Prove in the philosophical sense? No science doesn't do that. Prove in the colloquial sense, absolutely, the evidence is overwhelming in support for the theory of evolution, and it is the backbone of modern biology.
This is an easy question for anyone. Are there any Young Earth models being utilized in; 1) Geology? Nope, not a one. The entire field clocks deep time model and measures deep time, originally called "Geologic Time." 2) Astronomy? Nope, used to clock deep time. 3) Chemistry? Nope Chemistry is used to date the deep time model 4) Physics? Nope, Physics is used to date d the deep time models 5) paleontology? Nope, also used to date deep time 6) Anthropology? Nope, used to clock deep time Matter of fact there are no fields in science that utilize any young earth models.
Yes. Objectively and without question. There are plenty of Christian scientists, you don't need to spread misinformation and question science as a method of finding answers in order to have your faith.
It's also really disgusting the title is "does science prove evolution" and the guest just immediately rambles for 10 minutes about how horrible the Khmer Rouge was. Evolution isn't a Marxist ideology, and his appeal to emotion has nothing to do with the veracity of the measurement of allele frequencies in populations changing over time. Sad to see a Christian be this dishonest.
This is like seriously asking if science has proven the round Earth. I mean....literally EVERY scientist accepts evolution, so yes science proves evolution.
@@Reclaimer77 Not *literally* every scientist, but every qualified scientist except a handful. As you probably know, there are more genuine evolution scientists named Steve than there are creationist scientists. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve
I didn't hear him question science as a method to find answers. Quite the opposite actually. He encouraged you to look into it, and he himself is devoted to searching for answers in science... Did you watch the whole thing? If so, which part do you refer to?
@@meganrose5958 No he's not because science is literally the search for materialistic explanations! Once you step outside of that, you are doing theology/philosophy not science. How can I falsify a "god dun it" proposition exactly? Please tell us how to do science.
Science is continually subject to correction and revision based on new information. Only evangelicals are so rash as to claim they have all the answers.
You forgot mathematicians they aren’t as materialistic or rely on empiricism as much as scientists and tend to claim that mathematics is the only absolute source of truth putting mind over matter.
There is a severe misperception that comes from a lack of learning the detailed facts. Science is simply a description of observations made by educated individuals who's published studies, records, and accounting has been well scrutinized. There is no more questioning the reasonableness of the science as there is to questioning they play by play description of a sports announcer.
But isn't it true depending on where the sports announcer is sitting (his perspective) he might call something different than another announcer in a different position?
"Iron law of nature compels the various species to keep within the definite limits of their own life-forms when propagating and multiplying their own kind. The fox always remains a fox, the goose remains a goose and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger." From Mein Kampf; Hitler was a creationist.
Saw his name on my Molecular Biology and Genetics Professor's slides. Downloaded the slides myself to study, was very surprised to see a bible verse on the first slide, there are not many Believers in the field. Curiosity lead me here. However I encourage Dr. Standish to actively quote the word more in his arguments, for someone who is supposedly a believer in Christ he appears to rely too much on his own reason and conclusions to get his point across and less on using the Word to support him.
@@roblovestar9159 Science uses both inductive and deductive reasoning. Both are useful, but both have their weaknesses, particularly inductive in coming to declare absolute truths. Also, reasonable doubt is subjective. Many have been wrongly convicted by a jury who had decided guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It's something to consider and investigate if our premises and/or perceptions are correct that on which our conclusions are based. There is also the consideration that we don't have all the facts rather and are therefore interpolating and/or extrapolating incomplete data. Still curious to your counters to his points that note some weaknesses in the theory of evolution...?
Utterly falacious and misleading arguments presented here are wrong on so many levels. Whether Evolution is true or not is not defined by the rightness or wrongness of ideologies that this man claims (without real evidence) are based on it . Plenty of people who believe profoundly in Evolution at Christian, those that are atheists are still horrified by the events he describes in the video. This is absolute nonense and his claims would not survive five minutes in a debate.
"“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” -- Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species."
Chapter 6 page 172 CONTINUES "Reason tells me that if numerous graduations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to is possessor, as is certainly the case; If further the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case, and if such variation should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty in believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."
You are dishonest. I typed out the rest of that quote for you since you obviously haven't read the book at all. That was a quote from a 41 page chapter where he goes on to explain what you won't get. A point that biology, microbiology, genetics, evolutionary developmental biology, anthropology, Geology, paleontology and a slew of other fields have only ever verified and contributed to in the 180 years since the quote was put to paper. The dishonesty of your kind is gross.
The Geoscience Research Institute, founded in 1958, was established to address this question by looking at the scientific evidence concerning origins. The Institute uses both science and revelation to study the question of origins because it considers the exclusive use of science as too narrow an approach. The Institute serves the Seventh-day Adventist church in two major areas: research and communication. Just saying. Hey I made it to the very end. And it was worth it. A ring species is a species that goes around the world. Did Jesus really tell him that?
Such predictable, warmed over talking points. "Evolution caused atrocities!", "Darwin caused fascism!", etc. These arguments are so old, ignorant and worn out. The moment the video started and they brought up Cambodia (apropos of nothing) I knew exactly where they were going. You have to be next level sheep to be convinced of anything these folks are saying.
Thank you for worsening the case for Christianity with some of the most stupidly fallacious and outright wrong arguments anyone has ever given for religion! 😂😂
omg, this is just another dumb iteration of "it's too complex", already been disproven. this isn't about "interpretations" either, there could be plenty of interpretations, but none of the evidence points towards god. And the reason why the only mainstream interpretation is evolution, is because it's the only one that makes sense.
@@meganrose5958 no, I watched it to 16 minutes. At that stage there was so much wrong that I could not bare it anymore. Believing evolution to have happened does not lead to Nazism or communism. Communist don’t believe God. Nazis were Christians who thought they had God on their side. He should either refute the evidence for evolution or discuss why Christianity is the best world view but he’s muddled everything up. Evolution is a scientific fact, not a worldview. Christianity is a worldview.
@@meganrose5958 I only watched the first 16 minutes. They set the scene by claiming evolution is evil (how can a fact be good or evil?). This is a dishonest tactic because everything that is discussed after setting the scene now is tainted with the idea that evolution is bad. This makes it easier to convince people evolution is false, especially when at the same time appealing to their worldview, Christianity. There are also many things said that are false. Factually incorrect. I tried to address them but my comments were removed.
![Summer Walker - Heart Of A Woman [Official Lyric Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SFddctbZzw8/mqdefault.jpg)
Prove in the philosophical sense? No science doesn't do that. Prove in the colloquial sense, absolutely, the evidence is overwhelming in support for the theory of evolution, and it is the backbone of modern biology.
This is an easy question for anyone. Are there any Young Earth models being utilized in;
1) Geology? Nope, not a one. The entire field clocks deep time model and measures deep time, originally called "Geologic Time."
2) Astronomy? Nope, used to clock deep time.
3) Chemistry? Nope Chemistry is used to date the deep time model
4) Physics? Nope, Physics is used to date d the deep time models
5) paleontology? Nope, also used to date deep time
6) Anthropology? Nope, used to clock deep time
Matter of fact there are no fields in science that utilize any young earth models.
Yes.. that is all I need to say is yes.
All gods, all religions, all "holy" books are the creations of mankind.
You saying stupid gods can’t exist?
Yes. Objectively and without question. There are plenty of Christian scientists, you don't need to spread misinformation and question science as a method of finding answers in order to have your faith.
It's also really disgusting the title is "does science prove evolution" and the guest just immediately rambles for 10 minutes about how horrible the Khmer Rouge was. Evolution isn't a Marxist ideology, and his appeal to emotion has nothing to do with the veracity of the measurement of allele frequencies in populations changing over time. Sad to see a Christian be this dishonest.
This is like seriously asking if science has proven the round Earth. I mean....literally EVERY scientist accepts evolution, so yes science proves evolution.
@@Reclaimer77 Not *literally* every scientist, but every qualified scientist except a handful. As you probably know, there are
more genuine evolution scientists named Steve than there are creationist scientists. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve
I didn't hear him question science as a method to find answers. Quite the opposite actually. He encouraged you to look into it, and he himself is devoted to searching for answers in science... Did you watch the whole thing? If so, which part do you refer to?
@@meganrose5958 No he's not because science is literally the search for materialistic explanations! Once you step outside of that, you are doing theology/philosophy not science.
How can I falsify a "god dun it" proposition exactly? Please tell us how to do science.
Science is continually subject to correction and revision based on new information. Only evangelicals are so rash as to claim they have all the answers.
You forgot mathematicians they aren’t as materialistic or rely on empiricism as much as scientists and tend to claim that mathematics is the only absolute source of truth putting mind over matter.
Of course science proves evolution! It has done for 150 years!
Yes. Irrefutably so.
There is a severe misperception that comes from a lack of learning the detailed facts. Science is simply a description of observations made by educated individuals who's published studies, records, and accounting has been well scrutinized. There is no more questioning the reasonableness of the science as there is to questioning they play by play description of a sports announcer.
That’s a good point it highlights the strength and weaknesses of the scientific method.
But isn't it true depending on where the sports announcer is sitting (his perspective) he might call something different than another announcer in a different position?
Yes without a shadow of doubt.
Evolution is a fact. Get over it.
a verifiably demonstrable fact.
unlike religion.
@@bootskanchelsis3337 you should probably explain that evolution is a fact the theory of evolution is the explanation of that fact.
@@claytonhenrickson9326 I usually describe a scientific theory as a 'file cabinet' that holds all the 'fact' files. ;)
@@bootskanchelsis3337 I really like that. I'll be using that, thank you
"Iron law of nature compels the various species to keep within the definite limits of their own life-forms when propagating and multiplying their own kind. The fox always remains a fox, the goose remains a goose and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger."
From Mein Kampf; Hitler was a creationist.
So true.
Saw his name on my Molecular Biology and Genetics Professor's slides. Downloaded the slides myself to study, was very surprised to see a bible verse on the first slide, there are not many Believers in the field. Curiosity lead me here. However I encourage Dr. Standish to actively quote the word more in his arguments, for someone who is supposedly a believer in Christ he appears to rely too much on his own reason and conclusions to get his point across and less on using the Word to support him.
This is laughably ridiculous. The theory of evolution is proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Will the next episode be flat Earth?
Nothing labeled as a theory is considered proven. Did you watch the whole thing? He addresses that point. What is your counter to his points?
@@meganrose5958 All science is inductive; not deductive. Notice I did not say just proven. I said proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
@@roblovestar9159 Science uses both inductive and deductive reasoning. Both are useful, but both have their weaknesses, particularly inductive in coming to declare absolute truths. Also, reasonable doubt is subjective. Many have been wrongly convicted by a jury who had decided guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It's something to consider and investigate if our premises and/or perceptions are correct that on which our conclusions are based. There is also the consideration that we don't have all the facts rather and are therefore interpolating and/or extrapolating incomplete data.
Still curious to your counters to his points that note some weaknesses in the theory of evolution...?
Utterly falacious and misleading arguments presented here are wrong on so many levels. Whether Evolution is true or not is not defined by the rightness or wrongness of ideologies that this man claims (without real evidence) are based on it . Plenty of people who believe profoundly in Evolution at Christian, those that are atheists are still horrified by the events he describes in the video. This is absolute nonense and his claims would not survive five minutes in a debate.
"“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” -- Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species."
And this has never been demonstrated, so the theory still stands.
And then you should read the next few sentences of the book.
Darwin's contribution while groundbreaking is a tiny fraction of the evidence we now have.
Chapter 6 page 172 CONTINUES "Reason tells me that if numerous graduations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to is possessor, as is certainly the case; If further the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case, and if such variation should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty in believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."
You are dishonest. I typed out the rest of that quote for you since you obviously haven't read the book at all. That was a quote from a 41 page chapter where he goes on to explain what you won't get. A point that biology, microbiology, genetics, evolutionary developmental biology, anthropology, Geology, paleontology and a slew of other fields have only ever verified and contributed to in the 180 years since the quote was put to paper. The dishonesty of your kind is gross.
The Geoscience Research Institute, founded in 1958, was established to address this question by looking at the scientific evidence concerning origins. The Institute uses both science and revelation to study the question of origins because it considers the exclusive use of science as too narrow an approach. The Institute serves the Seventh-day Adventist church in two major areas: research and communication. Just saying.
Hey I made it to the very end. And it was worth it. A ring species is a species that goes around the world. Did Jesus really tell him that?
Yes. Genetics proves the fact of the process of biological evolution of organisms on Earth.
Two more liars for Jesus.....
Such predictable, warmed over talking points. "Evolution caused atrocities!", "Darwin caused fascism!", etc. These arguments are so old, ignorant and worn out. The moment the video started and they brought up Cambodia (apropos of nothing) I knew exactly where they were going. You have to be next level sheep to be convinced of anything these folks are saying.
Thank you for worsening the case for Christianity with some of the most stupidly fallacious and outright wrong arguments anyone has ever given for religion! 😂😂
Hope Channel's message from an idiot who cannot distinguish the difference between a camel and a goat.
I've understood nothing from this
religion poisons everything.
that is all you need to know.
Wow.
Hopeless
omg, this is just another dumb iteration of "it's too complex", already been disproven. this isn't about "interpretations" either, there could be plenty of interpretations, but none of the evidence points towards god. And the reason why the only mainstream interpretation is evolution, is because it's the only one that makes sense.
What a load of nonsense.
Did you watch the whole thing? What is the counter argument? Where is he going wrong?
@@meganrose5958 no, I watched it to 16 minutes. At that stage there was so much wrong that I could not bare it anymore.
Believing evolution to have happened does not lead to Nazism or communism. Communist don’t believe God. Nazis were Christians who thought they had God on their side. He should either refute the evidence for evolution or discuss why Christianity is the best world view but he’s muddled everything up. Evolution is a scientific fact, not a worldview. Christianity is a worldview.
@@meganrose5958 are you claiming that watching this whole video would change thier conclusions?
lol
/facepalm
@@meganrose5958 I only watched the first 16 minutes. They set the scene by claiming evolution is evil (how can a fact be good or evil?). This is a dishonest tactic because everything that is discussed after setting the scene now is tainted with the idea that evolution is bad. This makes it easier to convince people evolution is false, especially when at the same time appealing to their worldview, Christianity.
There are also many things said that are false. Factually incorrect. I tried to address them but my comments were removed.
@@bootskanchelsis3337 it's possible. I wanted to know if there was anything they agreed with and what they found to be faulty.
This man is ridiculous.
I just lost intelligence listening to this guy