Tragically, Günter Bechly has died in a car crash January 6th, 2025. He will be remembered for his bravery in standing up to the scientistic establishment, as well as for his contributions to the ID movement. He left behind a wife and two young children. Let us pray for them. 🙏
As someone who has studied neoDarwinism for nearly 50 years, I can vouch for the accuracy of Gunter's presentation here. ..It's past time to abandon the Darwinian mythology.
Is that why he does no research and consequently publishes nothing in any respectable science journal any more. Is that why he works for a christian propaganda mill instead?
David Berlinski stated years ago when he was a wavering agnostic/atheist, and after investigating Darwinism from a mathematical viewpoint, "In the context that realistically portrays it for what it is: a kind of amusing 19th century collection of anecdotes that is utterly unlike anything we see in the serious sciences." "Here are some points you should consider as well: one, the theory doesn't have any substance. Two, it's preposterous. Three, it's not supported by the evidence." "David Berlinski: Rebelious Intellectual Defies Darwinism" (RUclips, spelling original, "The Incorrigible David Berlinski"). Refarding the Cambrian: he more or less states "it was the sudden emergence of species with no obvious predecessors: we've looked exhaustively for said predecessors.'
@@DavidvanVeen-v4p the first thing to know about evolution is that it is scientifically and mathematically impossible. After that you can imagine what you like like Darwin. He knew nothing about the complexity of the simplest cell, had no knowledge of DNA and his imaginings got the better of him in his ignorance.
I mean, we had one single-celled life form, and suddenly jumped to a multi-celled life form... If evolution was gradual, we should have two-celled life forms, three-celled life forms, and so on.... We don't even have eight-celled life forms 😅😅😅 We only have single cells living in colonies....
Imagine a Christmas snow globe. The liquid is the primordial "soup" always in the beginning of materialist's textbooks. The snowflakes are all the various chemicals necessary to "create" the first cell. They somehow come together to form the first cell? They call that science? Sounds like a fantasy!
organisms will tend to have been buried according to their location, i.e., sea floor first, and their mobility/ability to escape the deluge of sediment. Also removes the millions of years from the geologic column
That is the belief of the Jehovah Witnesses, but it isn't necessarily like that. There's a genetic link between species. What doesn't work is the gradualism, or at least the gradualism alone. This means that new species(probably in transition forms) came to existence from former species, suddenly.
Wat I find interesting is how you people slag of Darwin without putting aney other theory forwered it's easy to criticise no one is saying Darwin is one hundred percent correct but darwind research into finches beeks is indisputable on adaptshon to habitat evolution is real
So, life started simple and evolved to be complex through a very limited set of shared body plans. And there is a time when life was so simple it left no obvious trace. This is evolution, my friends.
Excellent presentation, though , revealing significant anomalies in the consensus model does not automatically suggest a vague reference to another model. Intelligent design is problematic for me as it is so vague a term. Does it mean an external creator god consciously creating life? If so, this is even more problematic for me. Especially since as a natural philosopher, I have, what I believe a more viable, naturalistic and somewhat more definitive explanation. What is Life? Every time they have a definition for it, they find an exception. Life, in my opinion, is both fractal as revealed by micro organisms and a continuum. When it comes to new life, only life can beget new life. The idea of abiogenesis is as absurd as a creator god. When it comes to the question of why there is life on Earth: it is because Earth is an organism, if not a super organism and is alive. If we ask the question why is there life in the universe? We come to a similar conclusion, because the universe is alive, and is the ultimate organism as coined by Alfred North Whitehead. To believe life, a highly structured order of things can arise via random events involving non living matter in a nonliving universe is not only absurd but highly illogical. On earth there is no line of separation between an organism and its environment. Would that make sense if the earth wasn't alive? As for the explosions of new life, I also have a possible explanation for that. James Maxlow argues in his Tectonic Expansion Hypothesis that magnetic data from the sea floor as well as geological and fossil records suggest Earth has not been relatively the same size throughout its existence as consensus theory argues but that the earth has expanded(grown) and was once 55% smaller in volume than today. The magnetic data suggests these periods of growth occur during pole flips which would require a great deal of electromagnetic energy most likely cosmic in origin. A smaller volume earth would also explain the mass of dinosaurs for on a smaller earth the gravitational effect would be less. Is this explanation a variation on intelligent design? I think not. Intelligent design suggests a conscious will at work, what I am suggesting is something that is autonomic, not conscious. As the Ultimate Organism the universe is no more intelligently creating us, as we are intelligently creating the microorganisms that inhabit our being, which for all intents and purposes is their universe.
Gunter: pro-god is fine. My understanding of paleontology, sedimentology, dating methods, and global stratigraphy suggests your arguments are interesting, yet not compelling. At least you don't push the childish '6000' year and 'flood' "answers." God [not YhWH] really likes insects (& dinosaurs)...
No, Guenther does not know his stuff. It is sad how far he has fallen from a scientific cutting edge that he never occupied (except for some dragonfly taxonomy). A short look into the genetics of development of traits (any organism) will refute his entire thesis from the start: for those who know how and where to look they can see transitions of traits in every phylogenetic tree. This is what cladistics is based on. There are plenty of examples how structures get bigger or smaller (physically) and most 'sudden changes' have turned out to be sampling artefacts (i.e. that the transitional fossils have not been found yet). It is sad that B is now following his own cult rather than contributing to the corpus of knowledge that is called evolutionary biology.
False. We can't even fashion an agreed taxonomy of extant fauna, how could we have a phylogenetic tree for extinct ones? We have done no such thing. That's not possible. No claimed transitional fossil is provably transitional at all..
as with most things in life, the answer is never simple or a simple binary. Evolutionary biology seems like the answer but has a lot key issues it does not explain information. Religion explains the information and purpose of life but does not tell you how things were created. We all need the Lord and thus have to look for him
The fossil record as seen in this talk show the assumptions of evolutionary biology are wrong, things appear fully formed and complex rather than gradually from previous simpler forms, so why would it disprove the bible? The bible says God speaks and things appear, darwinism says things gradually form, fossils agree with the bible.
All religions might very well be nothing but a bunch of myths. Which in no way neglects all of the shortcomings of darwinian evolutionary theory and evidence pool for Intelligent Design in biological nature.
So disingenuous! Nothing "appeared out of nowhere" what a baseless piece of misinformation. Often the periods are taling about are tens of millions of years with life forms that might have many generations per year. They evolved quickly, but not "out of nowhere".
Go browse Tolweb and discover the ratio of ghost lineages to actual discovered organisms some time. Hint: it's usually in the double digits. Can't imagine why they stopped supporting it 🤷
Tragically, Günter Bechly has died in a car crash January 6th, 2025. He will be remembered for his bravery in standing up to the scientistic establishment, as well as for his contributions to the ID movement. He left behind a wife and two young children. Let us pray for them. 🙏
Oh no!!! OMGoodness! Ugh.
As someone who has studied neoDarwinism for nearly 50 years, I can vouch for the accuracy of Gunter's presentation here.
..It's past time to abandon the Darwinian mythology.
Nonsense - this a statement of facts, and then a conclusion based on dogma.
This man definitely needs to be on every large podcast out there
We had him on our podcast recently, but we're not very large.
Hello Discovery Institute, more Gunter Bechly please.
We had him on our podcast recently!
Sadly he passed away this month in a car accident.... so sad...
*Everything explodes onto the scene with nothing before it and no link to anything after it.*
Sounds like my ADHD mind 🤔🤷♀️😂
No, that's not what happened.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu Wow! What a compelling argument! I sure hope you return to share more of your genius.
Günter knows his stuff.
Is that why he does no research and consequently publishes nothing in any respectable science journal any more. Is that why he works for a christian propaganda mill instead?
yes, evolutionists can't trick him that easy ...
@@martinjan2334 He is beyond help from any scientifically minded person.
@@k2024-b8n or maybe it's the other way around. It's the so called "scientifically minded" crowd who are suffering from The Dunning Kruger effect.
Sehr interessant, schöne Zusammenfassung. Vielen Dank!
A very well thought out and effective presentation.
I watched several from him, and this one is my favorite.
Im so glad to see Gunter active again!
Have you seen his debate with Swamidass?
He died in a crash recently
David Berlinski stated years ago when he was a wavering agnostic/atheist, and after investigating Darwinism from a mathematical viewpoint, "In the context that realistically portrays it for what it is: a kind of amusing 19th century collection of anecdotes that is utterly unlike anything we see in the serious sciences."
"Here are some points you should consider as well: one, the theory doesn't have any substance. Two, it's preposterous. Three, it's not supported by the evidence." "David Berlinski: Rebelious Intellectual Defies Darwinism" (RUclips, spelling original, "The Incorrigible David Berlinski").
Refarding the Cambrian: he more or less states "it was the sudden emergence of species with no obvious predecessors: we've looked exhaustively for said predecessors.'
Excellent content.
Keep up the good work
Excellent video! Enjoyed it.
Thank you for promoting Intelligence.
You surly are in dire need of some if you think this is science.
@@DavidvanVeen-v4p
You think science can explain everything?
lol
@@DavidvanVeen-v4p
Give me some examples from "not science" in the video?
Show us why it's not science (following the evidence) @@DavidvanVeen-v4p
@@DavidvanVeen-v4p You have no counter arguments.
Mutations degrade the already existing information.
Great talk that covers the key facts of life on Earth and how they clearly support intelligent design over evolution.
great video
I've never seen a squirrel turn into a rabbit
And you never will...you also will never come up with such dribble if you'd now the first thing about evolution.
@@DavidvanVeen-v4p Yes, the first thing is that microbe-to-man evolution is a myth.
@@DavidvanVeen-v4p
Darwin is dead!
@@DavidvanVeen-v4p the first thing to know about evolution is that it is scientifically and mathematically impossible. After that you can imagine what you like like Darwin. He knew nothing about the complexity of the simplest cell, had no knowledge of DNA and his imaginings got the better of him in his ignorance.
Thank you for this educational video!
I would love to see Gunther debate Creation Myths.
What is Creation Myths? Is that an organization?
He did debate Joshua Swamidass on ID recently.
Thank you for sharing the truth. Keep up the good work!
Wow, this guy is brilliant!
Many thanks!!!
R.I.P. Günter
Darwin's theory , it's not fact it's a theory, why would anyone take it as fact. I knew that when I was a teenager. Darwin even said as much.
The TOE explains a fact.
Epic wisdom
Nice!
I mean, we had one single-celled life form, and suddenly jumped to a multi-celled life form... If evolution was gradual, we should have two-celled life forms, three-celled life forms, and so on.... We don't even have eight-celled life forms 😅😅😅 We only have single cells living in colonies....
Imagine a Christmas snow globe. The liquid is the primordial "soup" always in the beginning of materialist's textbooks. The snowflakes are all the various chemicals necessary to "create" the first cell. They somehow come together to form the first cell? They call that science? Sounds like a fantasy!
If the layers are the result of the flood what are the implications?
The implication is that Roto-Rooter did not come into existence soon enough
that the flood was massive
organisms will tend to have been buried according to their location, i.e., sea floor first, and their mobility/ability to escape the deluge of sediment. Also removes the millions of years from the geologic column
That the flood was local and the earth is about 4.6 BYO
There are no large dinersawes above the KT bowendrey only below so
My guy!!!
So every few million years, God creates new species? Why would that be?
That is the belief of the Jehovah Witnesses, but it isn't necessarily like that. There's a genetic link between species. What doesn't work is the gradualism, or at least the gradualism alone. This means that new species(probably in transition forms) came to existence from former species, suddenly.
Your dislike for God's reason for doing things is not, in and of itself, evidence against him doing that. He's God.
Descent questions. But can't respect the non scientific process devoted to the magical conclusion. 🙄
Meat robots evolving by chance sounds pretty magical to me.
Wat I find interesting is how you people slag of Darwin without putting aney other theory forwered it's easy to criticise no one is saying Darwin is one hundred percent correct but darwind research into finches beeks is indisputable on adaptshon to habitat evolution is real
Change is real but limited
So, life started simple and evolved to be complex through a very limited set of shared body plans. And there is a time when life was so simple it left no obvious trace. This is evolution, my friends.
Nice hypothesis, where is the evidence?
Excellent presentation, though , revealing significant anomalies in the consensus model does not automatically suggest a vague reference to another model. Intelligent design is problematic for me as it is so vague a term. Does it mean an external creator god consciously creating life? If so, this is even more problematic for me. Especially since as a natural philosopher, I have, what I believe a more viable, naturalistic and somewhat more definitive explanation.
What is Life? Every time they have a definition for it, they find an exception. Life, in my opinion, is both fractal as revealed by micro organisms and a continuum. When it comes to new life, only life can beget new life. The idea of abiogenesis is as absurd as a creator god. When it comes to the question of why there is life on Earth: it is because Earth is an organism, if not a super organism and is alive. If we ask the question why is there life in the universe? We come to a similar conclusion, because the universe is alive, and is the ultimate organism as coined by Alfred North Whitehead. To believe life, a highly structured order of things can arise via random events involving non living matter in a nonliving universe is not only absurd but highly illogical. On earth there is no line of separation between an organism and its environment. Would that make sense if the earth wasn't alive?
As for the explosions of new life, I also have a possible explanation for that. James Maxlow argues in his Tectonic Expansion Hypothesis that magnetic data from the sea floor as well as geological and fossil records suggest Earth has not been relatively the same size throughout its existence as consensus theory argues but that the earth has expanded(grown) and was once 55% smaller in volume than today. The magnetic data suggests these periods of growth occur during pole flips which would require a great deal of electromagnetic energy most likely cosmic in origin. A smaller volume earth would also explain the mass of dinosaurs for on a smaller earth the gravitational effect would be less.
Is this explanation a variation on intelligent design? I think not. Intelligent design suggests a conscious will at work, what I am suggesting is something that is autonomic, not conscious. As the Ultimate Organism the universe is no more intelligently creating us, as we are intelligently creating the microorganisms that inhabit our being, which for all intents and purposes is their universe.
👍
Gunter: pro-god is fine. My understanding of paleontology, sedimentology, dating methods, and global stratigraphy suggests your arguments are interesting, yet not compelling. At least you don't push the childish '6000' year and 'flood' "answers." God [not YhWH] really likes insects (& dinosaurs)...
I didn't realize Devin Townsend was a fossil expert.
Rock star
No, Guenther does not know his stuff. It is sad how far he has fallen from a scientific cutting edge that he never occupied (except for some dragonfly taxonomy). A short look into the genetics of development of traits (any organism) will refute his entire thesis from the start: for those who know how and where to look they can see transitions of traits in every phylogenetic tree. This is what cladistics is based on. There are plenty of examples how structures get bigger or smaller (physically) and most 'sudden changes' have turned out to be sampling artefacts (i.e. that the transitional fossils have not been found yet). It is sad that B is now following his own cult rather than contributing to the corpus of knowledge that is called evolutionary biology.
False. We can't even fashion an agreed taxonomy of extant fauna, how could we have a phylogenetic tree for extinct ones? We have done no such thing. That's not possible. No claimed transitional fossil is provably transitional at all..
Also does Evolutionary Biology disprove Noah's Ark and Adam and Eve? If so is all religion just a scam or based on myths?
They are scams based on Mythology.
as with most things in life, the answer is never simple or a simple binary. Evolutionary biology seems like the answer but has a lot key issues it does not explain information. Religion explains the information and purpose of life but does not tell you how things were created. We all need the Lord and thus have to look for him
The fossil record as seen in this talk show the assumptions of evolutionary biology are wrong, things appear fully formed and complex rather than gradually from previous simpler forms, so why would it disprove the bible? The bible says God speaks and things appear, darwinism says things gradually form, fossils agree with the bible.
I won’t comment on your question. But your follow up sentence is simply a non-sequitur
All religions might very well be nothing but a bunch of myths. Which in no way neglects all of the shortcomings of darwinian evolutionary theory and evidence pool for Intelligent Design in biological nature.
So disingenuous! Nothing "appeared out of nowhere" what a baseless piece of misinformation. Often the periods are taling about are tens of millions of years with life forms that might have many generations per year. They evolved quickly, but not "out of nowhere".
Go browse Tolweb and discover the ratio of ghost lineages to actual discovered organisms some time. Hint: it's usually in the double digits. Can't imagine why they stopped supporting it 🤷