"Evolution Busted in 8 Minutes: The Definitive Counter-Argument!"
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 июн 2024
- In just 10 minutes, you'll hear why the book is Genesis is actually true!
Whether you're a skeptic or curious, this quick takedown will provide fresh insights and thought-provoking points.
***Like, comment, and subscribe for more eye-opening content! 
Развлечения
Beautiful presentation
Thanks a lot!! *don’t forget to like and subscribe for more: thanks friend
I agree 💯% with the arguments presented. 👍
The evidence for God's existence is abundant. The real reason many people don't believe it is because they choose not to believe it. The existence of God is highly inconvenient for people that think they are in charge of their lives so they don't want to submit to Him.
Exactly. Well said.
I’m seeking the truth and God, I have not found anything that really makes me believe.
The only thing that makes me think, maybe there is, is the fact something came from nothing aka the Big Bang is kind of hard to fathom.
The old trick of turning questions of FACT (whether gods exist) into questions of CHARACTER (whether you have the 'good' character to submit to a god). Therefore one is emotionally pressured into believing to show good character, rather than rationally convinced through good evidence.
If I am wrong, and there is good evidence of god/s, go ahead and give the 'abundant' evidence. Just go straight to the evidence, which is supposedly abundant so it should be easy.
The only evidence you have of god comes from a fairy story of a book.
@@ianmatthew5824 We can all agree that books don't write themselves, they require an author - except when it comes to DNA! The atheist would have us believe that the bespoke DNA instruction manual which is exquisitely packaged inside the cells of every living thing somehow cobbled itself together randomly via mutations (which tend to be overwhelmingly destructive) over billions of years - so effectively wrote itself. Sorry but that is a fairy tale if ever I heard one.The evidence for God is all around us. You need to open your mind as well as your eyes, but mainly your heart which is in sinful rebellion against your wonderful Creator.
Another fantastic clip!
Glad you enjoyed it 🙌🏽
I hope you are being sarcastic. This is pure tripe.
@@nonprogrediestregredi1711 I think they are talking-snake-believers.
"Fantastic" is pure understatement. Clueless is the Word, that describes him
They try their best to remove God from the world, but they could not think of anything to replace Him as the Origin of Life. There is not a shred of evidence that life can ever come from non-life. And before any atheist want to say me wrong, please show the actual evidence that life can come from non-life. Otherwise, all your argument will be considered false. And the words that is not telling the truth are automatically called lies.
truth!
So is god alive or not? Since you say life cannot come from non life, then if god is alive, some other living thing must have created it. If god is not alive then he could not have created life, since you assert that life cannot come from non life. Which is it? Did life create god or does life arrise naturally?
"There is not a shred of evidence that life can ever come from non-life" So the bible lied when it said Adam was created from the dust on the ground 😂🤣😂 some people were born to be laughed at!
@@truthgiver8286 yes, Adam was created from dust on the ground, and next, why stop there, the creation of Adam did not stop there. Are you taking things out of context. I think you do. That's what you always do, taking things out of context.
@@johntyb9495 A good point :)
Why don't they have professors in the audience? These liars shouldn't get a platform.
He’s not a liar and professors were afraid to debate him. University of New York
@@anilkanda611 Hahaha... Anyone who says the flood happened is a liar. Why didn't the Egyptians, Indians or Chinese hear about the flood? The pyramids are 5200 years old.
@@anilkanda611 Let's agree evolution is false. How did 7000 pairs of animals that got off a boat become 7 million species in 4400 years? What was the ancestor animal that became the giraffe?
@@PramodKumar-gy8lb so just because nobody has records of it , because ppl didnt know how to write in those time means it didnt happen? ppl still assume a multiverse and we have less proof of it than we do of the flood
@@afuroLEGEND383
Nope
The multiverse is inferred from quantum mechanics, a very robust theory
There is still ZERO evidence of a world wide flood
I don't think premise 2 works. I mean once a cell divides into two there is no reason to think it will stop there to make a 2-celled life form....
Or another option is where a individual celled organism starts joining together with other cells to form a multi-celled organism. This was recently observed in the lab where individual yeast cells started clumping together in a multi-celled organism that reproduced multi-celled offspring.
@@iriemon1796 Right. Now all that being said we still don't know why cells have instructions to survive and where those instructions actually came from. I just don't think this premise itself indicates much....
Complex organisms have cell specialization, we have never observed any single cell organisms suddenly forming complex organisms with cell specialization.
@@zanicar4087 I would not expect that to happen. Though I might expect a cell specialization to allow single cell organisms to join together in a multi-celled organism. And then further cell specialization after that making a more complex organism.
@@davidryan8547 The why is because the instructions permit the organism to better adapt to its environment. The where is mutation resulting in a trait that makes an individual better able to adapt.
It's baffling how there are still people like this, refusing to learn settled science.
What evidence do you have that single cell organisms evolved into complex life?
@@Chickenskin592 it took a very long time and is a fascinating subject. Try reading the New Scientist article "How did complex life evolve?".
That said, I find it interesting that theists who want to deny evolution always go so far back in time to find some uncertainties and knowledge gaps.
Crucial for religion is that we know humans weren't specially created as religions say we are. Humans clearly evolved. There's no uncertainty there, we are provably an ape species with common origin with the others, and further back in mammalian evolution back to fish.
@@jesan733 excellent thank you, I will check it out. The fascinating thing is that many theist do not deny evolution at all. A belief in evolution does not contradict religious belief as you might think. Science is in no conflict with theism.
@@jesan733 the other thing that a lot of people don’t consider is the actual amount of time it would take. Even 2 billion years when you examine the math of probability involved doesn’t allow enough time.
@@jesan733 I hate to say that article is not very convincing... "After simple cells first appeared, there was an extraordinarily long hiatus - nearly half the lifetime of the planet - before complex ones evolved. In fact, it appears that simple cells gave rise to complex ones just once in 4 billion years of evolution, which is suggestive of a freak accident." "Nonetheless, the Ediacarans can trace their origins back to the evolution of mitochondria. And this seems to have hinged on a single fluke event - the acquisition of one simple cell by another. The bottom line is that while simple life appears to be a near inevitability, the evolution of complex life - including you and yours - is fantastically unlikely. That is the true miracle of life on Earth."
The article sums it up as a miracle... With no hard evidence or theory of major steps. Even if it all happened as you might believe, you would have to account for a creative mechanism otherwise resulting it all to mere chance and luck. And there's not nearly enough time to account for that mathematically.
If ever there was a time when there was nothing then all there could be now is nothing. Nothing cannot produce something.
Is God something?
But where does the logic come from that allows you to state with confidence that nothing cannot produce something?
@@rizdekd3912 From the christian doctrine that they can assert anything they like without evidence and it be true.
Where did God come from? He can’t just popped out…cause thats nothing out of nothing. So did he had parents?
Did he went to God school?
Don’t claim god always was…cause thats a silly claim
"Nothing cannot produce something."
This is one of the most asinine statements I see theists make. One would need to demonstrate that absolute nothingness is even a possibility for that assertion to make any sense. No one can demonstrate such a thing and it's pure speculation and conjecture. It's a completely flawed and baseless argument if the premise can not even be shown to be accurate. We have no reason to believe that there was ever absolute nothingness.
The Atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a Cop - They're running the other way.
That’s a good analogy! 😄
Cops are real and easily proven. Your god is based upon stories told by flawed and sinful people which must be acceptedas true by blind faith. The comparison doesn't work.
@zaharishtonov No,it's a typically rubbish analogy. "Cops" can be established and demonstrated. That's why thieves try to avoid them: they know, and believe,that they exist, and can be shown to exists. There is NO decent evidence that any gods exist. Atheism is merely not believing in gods due to lack of good evidence.
Atheism and the evolutionary synthesis have nothing to do with each other. Most Christians in educated countries accept evolution. It's only in badly educated and insanely religious pockets of the US that they don't.
And yet the theists see him everywhere Volcanoes Thunder and lightning the wind in the trees anything they cant explain which is a lot, god did it. but not just any god their god because he is real while all the others are all fake and they know this because of geography.
For everyone who leans into evolution: please replicate such in a controlled environment, then display how same process can happen without controlled environment! Gotcha!
Following Rene Descartes meditation
Category 1: Minds
I exist and I am a mind. Therefore Minds exist.
Category 2: Matter
I have feelings. These feelings originate from sensors in what I call my body. The sensors are receptive to stimulation from events created from within my body and from events created from outside my body. The stuff that bring about these events I shall categorise as matter. Thus my body is also made of matter. Therefore Matter exists.
Category 3: Space
My body needs space and matter in general needs space. Matter can exist only in space. Therefore space must exist.
Category 4: Time
My body needs time to change and matter in general needs time for change. Matter can change only in time. Therefore time must exist.
From the above observation I conclude that these 4 categories permeate each other and exist equally with none more abstract or less abstract than another.
Now to the question of the origin of these categories
Could it be that any one or more of these categories can be made from any one or more of the remaining categories? Could these categories transform from one to another?
Matter needs space and time for its existence, therefore without space and time matter will not exist as such matter could not have been the origin of space and time.
From physics it has been observed that space and time can give rise to matter spontaneously. As such matter maybe a result of a localised change to space and time.
So then could space and time be the origin of everything else?
Again from the theory of the Big Bang all space, time and matter originated from this singular event. Therefore space and time could not alone have brought about the other categories.
Since the big bang was an event, could it be that all things are made from events?
Where there is space, time and matter there is always an event.
There can be no space , time or matter without events.
In an instant all of space and the matter is nothing more or nothing less than a set of events. So then space, time and matter is one and the same as a set of simultaneous events from one instant to the next.
From this observation the 4 categories can be reduced to 2 categories
Category 1 : Minds
Category 2 : Events
Now then can minds exist without events. We know that simultaneous events give rise to feeling in minds. We know from special relativity simultaneous events cannot give rise to anything physical or material. Therefore feelings cannot be physical or material. Now as feelings are a part of minds we must conclude minds are not physical.
Now can the mind exist without feelings OR does feelings create the mind, that is one and the same as the mind?
If feeling create the mind then as feelings are created by events then space, time and matter which we have concluded is the same as events, must also have feeling and thus be one and the same as a mind.
Thus we would need to conclude a rock has a mind or is part of a mind to the same extent that my brain is a mind or is part of a mind.
This conclusion is not palatable as such let’s consider the OTHER alternative
Now if a mind can exist without feeling then we also know that the mind can create events. (e.g throw a rock, move a finger)
So then given that the mind can create events then the big bang (The Event) could have originated from The Mind in order to evoke feelings in other minds.
These other minds may have also been created by The Mind.
philpapers.org/rec/DESCAS
www.jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/view/1020/0
The earth is also flat, a round ball earth is another lie we've all been taught from childhood on up
Yes, and the brain is flat too. Seems like you got access to some real secret knowledge in the mental asylum. You are guaranteed the Nobel Prize for this
What is the name of that sir ..... ?
Major Coleman. Full video on my channel
"Thoughts" and The concept of God
Usage of the word "Thought" in this post is taken to mean anything that is part of a humans conscious experience. Under this definition a sound heard is a thought as much the thoughts going to solve a mathematical puzzle.
Based on the above definition it can be said that all of humanities knowledge consist of "thoughts". For anything to be known by a human it must become a "thought".
In the context of such a definition of "thoughts"
The set of all "thoughts" would fit the concept of God. If you accept Mathematical Platonism then God would exist
The concept of God entails a single entity that has the following properties
Wisdom: The set of all thoughts will contain the perfect answer to every possible question
Infinitude: The set of all thoughts will have an infinite amount of thoughts
Sovereignty: There can be no thought that is not an element of the set of thoughts
Omniscience:The set of all thought is all knowing as it contains all thoughts.
What’s his name.
Major Coleman
The oldest tree in the world is the Old Tjikko Tree in Sweden, which is approximately 10,000 years old. The oldest rock in the world is the Acasta Gneiss in the Canadian Shield, estimated to be around 4 billion years old. Dinosaurs lived until about 65 million years ago when an asteroid struck Earth. This event is well-supported by evidence, including the identification of a crater off the coast of Mexico. This crater is the same age as the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs, a timeline confirmed by the global rock record.
answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/ask-the-trees/
I'll take a look at the article after I come back from the movie theater and restaurant. It'll take a few hours till I get the chance to read it.
@@WeBareTheBears Sounds good friend!
I agree almost all of what he says, except for the young earth. I think earth is not young, 6000 years old.
That is correct, the Bible does not tell us how old the earth is. It only tells us how old Adam is. The earth was created in Genesis 1:1 and notice in verse 2 it says it sat void. We don't know how long it sat void for. Could've been 1 second or 100 billion years. Notice the 1st day does not start until verse 3. God says "and God said let there be light" that's the first day. All 7 days in Genesis 1 start with "and God said"
Earth was created before the 1st day began. So heaven/earth is outside of the 7 days of creation. 7 days of creation is only the creation of man, animals, plants/trees the ordaining of the sun/moon as greater/lesser lights etc etc. But heaven/earth were created before the 1st day.
Where are the rude, proud, pompous, insulting Atheists to put this man in his place.
Where are they?
Some thing are so pathetically ridiculous there is no point in commenting. That's why.
@@dongee1664 Is that why you commented?
After watching this video, all were instantly converted to Christianity. I know I was!!!
@@Fuzcapp whata gotcha....you must be worn out...
The chief evidence for a Creator is the purposefulness of the pieces of reality.
Atoms behave as if they posess basic responsiveness, with an electron around a hydrogen atom capable of absorbing and emitting over 20 narrowly specific wavelengths.
Each year, new discoveries are made about water, the latest being that water molecules, by the photoelectric effect can jump off a surface with enough force to overcome surface tension without getting hot ( without absorbing energy so they jiggle violently about and then jump.)
Water's quantum properties have real world effects. And, magnetism- nothing else is quite so magical, acting over vast distances from the spinning ( which they don't, really,) of electrons.
Randomly formed things never act with precision. Single cell organisms hunt down others.
No proof? Ask a child if the world is not a mystery. And, heaven help you if you destroy one by telling a child, "it really isn't."
That's why the Jw's, NWT said , and all other things were created by Jehovah, it means that there are new creations which not yet created during the dominion of Adam, Jesus also said, "my father is still working until now", as a creator, maybe the scientists can prove if there's really,
4:47 "Why don't THEY believe in God?"
It is not primarily because they are unaware of evidence, but because of human antipathy toward God outlined in Romans chapter one. Man KNOWS there is a God, and because of his behavior that is a problem..
Pride and vanity in man's heart...makes him hate the idea of God.
I don't know there is a God. If I did belief would be easy.
@@iriemon1796 Actually, the Bible says you DO know there's a God..
“For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20)
@@Steblu74 ["Actually, the Bible says you DO know there's a God.."] The Bible is wrong.
I am commenting precisely because of the problem with his statements and their dissemination.
(Reputable) science agrees that his statements are wrong.
He should be very careful when making statements that expose him as completely clueless.
Here are some examples that prove how wrong he is.
Do we see today the “basic animal and plant species that were originally created”? What kind of nonsense is this?
What about dinosaurs? In his opinion, did they not exist?
Is it possible to determine the age of dinosaurs with some degree of accuracy using radiocarbon dating, or is he claiming that this is not possible?
Example of trees. The oldest, “old tjikki” in Sweden, is almost 10,000 years old. So it is already older than the 6,000 year old earth.
Of course, unicellular organisms also exist. What is this guy saying? He wants to be an “educator”? At best he is a “storyteller”.
And besides... if even Everest was covered in water, as he says, where did all the water miraculously disappear to?
Was it turned into wine?
What unbearable nonsense.
His very first counter-argument is wrong, evolution and abiogenesis are separate concepts.
You know they are both part of the grand unifying theory of naturalism. Stop the pretension.
@@anilkanda611 say what you want but Evolutionary Biology is the cornerstone of modern medicine.
@@anilkanda611 They are part of your strawman.
Can you believe in God and evolution? After all, a fetus grows into an infant, an infant grows into a child, and a child grows into an adult. An acknowledgment of God can occur at any point along that timeline.
His logic has a lot of holes visible to any evolutonary biologist. But I can say that he made me much more confidente in my belief that evolution and creation complement each other.
Evolution contradicts the Bible. According to Genesis God created man from the dust/soil of the ground. No where in the Bible does it teach that we evolved from apes. According to Genesis we, mankind, were created separate from the beasts of the field.
Can u point out those holes. Thanks.
Through Adam death came into the world... so you have an either or between Bible and Evolution. And you will have to complete can Genesis if you want to adhere to evolution. You can't have both.
@@chukwunonsookeke8252
About 4 postulates of evolution
1) He said that we have no examples of that. Lack of example in not evidence agajints it. The world is very big and cells are very small and you need right conditions for that to happen.
2) Complex life form came from single cell life forms. He said that we do not have 2, 3, 4 or 5 cell life forms but we do. Staurastrum is a 2 cell algae. Tetrabaena is a 4 cells algae and there are much more.
3) Time and chance drive evolution. This is much complicated but not everything in evolution is by pure chance. Chance being very low goes well with the idea of God being behind evolution.
4) I don't know if it is true that there are no new genes but shuffling of genes by itself and cause mayor changes.
About 4 postulates of creation
1) I agree with the first one
2) Earth is young. This is my main problem. There is no proof for Earth to be young. You can get to 6000 years from literal and reading of the Bible, which is only a disserving to it. This seems to me more like a forcefully made subjective rule for people who are to afraid of changing their world view or realizing that they are wrong. You need to stay objective and just because there are few passages in the Bible which can be literally read to mean that the Earth is young it doesn't mean that it actually is. You can't star with conclusion and try to find the evidence. It is vice versa. Also, the thing about the threes makes no sense. Here is an example. The oldest tree in my village is 100 years old but it does not follow that village itself is the same age. The village could be built 900 years ago in a place with no trees. About solar nebulas his sources are trust me bro. Just becouse there is 6000 years of solar nebula it does not mean that every one of them happened 26 years later.
3) This is also forcefully put subjective rule of young earth creationism. Cats being unable to reproduce with dogs does not show that there is no evolution. When 2 species diverge too much they can not reproduce together. He is mixing apples and oranges here.
4) It is true that there is a lot of lime stone but it does not mean that it was created by global flood. Many "small" flood could do the same with more time. Bible story about flood leaves a lot of space for interpretation that it was not a global fenomen. Everest has sea life fossils because it rose from the bottom of the sea when Indian subcontinet hit Asia.
I would like to add that this big Noa's arc can't be made out of wood.
@@zanicar4087 You can. "Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come". Romans 5 14 The death spoken here is clearly a spiritual death. If not why do people still die after Moses if death reigned to his times only?
Evolution does not care about God.
God evolve according to my rules 😂
he started talking nonsense at 47 seconds Evolution does not postulate that life came from non life - that is abiogenesis.
These are different ideas - god could still have created life which evolves
you know its part of the grand unifying theory of naturalism. Dont pretend it's completely a moot point.
*Don't forget to like and subscribe for more content. Thanks friend
Explain techtolik and other lobe finned fish that can walk on land....
PMSL. They "evolved" so well, they died off.
LOL.
Very convincing.so is much in reality,yet reality has no reality to it.reality exist in the human mind and nowhere else
The Bible says it’s evident God created it all. And it is.
The. Bible also tells in exodus 21 its ok to own slaves…and that you can beat them so hard that if they dont die in 3 days it isn’t murder.
so dont claim something…proof it.
One book claims God is right….at least 3 other books tell other Gods are right….please proof why your god is right and the other 4200 Gods in the world are not…proof not just say
Yes he created the sun to orbit the earth ooop's It got that bit wrong 😂🤣😂
@@truthgiver8286 is that in the Bible?
@@citoante yes Ecclesiates 1:5 The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises. Theist argue that sun rises and sun goes down is terminology we use today but the Sun hastens to the place where is rises gives it away It can't go back across the sky or it would not be night so it hast to hasten back on the other side of the planet like you know an orbit!
@@truthgiver8286 maybe you mentally challenged. King Salomon, in a philosophical book, is observing how things remain the same, but you draw from that a scientific statement. Pretty dumb exposition of the Scriptures on your part. Any other gems?
Absolutely, there was no evolution, he, the Professor knows this for sure
If you are referring to change over time, that is observable. If you are referring to millions upon millions of years of species turning into other species, absolutely not. Too many barriers.
@@anilkanda611Why do you make false assertions with such arrogance and confidence? Your intellectual dishonesty is impressive. Isn't lying against the tenents of your belief system? Hypocrisy
@@ericreed4535 Hi Eric. Hope you are doing well.
You can easily set this "arrogantly confident" Professor straight, as well as other creationists such as myself, by just providing the evidence that we are looking for.
There is a question that I have been asking for quite a while, but for which I have not yet received an answer. Each time I ask this question, I either get ignored, mocked or ridiculed for asking such a simple, straight forward and logical question, but I am yet to get an answer.
Therefor I sincerely hope that you will be the one who will finally be able and willing to give me an answer to the following question: There are thousands of examples of micro evolution, or slow small variations within a species over time, such as the various shapes and sizes of the beaks of Darwin's finches on the Galapogos islands. Since evolution is a continuous process, can you please give me one testable and observable example, i.e. the scientific method, of modern day Darwinian macro evolution in action, in other words where one kind of animal is busy changing into a completely new and different kind of animal (for instance, a rat changing into a giraffe) - i.e. Darwin's change of kinds theory?
Thanks, Leon
@@ericreed4535 Hi Eric. Hope you are doing well.
You can easily set this "arrogantly confident" Professor straight, as well as other creationists such as myself, by just providing the evidence that we are looking for.
There is a question that I have been asking for quite a while, but for which I have not yet received an answer. Each time I ask this question, I either get ignored, mocked or ridiculed for asking such a simple, straight forward and logical question, but I am yet to get an answer.
Therefor I sincerely hope that you will be the one who will finally be able and willing to give me an answer to the following question: There are thousands of examples of micro evolution, or slow small variations within a species over time, such as the various shapes and sizes of the beaks of Darwin's finches on the Galapogos islands. Since evolution is a continuous process, can you please give me one testable and observable example, i.e. the scientific method, of modern day Darwinian macro evolution in action, in other words where one kind of animal is busy changing into a completely new and different kind of animal (for instance, a rat changing into a giraffe) - i.e. Darwin's change of kinds theory?
Thanks, Leon
@@ericreed4535 All of your statements are ad hominem. Hypocrisy.
This man is deluded by the bible and has no idea what hes talking about , its called the dunning kruger effect
You have no argument to proof him delusional. GIVE PROOF. Evolution is lies.
Do another interview with him is out of this world
It doesn’t make sense to say God is Almighty and then give credit to our existence due to evolution. It’s like giving Him half credit for creation.
Ever heard of theistic evolution ??? Why do you limit God? BB Warfield, a super conservative preacher said-- If God used evolution as His tool to create life forms -that was fine with him. Why limit God with your
extreme reading of Genesis.?
@@rodwitzel9260 Because evolutionists have gone to the extreme claiming we evolved from monkeys. Plus it doesn’t stop there. Now there is a claim we came from the intended experiment of aliens tweaking with our DNA and creating humans from monkeys as well. I will go to the extreme and leave it to Genesis if you don’t mind.
Jesus said I am the Messiah, God's Spirit went into me, I was given a new heart, mind and talent
Great video, the guy makes some brilliant points.
How do you suppose matter made and directed itself? No physical thing is from a natural cause. Creation is a fact of physics.
By the laws of nature
No god needed to explain those
@@captaingaza2389 Physical things can’t explain their own existence.
@@captaingaza2389lol he has you on those points. Once created things may persist foe a while but the laws of thermodynamics prove you had to have a creator. So your points are wrong.
@@JungleJargon
They don’t have to, they simply just are.
Supernatural things on the other hand do require an explanation for which no one ever has given a satisfactory answer
@@vikingskuld
🤣
Just say you don’t understand the laws of thermodynamics instead giving me your brain fart
🤣
When you use radiometric dating on rocks of known historical ages you still get dates of millions of years old... Now I understand the excuse given for this is that because the error margin of the dating system is millions of years. But if the same error that is happening on the rocks of known ages are also happening on rocks of unknown ages then they also could be under 10,000 years old... Think about it.
Rocks of known historical ages... Hahahaaaaaaasa
@@fortunatoluccresi5243
Funny how you did not provide even a single bit of evidence countering my statement.
@@fortunatoluccresi5243 Rocks of historical known ages AKA Mt. Saint Helens. Mount vesuvius. The lava flows of the Hawaiian islands.
Funny how you people are ignorant when it serves your agenda.
@@GSpotter63 Because the Mt. St. Helens was built around 2200 years ago, so its "building materials" must of course also be of that age. Christian logic.
The eruption history of the Mount St. Helens vent begins with the first detectable ash deposits, which can be dated to over 40,000 years old. A total of nine major eruption phases with a duration of between 5,000 and less than 100 years, separated by dormant periods of between 15,000 and around 200 years, were detected.
@@fortunatoluccresi5243
It is not that hard to figure out which lava sample was produced during which observed eruption.... Try again.
I'm curious how plants and trees survived the flood. Put your garden under a few feet of water for a few months and see which plants come back to life. Not to mention, salt water isn't good for plants not found in the sea. So, are we supposed to believe seeds somehow didn't rot? And land plants account for about 50% of our oxygen; once they were all submerged that would be a flood that took your breath away! And we keep finding places like Gobekli Tepe that are far older than 6,000 years. Cave paintings 30-40,000 years old, and other races of humans like the Neanderthal and Denisovan long before "the Flood" (that never happened). Mars used to have a much thicker atmosphere, and it's experienced some serious collisions, as has our Moon; all this in the past few thousand years? Sorry, it just doesn't wash, and this man doesn't understand the science he thinks he does at all. Theists make a big mistake when they try to drag science in to justify their beliefs, when all they really need is faith.
I'll demonstrate genetically superior creatures in my video 'Begining of understanding '
Electrical process has been overlooked in creation
In asking for proof of the existence of God, in the very questions lies the answer.
Ask your self what is it about a proof that makes it so great?
A proof is great becouse it does not depend on the time, place or person that gives it. A proof exist even if it has never been spoken.
Therefore where do they exist and were they created?
If you believe proofs were not created then you believe the proofs are eternal. So then the proofs are your God.
If you believe the proofs have a creator then that creator is God.
PS:It takes a mind/intelligence to understand a proof so can a proofs exist with no Mind or is a Mind essential for the existence of proof?
"A proof is great becouse it does not depend on the time, place or person that gives it. A proof exist even if it has never been spoken.
Therefore where do they exist and were they created?
If you believe proofs were not created then you believe the proofs are eternal. So then the proofs are your God.
If you believe the proofs have a creator then that creator is God."
But if proofs exist even if they were never spoken, they cannot have been created (by God), right? And your first statement seemed to suggest why proofs are great...ie "bec[a]use it does not depend on the time, place or person that gives it. A proof exist even if it has never been spoken." So they cannot have been created at all. And in fact, the whole idea some theists have of God not being able to do what is logically impossible suggests the foundations of logic exist outside of and independent of God since he cannot change logic.
Unless God is proof in and of Himself and the earthly proofs are just a reflection of Him.
Only those who seek God will find Him. And there are infinite distractions/pleasures that keep people from seeking.
yup/. *don't forget to subscribe for more content! Thanks friend.
I don't have the time to seek the invisible, non-existing "god".
If he wants me to believe in him, he has to reveal himself.
@@fortunatoluccresi5243 God will reveal himself only if you have some mental illness.
Only those who seek truth will find truth. And there are infinite reasons that keep people from seeking and instead simply believe in a safe religious belief system.
Evolution is a house of cards.so,must must be a personal god person then??
Does the Noah's ark story says that a breeding pair of every terrestrial species was at one point, on the ark, at one time, 2400 BC? So God killed all the life on the whole planet, accept for the ark survivors. ? The bugs and spiders too?
Not every species. Only the genus or "kinds"
@anilkanda611 So how did the viruses that require human hosts survive?
@@burntgod7165 Viruses can live a long time in a stasis state.
@@anilkanda611 So you are saying if a genus consists of five living species today, those five species evolved from the original stock in six thousand years. That sould be miraculously fast speciation by scientific standards. If that were true and still happening today, evolution would be a lot easier to study.
@@arthurwieczorek4894 you are presupposing that theory evolution is true. First you need to prove that evolution actually happens. Theories are cool and all but if you can't prove them as fact, then they will always remain as theories.
All science operates under the scientific method. One of the methods of the scientific method is of course hypothesis. As you may know hypothesis are nothing more than educated guesses. So technically all science is based on some scientists guesses.
Evolution is not observable in the lifespan of mankind. Therefore no man will ever live long enough to prove evolution is fact. So why place your faith in a theory that can't be observed?
This is not a takedown. This is an embarrassment. He's not a scientist and clearly does not understand the evolutionary synthesis. His four claims are strawmen exposing his ignorance and his inability to think critically. For example, his "fish turn into cows" claim is utterly foolish. A fish turning into a cow would disprove evolution. His creationism claims have long been debunked.
Yet you believe an ape turned into a man...Go figure...
No one can debunk creationism and no one can prove abiogenesis. Too many variables, too much we can’t observe, and things we may never know. But if you watch all the right videos some scientists will lead you to believe we have it all figured out.
@richardlee6886 Creationism's claims are easily debunked. They have no evidence to back up their assertions. Creationism is as valid as Flat Earthism. As to your use of "prove," it exposes your lack of understanding as to how science works. There are a number of hypotheses regards demonstrating abiogenesis. "My god did it" is not one of them.
When someone who calls himself an educator says "Evolution is not real because no one has ever seen (fill in the blank)" and claims he debunked the science behind it, I have to wonder if he has any sense of logic in his mind at all. He can apply the same logic to his god and debunk it by saying he has never seen his god, either. This is an incredible level either of ignorance or of arrogance. One clear thing is that he has no scientific mind at all.
Thank God for a reasonable comment.
Hyperbole and it’s false. You’re propagandised and you can’t consider his view. There’s no evidence for evolution in the macro sense. Fact. There’s lots of evidence of immensely intelligent design. Fact.
He’s just dumb, that’s it. He dont believe what you believe and he’s dumb. I mean what you said is what he’s saying in reverse. He saying that you can believe in God and still be educated, scientific, logical even.
( :ﾟ皿ﾟ) This is an artistic proof of a created universe. When you paint a shadow it's the opposite color of the object that made the shadow. Nobody knew what the opposite color of white was so the artists avoided painting white on white. The opposite color of white is baby blue and baby pink. The first artist to figure it out was Norman Rockwell. I was the second artist to figure it out. I saw it in the corner of a white room. The lighting was perfect to see it.
I'm an artist, too! I love noticing/seeing/painting the shadows in/on sand...they are a beautiful shade of periwinkle where I live.
@abigailwhite4704 in the future art will be considered evidence of an intelligent universe. That where the evidence is. The evidence isn't in the biology. Spy free movies on RUclips. The lathe of heaven. Their is two of them.
Answers in Isaiah 6, Psalm 58:3-5, Romans 1:18-32.
Satan & our rebellious sin nature blind us to the obvious. We are s-l-o-w to repent, and won't give up the sovereignty of our own ways.
What does Satan have access to our world? Who let him in?
WHO created satan….oops…God did.
So God created sin…and now punish people for it…..but he loves you.
@@dannydejongh9408your absolutely appallingly ignorant of what they Bible says....
I mean so much so u have to question if you have actually read any of it at all. God never claimed to love everyone and so stop lying lol. Learn what it says before embarrassing yourself like that.
@@dannydejongh9408 Lucifer had choices, like we do; he rebelled against God with one - third of the angelic host, and became Satan, and Lucifer's rebellion came AFTER the creation of man.
Never blame God for the choices we've made!
Even so, He's provided for us through Jesus. We must still choose to turn away from sin, and seek forgiveness through Jesus.
His hand reaches out to you, Danny.
( ｀□´) The universe was created in 1976. It is too hot to make a universe at the time of the big bang. It can be created at anytime. God is slow and easy. A human can do a lot with their lifespan. I got the hunk. God got the chunk. Everyone else can have the rest. That is song spirit of '76 by The Alarm.
God is a person then? Must must be a person? In the west god is a person. In the East God is not personal
It's amazing that Noah's flood is real and the only two remaining kangaroos were able to hop on floating trees back to Australia!
😂🤣
What about the penguins waddling all that way back.
If you think giraffes look awkward drinking water, you should have seen them climbing down the mountain.
The penguins got a ride down the mountain on the backs of the giraffes. Giraffes are great mountain climbers.
From there they only had to waddle down to the southern tip of Africa. Some stayed there and most other penguins eventually swam all the way to Antarctica 😅
@@skippy675 I hadn't thought of that.!!!!
"only two remaining kangaroos were able to hop on floating trees back to Australia!"
No where in the Bible does it say that.
This person gives no evidence at all. He should go back to science school and see what medicine is doing now. Researchers see evolution in their very experiments. When I was young I read the Bible (which was forbidden for Roman Catholics in my time). I also paid attention to science classes. And I searched and still search for the truth. So : raised Roman Catholic, I slowly lost my faith, became agnostic and ended up atheist. That's the only truth. If you read the complete bible, and not only the few chosen chapters, you will find so much evidence of contradictions that you can classify it as romanticised history and even utter fiction. And NO, not even God can mate a cow with a cat !!!!!
which evolution have researches seen?
The Bible was not forbidden to be read during your time. That’s an exaggeration on your behalf and also a lie right there.
"So : raised Roman Catholic"
There's your problem. The Roman Catholic Church mixed their sun worship (from the Roman Empire) with the teachings of Christ, and they deliberately distorted your upbringing.
He does give evidence. People who think they see evolution are actually seeing current genetic information being reshuffled. New information is not being added. This was Darwin's mistake.
Genesis is true.
Let there be light.
Goes downhill after that
There are studies, which he is free to disagree with, showing how life can come from non life. That is not a good argument. People can believe in a God without proof.
Who wrote Genesis, God? How and when. What's the evidence for it so we know it's not all made up. He should explain everything what God was doing 6000 ago before suddenly deciding to create the universe. These are probably stories of old, tribal folktales that over the years came to be believed as truth.
The skeletons of humans, mice and bats are strikingly similar, despite the very different ways of life of these animals and the diversity of environments in which they flourish. The correspondence of these animals, bone by bone, can be observed in every part of the body.
National Center of Biotechnology Information.
This observable, scientifically verifiable fact is best explained by common descent.
no its not
common descent is an assumption and not the evidence
common design is equally as good and even a better explanation
what about similarities that are not due to common descent? evolutionists needed to invent fancy terms like convergent and parallel evolution to explain those and maintain their religion
I didn't write that common descent was the evidence. I wrote that it is the best explanation for the evidence I gave. And an explanation is not an assumption. Work on your comprehensive reading skills. Or are you just dishonest, like almost all creationists?
@@marknieuweboer8099the only ones dishonest and arrogant are the atheist evolutionists
you have a track record of lying and corrupting data in order to fit your religion
and for it to be the best explanation you need a mechanism first which darwinists don't have
so its all mere speculation
Incredible! I guess he must have read a lot of books on evolution. Or at least a Wikipedia article.
Evolution is a trash theory, look up Drs James Tour, Michael Behe- both biochemists that debunk macroevolution
I doubt, He had read a single book of evolution. But If he did, what did He learn?
Sorry...we do have multi cellular life form....humans are one of them!
He didn’t say multicellular, he said if we evolved from single cells and we still have single cells, stands to reason there should be some creatures containing 2 or 3 cells still around. Come on now.
That is a cute little slight of hand? He attacks "postulates" or conclusions of naturalistic evidence because the conclusions have not been "observed." The is tons of scientific evidence for evolution. But he attacks the *conclusions* because "they have not been observed." Hence the conclusion that life generated from non-life chemical reactions is false because it has not been observed. The conclusion that life evolved from single celled organisms is false because we have not observed multi-celled organisms coming from single celled organism (we actually have observed that). The conclusion that animals evolved into new species must be false because that has not been "observed."
But when it comes to creationist theory, his cites "evidence" (much of which is the age old "god of the gaps" arguments) for the conclusions that he reaches, but does not apply the "observed" test for his conclusions as he does for naturalistic conclusions. He does not apply the "observed" test for his conclusions that there was a "intelligent designer" that created the universe, or the age of the earth, or the flood.
Do you see the blatant double standard employed here? Against naturalistic conclusions he demand that the conclusions be "observed". However, that exact same test utterly fails for the creationist conclusions. The supernatural has never been observed (scientifically) much less an "intelligent designer" who created the universe in 6 days 6000 years ago, including all life that existed on the planet.
At the bottom line, the conclusions of science are based on observable phenomenon. We know there is a natural world, and that conclusions (or hypotheses) of science are ground in that natural world we know exists because we can observe it, and test it. Religion is based on a phenomenon, a supernatural with a supernatural intelligent being, that has never been "observed" scientifically. The creationist argument utterly fails at its foundation based upon the "observation" test he demands of science.
He didn't "bust" anything except his own creationist position.
Here's how it works: You have your "science of the gaps" to prove your view, and we have our "God of the gaps" to prove our view. Neither point of view can get away from their own personal circular reasoning. Even believing your own existence is circular reasoning. It's not slight of hand or trickery. None of us were there (except God, who told us the story). He's simply pointing to evidence, measurements, data points and logic to make a far better argument for the Bibical worldview and showing the faulty, self-defeating evidence for macro evolution.
*don't forget to subscribe for more content! Thanks friend.
Give proof of evolution. not just a bunch of claims
@@anilkanda611 Done. Thanks. And respect that you are willing to allow posts that question the claims of your guest. Not all channels do that.
@@iriemon1796 you posted respectfully and I appreciate that. I don’t always agree with the guests and I ask questions off the air as well.
We are all on a journey to learn and figure out life. Understanding and dialogue is how to keep moving forward. Thanks friend!
A believer will find god everywhere..in the wind in a flower, in the stars...earthquake,
The “atheist debunked” videos are getting dumber. Are these people able to tie their own shoes?
I’ll let your comment slide. If you have issues, challenge him otherwise don’t comment.
@@anilkanda611 I am commenting precisely because of the problem with his statements and their dissemination.
(Reputable) science agrees that his statements are wrong.
He should be very careful when making statements that expose him as completely clueless.
Here are some examples that prove how wrong he is.
Do we see today the “basic animal and plant species that were originally created”? What kind of nonsense is this?
What about dinosaurs? In his opinion, did they not exist?
Is it possible to determine the age of dinosaurs with some degree of accuracy using radiocarbon dating, or is he claiming that this is not possible?
Example of trees. The oldest, “old tjikki” in Sweden, is almost 10,000 years old. So it is already older than the 6,000 year old earth.
Of course, unicellular organisms also exist. What is this guy saying? He wants to be an “educator”? At best he is a “storyteller”.
And besides... if even Everest was covered in water, as he says, where did all the water miraculously disappear to?
Was it turned into wine?
What unbearable nonsense.
Try your arguments on someone who knows something about the scientific subjects you’re preaching about, and see what happens. Go to a research conference of, you know, scientists, and say this stuff and see how quickly you get laughed out of the room.
He actually speaks at scientific conferences. Try to present an actual argument instead of appealing to authorities
Every technology that we use today, from computers to medicine to satellites to cell phones, are based on the identical science that tells us that the earth is 4 billion years old.
Not so.
@@jimdrummer816 Name one exception
@fortunatoluccresi5243 Everything you mentioned is observable and repeatable, as real science should be. There is absolutely no evidence that the earth is billions of years old. That's just what evolutionists want to hold fast to, to try and make evolution "believable". The chances of one strand of protein making itself is 10 to the negative 40,000th. That's a ten with 40,000 zeros behind it. Mathematically impossible. You'll know soon enough. Have a nice day.
God is too big, too far beyond the capacity of the human mind to pin down with words.
The atheists mock a human made description of God, take literally the words used to hint at what He c a n be compared to, thinking that they are destroying God Himself with pithy, puny mockery.
This guy honestly believes the universe is only a few thousand years old based on the age of the oldest trees. Completely ignores all the other other scientific evidence in support of a universe billions of years old. This is confirmation bias at its finest. Cherry pick some things and ignore what you don’t like.
Who is this guy making these assertions?
Scientific facts. Not assertions.
No 🥱 @@zaharishtonov
@@zaharishtonovExcept 99.9 percent of scientists disagree with him.
@@joecheffo5942 - That doesn't mean he is wrong, just because the majority think they have the correct facts interpreted better. Have you heard of "Argumentum ad Populum"? It is a type of fallacy that tries to justify exactly what you are saying. Just because a certain opinion, attitude, belief, etc. is held by the majority that doesn't mean it is correct. The inverse argument, that something is not quite popular therefore must be flawed is also a variation of this fallacy. Think about that for a moment and I am sure you can find examples that you've encountered in your own life experiences. That's of course if you want to be intellectually honest about it.
@@zaharishtonov You are misrepresenting the fallacy. I sm not saying, heck most people belueve it so its true.
I am saying experts, professionals, who have extensive training and testing requirements, who piblish peer reviewed papers, have this very strong consensus. Also, their papers are available to read.
Thats very different then just counting random heads. You might try argument from authority but that’s different too.
The Big Lie, a little bit searching shows atheists debunks al apologies from religions. e.g. Professor Plink etc. etc. Start learning and be free of those fake claims from religious peoples.
Wake up. Atheists are lost on evolution. This comes from the rubbish of Darwinism. And please give PROOF that a banana can give me something other than a banana. EVOLUTION is Rubbish.
For real?
Very.*don't forget to subscribe for more content! Thanks friend.
In the beginning God created me. But my soul and spirit were without form and void and darkness was upon the face of my life and eternity. The Spirit of God moved upon my heart and God said let there be light and there was light. Then God separated the light from the darkness. But it didn’t end there. I went from law (the FBI) to grace (God called me to preach). But it didn’t end there. The Lord God said to bring forth after our kind. Today, I have two sons and three grandsons preaching the Gospel.
Knowing this first, that no prophesy of scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophesy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:20-21 KJB)
Pretty easy to disprove the Genesis account of creation. Just read Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 and compare the order of creation. Realize there are two different creation stories. Realize it is impossible for the Universe to have been created in two different ways. Christianity disproven... done.
There's no discrepancy. Man was created on the sixth day. More detail is given in chapter 2 regarding the creation of mankind. Done.
Absolutely not true, Genesis 2 tells the same story with more details. Genesis 1 and 2 are the same creation story told twice. There are no discrepancies between the two chapters. It you think there are discrepancies then you are the one that is wrong. The word of God can't be wrong...
@@jimdrummer816 You are wrong. G1: plants, then animals, then humans...created in that order G2: humans, then plants, then animals...created in that order. 2 completely different orders of creation, if you are honest with yourself and not just trying to support what you already believe to be true.
@@TimboSlice-xx3ss No, it's a different order of creation. G1: plants, then animals, then humans...created in that order. G2: humans, then plants, then animals...created in a completely different order.
The word of God cannot be wrong? There are over 400 different translations of the Bible in English alone. Which one is the actual word of God? What silly thoughts you have.
@@mikewagner8458 wrong, Genesis 2:5 there was NO MAN TO TILL THE GROUND.
There was a massive flood in the Tigris/Euphrates valley about 2900 BC....That gave rise to the four or five flood stories from that part of the earth....
😂no. Reason dont work on believers. Watch: 1st god created earth, then heavens, then sun, then separated waters... sooo sun is THE youngest star submerged in waters above...i bet u still blv in bible😂😂
Just leave out the fossil record. Leave out all scientific evidence. WOW! Glad my understanding of God and creation is nothing like yours.
You understand that the fossil record is incomplete and discontinuous right?
False teacher- Christainity is based solely on Christ alone. NOT Christ plus something else. Salvation is founded on Christ alone. His grace, love message , Kingdom and ressurection . PTL
Of course thats true but take out Genesis and you have no basis for the fall of mankind or Creation.
Second, stop calling people false teacher.-it reflects more on you than others.
Brilliant!
No, this is the complete opposite. This is some of the most dishonest tripe there is. It's propagating a superstition.
Evolution is not based on his first "Foundational Assumption". Evolution does not address the origin of life.
His second "Foundational Assumption" is misleading and dishonest.
His third "Foundational Assumption" is also wrong and his argument is dishonest. It is called Evolution by means of Natural Selection. He needs to learn what natural selection means.
His fourth "Foundational Assumption" is based on his ideas of evolution not on the scientific understanding.
This man is either completely ignorant of the scientific understanding of evolution or he is a simple minded liar.
His first "Foundational Assumption" for creation only applies to things that can be observed to have been designed. It does not apply to the natural world. Lying or misunderstanding again.
His second "Foundational Assumption" is just plain wrong. Too much evidence contradicts his imagined young earth.
I can't take any more. This man is either wilfully ignorant or a professional liar.
😂😂😂😂😂
*don't forget to subscribe for more content! Thanks friend.
@@anilkanda611
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@gaggle57 😎
Ever hear of theistic evolution? Why do you limit God?
Because the Bible teaches God did not use sin and death to create. Death came because of Adam.
Because incest better. Human come from monke? Lamee. Human come from repeatedly having intercourse with blood related sister/mother? Hell yeaahh
The ignorant leading the ignorant. Bravo fundamentalists.
Because evolutionists aren't fundamentalists? It's atheists that are offended the most.
Did he really just say "the postulates of creation have been observed'? Remind me who observed God creating the universe in 6 days thing? Or God creating man and woman? Or God creating anything for that matter.
They would claim God saw it.
Postulates observed: Things such as buildings or machines we know they had a designer. Living things, animals for example,
are much more complex and so should require a designer.
Living things reproduce after their own kind with sometimes minor variations. With selective breeding they
can change even more but there's always limits to those changes.
About the flood: He just mentioned marine fossils at the top of mountains.
All these things can be observed.
@jbtex784 "Things such as buildings or machines we know they had a designer. Living things, animals for example, are much more complex and so should require a designer. "
But it's also obvious living things appear to be designed differently...ie by a different process, than mechanical things humans have designed. Man made things have a milled, fabricated appearance that we recognize because we've seen humans do such milling and fabricating. But life while also complex seems to have been designed by a more...natural... process. So nature could be the designer of natural life. Consider. ALL components of life are natural components...things (atoms/molecules) that exist in nature. Consider also that all of life depends on a process known to exist throughout the natural world...ie chemistry. Chemistry has been observed to naturally form long chained replicating and mutating molecules in the lab just due to chemistry. This would be a proof of concept that chemistry, by itself, can stimulate formation of rudimentary objects(molecules) that have some of the critical features of more complex life. So in a way, the creative force behind life is chemistry. In fact one could say chemistry IS a form of life meaning the natural world is awash with life...just in a different form than what we normally call the biota on earth.
"Living things reproduce after their own kind with sometimes minor variations. With selective breeding they can change even more but there's always limits to those changes."
But if we maintain that all life is of one kind....ie living chemistry, then that is sufficient to have produced all the variety of biota we see on earth. IOW to take your words literally, life is a 'kind' of chemistry and all biota is of that kind. And why should it not be that way? If you think God created and fine tuned the natural world....why could he not have depended on his fine tuned natural world to produce life naturally?
"About the flood: He just mentioned marine fossils at the top of mountains.
All these things can be observed."
How would a flood...where water rises either due to rain or due to fountains of the deep opening up, cause materials on the bottom of the ocean to flow uphill to high mtn peaks? Observe a flood...it's all water flowing downhill, down current. That would seem to cause everything to wash down to the lowest point. By the time the water rose above most of the low lying land, there would be no 'flow' or 'current' to continue pushing heavy materials (shells from the ocean bottom) uphill against the current to mountain sides.
But that observation of ocean bottom shells could be explained by plate tectonics...ie movement of the earths crust ethrusts ocean floor up to become mountain peaks. The movement of the earths plates still occurs and is being measured. The upthrust due to that process causes land to literally rise year by year has been and is being measured. The Himalayas are rising at ~1 cm per year based on measurement which is a rate more than adequate to produce mountains of that height in tens of millions of years.
@@rizdekd3912 That would be a circular "proof". Who saw God create the universe to prove there is a God who created the universe. God saw it. That is proving the claim with the claim.
@@jbtex784 ["Things such as buildings or machines we know they had a designer. Living things, animals for example, are much more complex and so should require a designer. Living things reproduce after their own kind with sometimes minor variations. With selective breeding they can change even more but there's always limits to those changes. About the flood: He just mentioned marine fossils at the top of mountains. All these things can be observed."]
That is a cute little slight of hand, isn't it? He attacks "postulates" or *conclusions* of naturalistic evidence because the conclusions have not been observed. The is tons of scientific evidence for evolution. He attacks the conclusion because "they have not been observed." Hence the conclusion that life generated from non-life chemical reactions is false because it has not been observed. The conclusion that life evolved from single celled organisms is false because we have not observed multi-celled organisms coming from single celled organism (we actually have observed that). The conclusion that animals evolved into new species must be false because that has not been "observed."
But when it comes to creationist theory, his cites "evidence" (much of which is the age old "god of the gaps" arguments) for the conclusions that he reaches, but does not apply the "observed" test for his conclusions as he does for naturalistic conclusions. He does not apply the "observed" test for his conclusion that there was a "intelligent designer" that created the universe, and all the lifeforms on earth, or the age of the earth, or the Biblical flood.
Do you not see the blatant double standard he employs? Against naturalistic conclusions he demand that the conclusions be "observed". That same test utterly fails for the creationist conclusions. The supernatural has never been observed (scientifically) much less an "intelligent designer" who created the universe in 6 days 6000 years ago, including all life that existed on the planet.
At the bottom line, the conclusions of science are based on observable phenomenon. We know there is a natural world, and that conclusions (or hypotheses) of science are founded upon that natural world we know exists because we can observe it, and test it. Religion is based on a phenomenon, a super natural with supernatural intelligent being, that has never been "observed" scientifically. The creationist argument utterly fails at its foundation based upon the "observation" test he demands of science.
He didn't "bust" anything except his own creationist position.
😂🤣😂
Misinformation from start to finish - This guy needs to get into some real science.
And what do you know person on the internet??
What research have you done?
@@JohnDoe-xv4rp Enough to know abiogenesis is nothing to do with evolution and that evolution is true to the extent of an incredible amount of real evidence. Fortunately, I am not stuck with the superglue of religion and gods that prevents me from understanding and accepting reality. Before I believe anything including the science, I do some research by reading and listening to the consensus of real scientists, Maybe the main Speaker in this video and your good self could do the same!
Not really sure what you mean by "real scienctists". You mean like the guys in the lab who created the jab? Who we were supposed to trust with our lives? Lol I've never read two papers on the origin of life by macro evolutionary thinkers that agreed with one another. They can't even agree on one thing. So how do we know which one is the "real scientist"?
@oddviews
Abiogenesis would have something to do with the origins of life,, no?
Of course humans and animals evolve to adapt to their surroundings I've not heard this guy argue against that, unless I missed it.
But there certainly isn't any evidence for macro evolution.
I don't see believing in God as a superglue or being stuck, maybe religion is a potential poison that has sullied many a mind, what you're doing is, I believe they call cognitive dissonance, you're researching one side of the coin, the side your logic and reason, dependant on your life experiences and circumstances follows.
Research some creation scientists, doctors, there are plenty of them and they're highly intelligent, highly qualified and it is highly interesting.
But if you're mind is made up and you'll laugh these people off as crazy with a closed mind, then why should anyone listen to you?
@@oddviewsGive me evidence about how information (or code) can be generated or sourced out from non-intelligence.
Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life !
*don't forget to subscribe for more content! Thanks friend.
This presentation proves God can’t exist because a perfect creator wouldn’t produce people who are ignorant enough to listen to this guy
The fool has said in his heart, “there is no God” psalm 14
@@anilkanda611
The wise man says it out loud
Christianity is not based on Genesis!
Christianity is based on the Bible, which includes Genesis.
Genesis outlines the fall of man, the first Gospel promise, the Abrahamic covenant which Paul elaborated on, the beginning of the sacrificial systems pointing to the messiah.
Is he serious. Because he's laughable.
Lol
*don't forget to subscribe for more content! Thanks friend.
@@anilkanda611 double lol
Evolution does not say life came from nothing. Evolution talks about life changing over time, not where it came from.
So, where did it come from?
@@ivandgr8224
From nature.
Where else???
No, evolution cannot do a cop-out of that form. To be a foundation upon which to base my convictions it must go the whole hog and explain life's origin.
@@peterbassey9668
Nope
By your logic math does not explain the origin of numbers so we can dismiss math
🤣🤣🤣
@@peterbassey9668 The word evolution means to evolve, change. It doesnt deal with the origin. People are not so smart, look at us, hairless apes with two pound brains. We dont know everything.
Hilarious.
Did he really just claim that proof of the age of the earth is because of the age of trees?!
Lol. That's what I heard.
Yes, this guy is so stupid. I actually hope that christians don't use this guy to argue their case, give us atheists at least a little bit of challenge.
This isn't even fun. it's like beating up a child.
He said that the oldest living thing on earth is about 4800 years old and fits the Biblical timeline for Noah's flood.
@@jbtex784 ["He said that the oldest living thing on earth is about 4800 years old and fits the Biblical timeline for Noah's flood."] I got it. He really claimed that the young age of the earth is proved by the age of a tree. Do people really buy this absurd stuff?
It shows the difference between science and religion. Science look at the scientific evidence to draw a conclusion. Religion starts with a predetermine conclusion and cherry picks data to support it.
By the way, if the earth was completely covered in water for 150 days, how did any of the land plants survive? And for that matter, how did the sea plants survive the dramatic change in salinity? The Bible claims that after the 150 days, Noah sent out a dove who came back with a live olive twig. I have personally researched it, but I don't think olive trees could survive 150 days under water, much less salty water.
@@jbtex784 Not really. The Biblical flood would have happened 4350 to 4550 yes ago. That means this tree was alive *before* the flood and would have been destroyed. The bible says nothing about Noah sheparding plants, much less tall trees.
I only had to watch this for a few seconds to know that this man doesn't know what evolution is or how science works and yet feels that he can talk with authority on the issue, utterly risible.
You are easily deceived.
Evolution: Defies the Law of Biogenesis: Life is observed only to come from living things.
Spontaneous generation has never been observed, "scientist".
Please cite your example of life coming from non-life.
Bonus question:
If the end goal of life is to reproduce why is the scientific need for sexual reproduction( which is extremely pleasurable) when asexual reproduction carried out that task just for fine for millions of years??
@@twistedtitan5485 to your first question my answer is I don't know but can tell you that the hypothesis of abiogenesis is outside the remit of the theory of evolution by natural selection and your second question would be better answered by an evolutionary biologist or you could research why sexual reproduction evolved on the internet, all the knowledge you desire/require about sexual reproduction is there, there are probably some really instructional videos on YT too.
@@twistedtitan5485 Life coming from nonlife is abiogenesis and not evolution. It makes perfect sense to me that as organisms became more complex and life evolved, sex also evolved to assure survivability. I think your sex question begs all kinds of interesting questions, like why did God make sex so pleasurable for homosexuals, the same as straight people.
Old Tjikko is an approximately 9566 years-old Norway spruce.
sorry - evolution not busted. Try again
Proof evolution...like a banana becoming something else.
@@I_renounce_satan yep, the Ray Comfort blunder of the millennium lol.
They should have quotations from Ray Comfort and Ken Ham and I would add Mike Winger and write a book on it. It would be the funniest book ever written
Evolution doesn't exist. There's nothing to bust. Try again.
You are right. Can't bust something that didn't exist.
There is no creative mechanism to natural SELECTION. If the word and it's meaning were a snake it would have bit you. You can't SELECT something that's not there. It does not create anything new. Only modifies what's already there.
Just like no one would ever argue the Rosetta Stone was a result of natural wind erosion, it's by definition, ABSURD to argue that a unique combinatorial sequence of 3.5 billion characters, much less human consciousness, naturally spawned out of someone's ballsack or that even that dudes ballsack doing the shooting somehow miraculously generated from a pool of primordial ooze.
This guy is living with his head in the sand.
And your common sense is out the back door.
_You_ came from a single cell. The species existing today didn't evolve into each other, their ancestral forms did.
So you believe in spontaneous generation...
You disavow the Law of Biogenesis, which states that life only comes from living things.
And yet we don't observe such a process nowadays.
Why not use "I" instead.
@@momchilpetrov5518 How can you observe something that already has happened?
@@georg7120 That's so convenient.
If The universe can just pop itself into existence and evolution happens over a long period of time, why can't we find the intermediate species? Why do we find only the initial and final stages? Isn't the next stage an optimization of the previous? Evolutionists say they believe in facts and evidence, but your level of faith in the unobservable is great.
Where did the information in the DNA come from? How could small machines in the cell like kinesin that have motors optimised to almost an 100 percent efficiency have evolved over time, without purpose, when all parts have to be put together to serve the intended purpose? Hmm...
Nonsense.
Nonsense like the universe creating itself of nothing? Lol
😂😂😂 your reply is nosense
@@ssozienock275 Why?
@@anilkanda611 Just like a creator creating himself from nothing.
@@georg7120 we are in space and time , God isnt , so tehnically we dont really know what He can be or not be (assuming he s not perfect) , he might be eternal , might look like a human , or just a light or anything really , maybe outside of space and time universes are being created by themselves , but not here , matter cant create itself in this universe or we would legit be in chaos , every good scientist believes the universe had a beginning so its alot more probable that a creator like God would be needed than it popping into existence from legit nothing
He twist the facts... Evolution in a particular sense worked because God was there.... It does not contradiction....