subscribers, that's not a lot, is it?
Yeah it's utterly pathetic, like many of these creepy xtian channels
My fascination with the complexity of DNA and its many functions give me chills. How a person can look at this yet still try to convince themselves it arose by natural Radom processes is beyond. The fact that many hate the idea of a creator is in itself personal, not scientific.
But we dont? Accepoting the fact that current liveforms came from the process of evolution is not "hating the creator", its accepting the facts. And accepting the existence of creator is, toi borrow your words, personal, not scientific. Since theres no evidence for creator except yours " the world is amazing, it mustve been created". If thats not a personal argument I dont know what is...
Stick with the King James Bible!
Amen 🙏❤️✝️
There is nothing you can say to those who hate Christ. Not even God appearing himself would persuade them.
That being said, this is a treasure for those who love Truth.
I don’t ‘hate’ things that don’t exist. Also, if your supposed ‘god’ showed up in front of me, I’d believe it existed.
I don't think I hate jesus christ, I didn't know him. And if god appeared to me, I'd certainly believe it. I don't think I'd worship him but I would have to believe it.
Sadly most secular scientists and layman would never admit to this crushing data being they would lose their jobs or credibility in academia and amongst peers. Thanks for your great work as always!
Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology. In colloquial terms, it is a fact.
@@Ottawa411 Darwinian evolution is not a fact at all. More and more problems keep arising making it an old inferior ideology
@@truthovertea Given that the science of evolution has moved far beyond Darwin, your assertion is worthless.
@@4a8p9x so we can rule out everything Darwin said?
@truthovertea like all nutcase creationists, you have this homoerotic obsession with Darwin. You are aware other scientists exist?
Amen people are without excuse on Judgment Day!!!
Yes! The FSM will boil you in sauce unless you repent of your blasphemous ways!! 😂