Did you know that a growing number of scientists doubt the Darwinian theory of evolution?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 фев 2019
- Over 1000 doctoral scientists from around the world have signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution. There is scientific dissent from Darwinism. It deserves to be heard.
Be sure to subscribe to this channel for more about dissent from Darwin's theory of evolution:
/ discoverysciencenews
What do you give a great scientist for his birthday when he’s already got everything? He’s got absolutely all the scientists behind his theory. All the media. All the Officially Smart People, as Jay Richards calls them. Well, today is Darwin’s Day, the birthday of the venerated Charles Darwin, whose theory is a fact beyond question. Right? The journal Nature assures its readers, “Scientists can treat evolution by natural selection as, in effect, an established fact.” Or as philosopher Michael Ruse wonderfully put it, “Evolution is a fact, fact, FACT!”
The insistence on this point encourages a certain skepticism, though. As others have pointed out, evolution is supposed to be as certain gravity, yet nobody goes around saying, “Gravity is a fact, fact, FACT!” and nobody says gravity is as certain as evolution.
Against this backdrop, Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture noted last week that the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism has topped 1,000+ names. Today, over at the Dissent from Darwinism website, we’ve added a birthday present for Charles Darwin, a video introduction to some of signers. Check it out!
As I’ve also pointed out, while that number surely represents a scientific minority, it also no doubt vastly understates the number of Darwin-doubting PhD scientists. When it comes to evolution, persecution is an all too well known fact of academic life. Endorsing Darwinian evolution is the safe careerist move, while questioning it can easily mean the end of your career. So for every signer of the Dissent list, there is some multiplier’s worth of private skeptics in science. That is beyond doubt. The multiplier could 2, or 10, or 100. Who knows?
“But scientific truth isn’t determined by lists of names, even of people who hold PhDs,” protests evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne in response. True! “It’s determined by the published work of scientists and whether it’s accepted by the scientific community.” Not quite true! The “scientific community” can be mistaken, dramatically so. See, “How to Think About Minority Science Views - The Case of Plate Tectonics.”
Where there’s a genuine controversy, as there is about Darwinian theory, anyone in search of truth has no choice but to weigh the evidence for himself. The observation that, beyond doubt, thousands of scientists are skeptical and encourage further “careful examination” of the question, is one reason every thoughtful adult owes it to herself to consider the evidence without just passively swallowing the majority view.
As John West notes, the consistently poor quality of Darwinist rejoinders to leading skeptics is another reason. The latest skeptic to demonstrate is Michael Behe, whose new book Darwin Devolves just got a really incompetent pre-publication review from the journal Science. How to celebrate Darwin Day? Pre-ordering Professor Behe’s book is another fine idea!
Check out these other videos exploring doubts about Darwin:
Biologist explains scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution
• Biologist explains sci...
Conversations with biologist Douglas Axe: When Did You Start to Doubt Evolution?
• Conversations with bio...
Conversations with biologist Douglas Axe: Where Did Darwin Go Wrong?
• Conversations with bio...
Share this video with a friend:
• Did you know that a gr...
Subscribe to this channel:
/ discoverysciencenews
============================
The Discovery Science News Channel is the official RUclips channel of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture. The CSC is the institutional hub for scientists, educators, and inquiring minds who think that nature supplies compelling evidence of intelligent design. The CSC supports research, sponsors educational programs, defends free speech, and produce articles, books, and multimedia content. For more information visit www.discovery.org/id/
www.evolutionnews.org/
www.intelligentdesign.org/
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter:
Twitter: @discoverycsc
Facebook: / discoverycsc
Visit other RUclips channels connected to the Center for Science & Culture
Discovery Institute: / discoveryinstitute
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer: / drstephenmeyer
The Magician's Twin - CS Lewis & Evolution: / cslewisweb
Darwin's Heretic - Alfred Russel Wallce: / alfredrwallaceid 
Наука
And thousands more would sign if not for fear of ridicule and loss of career.
Finally people are waking up
You understand that this is propaganda, right? ;-)
1. "sceptical questioning of Darwinian evolution should be encouraged" is a statement that ANY scientist would sign, simply because science encourages the questioning of ANY scientific model. Doesn't mean that everybody who signed it thinks it's actually false.
2. So many of the signatures aren't from scientists or experts in the relevant field. You might as well go out into the street and collect signatures from random people.
3. Look up Project Steve. You'll find more scientists with actual degrees win relevant fields that are called "Steve" (or a variation of that name) that consider evolution to be the bedrock of modern biology than you find people willing to agree that evolution isn't true.
4. Ever since this document was around to be signed by random people, evolution has only grown stronger in academic fields. This battle is lost for the creationist. All that remains is propaganda.
Sorry to tell you. But those are the facts ;-)
@@c.m.9369Keep telling yourself that.
Actually, I think this is an attempt to lull us back to sleep. I mean 1000 scientist is only 0.01136% of the population. And evolution theory has been carefully examined that’s how we know it’s true.
Plus we just all went through covid. That’s evolution.
@@c.m.9369lol, dawinian theory of evolution is the greatest nonsense
@@Shinnyuu2that's your assumption. Scientists agreeing to this nonsense theory of evolution are due to the peer pressure. Darwinian theory of evolution will be debunked with the further advancement of knowledge and science.
“I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science. It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaws and holes as sound parts.” -C. Darwin
In the realm of science there's nothing wrong with being skeptical of any claim lol science encourages skepticism science adheres to the truth
Any "truth" that a new discovery can render false was never a truth to begin with.
@@dararebreed There are very little scientific "truths" that cannot be rendered false if there even are any. Look at Newtonian physics that is still being taught in schools since it is a logical explanation of reality but it is based on a false theory. Science changes over time and every change gets us closer to the real truth but who knows if we ever really get there. So science does adhere to the truth, relative to current knowledge, and it moves closer and closer to a true objective truth over time.
well I am not 'sceptical' at all, mere scepticism is so wildly and weak-mindedly generous that I have thoroughly and absolutely never believed that a theory which boils down to the mere rolling of the molecular dice to produce anything meaningful whatsoever, let alone LIFE, in all its glory as we know it, has the slightest intellectual or philosophical validity in any way, form, or sense. Randomicity-to-life is simply preposterous, I do not spare it the energy to laugh at it, a mere smile of pity is all I will give it.
It's interesting how Darwin publicized his theory long before the discovery and understanding of DNA.
Makes you wonder how an intelligent man did not wait before it's discovery.
@@deistormmods It wasn't necessary for his theory. Read the book.
Speak louder!
there's a difference between doubt and not believing in
doubt is the material that makes up science
They said "further examination was needed". They didn't say it was fully wrong though.
Real scientist must be sceptical
Real scientists should tell the truth. Non life can't produce life. Full stop. Anyone saying otherwise is doing nobody any good including themselves. Full stop. Anybody able to prove me wrong? I'm waiting! Dare ye! Go on prove me wrong! Still waiting!!! Stop the crap. It's boring! Really BORING!!!!
The problem with darwinism is something darwin did not know about. Dna
Every cell even the lowest protozoa require dna to replicate. Dna is a complex biological softwate. In order for the first cells to stay alive and advance into more advanced forms of life they needed to be able to replicate, which requires dna. That dna could have spontaneously arisen for replication to take place requires a great deal of belief.
Not as much as it does to believecin a super being invisible and been around for infinity and knows everything but yet never shows itself to humans. Dna of neanderthals and denisovans is found in modern humans. How? We mated with them before they died out. Dna does not lie.
Evolutionists avoid this like the plague
The idea of natural selection is so clear and intuitive that once you understand the mechanisms you will never doubt it. Also backed up by the law of inheritance, genetics and countless archeological evidence. How these "scientist " manage to "woke up".
@@GingnoseI’m confused what u side u trynma argue for lol
@@Gingnosenobody disagrees about whether natural selection is real
so wth are you talking about
@@Harris19941 Evolutionists always muddy the water because they know their "theory" is both unscientific (literally does not fit the definition of a scientific theory) and wrong. More on the theory part: people may disagree about why things fall to the ground, or why the sun rises each day, but no one disagrees that those things happen, only the explanation.
A theory explains undeniable empirical facts, which evolution does not, evolution imagines facts and then imagines a theory that would explain those facts, but those facts have never existed. For evolution to be in the slightest credible, we would have had to see species become other species (and not a dog becoming a more specialized dog), which we haven't, not in the present nor in any fossil records nor in any experiments with flies or bacteria. Tbe facts evolution try to explain simply do not exist. You will always be wrong if you try to find how the person breathing and alive in front of you has been murdered, because she wasn't murdered, any weapon or motive you invoke will be wrong.
yea there are a lot of things that we have no idea how they 'evolved', like a spider's silk, or a kangaroo's pouch. or any external excretion organs, really, such as breasts. or the bombardier beetle, that literally has to mix two chemicals together in a very specific way to get any use out of its abilities...
*pugs exist*
Explain that
You just proved a few million people wrong in one sentence
How can I get a copy of that list?
Materialism is not science
It's easy for evolutionists to dismiss doubters as religious nuts -but there's a growing number of atheist/agnostic scientists who doubt/reject evolution, they deserve respect.
Recommended viewing: (on YTube) Ben Stein's *'Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed'*
OH my god this comments section is brutal, as someone that studies evolution and genetics, the point the the video is making isn't wrong. Darwinism should be questioned because there is a lot recent evidence that adds a layer of complexity into the issue of the the theory of evolution. HOWEVER this doesn't disprove the entire theory there is so much evidence that supports the theory, fossil records and genetic analysis can link closely related species with their hypothesized common ancestors. While we cannot observe macro or microevolution we can discover evidence for it. The recent evidence that is being brought into light does not disprove the theory as a whole but rather the claim that evolutionary is linear and gradual, and Darwin's view on the tree of life. This channel has been purposefully vague about what they are trying to disprove and has absolutely no actual facts or explanations on their claim.
So you're saying these scientists are misunderstood? -they DO believe in evolution, just not Darwinian evolution?
@31.Gün you're a med student at University and you deny evolution?
As one Computer engineer said.. There is so much information packed inside the Nucleus of the cell. It makes modern day computer drives look like Stone Age tablets..
So go figure. It has taken thousands a people with minds. To get us these Stone Age drives. Yet random mutations some how did it with Magic Pixie Dust... Better yet. It was Magic Crystals. I would laugh in your face so hard. If you ever tried that on me...
Genetic information comes from a mental source (indicating design and Designer) , not from blind, unplanned, mindless materialism , or physical laws and energy. Common sense.
As apposed to what? A magic man in the sky? That doesn't sound much more compelling. Or are you insinuating the "ancient astronaut" theory? Or is it just Darwin's specific version of evolutionary theory you disagree with and think it to be a slightly different form of evolution? What is your explanation for how life develops?
So tell me what is information? You know that even rock has more information than our DNA;)
its ok to be sceptical but specticism itself is not proof of anything and to break a theory you need a proof
*Evolutionists* : We are open-minded and everyone has freedom of speech
*Scientist* : I'm skeptical of darwinian theory of evolution
*Evolutionists* : Ur fired
False : scientists say "if you can disprove the scientific theory of evolution by Natural Selection using the scientific method and not just wishing it weren't true because your book says otherwise, we'll award you the Nobel prize for science and make you very very rich"
*You can see a sample of an evolutionist in figure a ⬆️*
Scientists created the theory of evolution
@@adviceforidevice4536 So you have no response to him 😃
The harm this theory has caused to people all over the world who believed their lives were meaningless and there was no real right or wrong because of this theory is immeasurable. I know, I was one.
Right or wrong do not depend on you believing in a God or not, most people have morals (or lack them) regardless of their faith.
You do not know that nature cannot create anything that differentiates between right and wrong @@matteomastrodomenico1231
Check out ''Theory of Everything'' by Trey Smith on youtube. Its a long watch but worth it.
I feel like I'm in good company here 😊
Cool
The evolutionary process must play out as follows if it was a reality. The individual atoms that form the body (that is lifeless matter) of the animal must possess a consciousness to be aware of what the body is, and be aware of the 'life' that is within the form/body. They must be self-aware of not only themselves, but their fellow atoms within the form/body. They must be aware of what life is and perceive the life within the form they compose. They must also be aware of what a healthy life is and what a life under stress is, and care whether it survives or not. They must also be aware of the external environment, what it should be in order to be healthy for the life within the body, and what changes it must have gone through in order to cause the stress of the life within the body, which means the atoms must also be monitoring both the life's condition, and the changing conditions of the external environment (and its effects on the body and life). The atoms must also be aware of what changes they must make to the lifeless atom-made form/body in order to restore health to the life (grow more hair in reaction to a colder environmental change). Now for the body to change form its DNA must change within its reproductive system to bring the corrective change, New information, new atoms for new genes, need to come from somewhere and be put in the right sequence within the reproductive DNA strand to bring the corrective change of growing more hair, needing to know what hair actually is in the first place, or why they are acting in a pro-life direction with the mutations, which requires, as does the rest of this, a consciousness present, which is the point that renders the evolutionary theory extinct, and shows the character of abortion as an abomination. It is obvious that all of these necessary conditions are not just impossible, but far and away from reality. Atoms do not possess their own consciousnesses, they cannot move, they cannot find new atoms for new genes somewhere and plug them into the correct position within the DNA strand, they are not self-aware. But this is exactly what they must be, and be able to do, if the Evolution theory is to play out. Impossible, impossible, impossible. This 'theory' inadvertently proves God's existence. When it is run backwards, and ends up arriving at the first atom in the evolutionary progression, the only two answers explaining where it came from are 1) coming from nothing or, 2) It had to be created out of nothing-by God. Since something cannot come from nothing the answer must be it was created by God. Ending the existence of the evolutionary theory.
An interesting idea. It would be very cool for atoms to have conscious thought although I'm sure life would be very different if they did.
Sadly this is not necessary for evolution to be true since evolution is the process of things changing over generations to better survive and adapt to their environment.
👍👍
Scientists : I'm sceptical
Darwinists : you naught naught
People are starting to see the light.
No, they are choosing to stay in the dark
Who's getting a tan now? lol ,, look you mean people are starting too see the truth ,
if you want truth to be light ? okay then but that is more metaphorical i guess
Truth can be HEAVY news, of war
Truth can be BRIGHT weather
Truth can be GREAT details being exposed
Truth can be WONDERFUL relief of knowing they made it home alive
Truth can be many things but it is always truthful
God Bless
@@matteomastrodomenico1231 only because of skin cancer ,,,
Light being referred as seeing , seeing being referred to as believing ,
you can still believe in the shade ...
@@matteomastrodomenico1231 Look who's talking.
evolution is a theory not a fact.
A scientific theory is a structured explanation to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world that often incorporates a scientific hypothesis and scientific laws. The scientific definition of a theory contrasts with the definition most people use in casual language.
"The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Emerson College in Boston. "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts."
Examples
There are many different examples of scientific theories in different disciplines. Examples include:
Physics: the big bang theory, atomic theory, theory of relativity, quantum field theory
Biology: the theory of evolution, cell theory, dual inheritance theory
Chemistry: the kinetic theory of gases, valence bond theory, Lewis theory, molecular orbital theory
Geology: plate tectonics theory
Climatology: climate change theory
You confuse scientific theory with hipotesa
@@The88Cheat lol bro scienticic theories are based on assumptions no one can literally go back in time and see did evolution happen or not. The evidence we talk about can be proven wrong in future because this theories are based on assumptions.
@@The88Cheat but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts." So scientifically speaking I can interpret, and say that this theory is wrong.
Evolution is neither a Scientific Theory nor a Fact, it the "GOD" of Atheism.
104 deslikes of new militants atheists fans of Neil Tyson degrasse
random things - it’s cool...without science, it is way easier to control people.
Enjoy your digital communication device that magically transmits info into the heavens and back down to earth by special fairy dust.
Good...
Evolution is really just as absurd as believing that Photoshop would have eventually coded itself, after a computer randomly got assembled out of thin air with all the components properly sliding into the motherboard beforehand, you know, randomly, and then just the right amount of electricity from a lightning strike powered it and over millions of years ('cause you know, need time to make it seem plausible) it became its final form... Except that doesn't happen, and never will. All known code comes from an intelligent mind, and in this case (at least), it is not bound by the limits of the world it controls. The same way humans aren't an actual part of the virtual reality that's inside the computer but can still act upon it, God controls the universe without being bound by time and space or anything in it. Everything was carefully coded at the beginning of time; that's exactly what DNA is, and much like how computer programs fail to work when their code is a mess, so does a creature.
Intelligent design is fact. Enjoy that.
Skeptical
50,000,000 years ago etc etc How can you know that?
The same way as asking; a crime was committed and no witnesses were present. How did they manage to track down the criminal and apprehend him/her?
It's called forensic science. Science gathers evidence then reaches a conclusion
'In the beginning...' How do you know that?
@@Testequip checkmate and some time they arrest innocent just based on their assumptions .
@@Testequip science is too wrong
@@ElUltimoLeviathan7901Science has achieved a lot in order to ensure your comforts and conveniences. You're haughtily biting the very hand that feeds you: science is the reason why we've remained upon the Earth for so long.
And their names?
Bruhh they literally showed part of the list scrolling you can pause and see names
Just click on the links.
It was always an hilariously illogical theory
Why is it sceptical?
So please provide a list of names and verified qualifications. And quotes in context, not just "I'm sceptical".
If you can't, then this is just a bunch of people saying "I'm sceptical"
اَوَلَمْ يَرَ الَّذِيْنَ كَفَرُوْۤا اَنَّ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَالْاَرْضَ كَانَـتَا رَتْقًا فَفَتَقْنٰهُمَا وَجَعَلْنَا مِنَ الْمَآءِ كُلَّ شَىْءٍ حَىٍّ اَفَلَا يُؤْمِنُوْنَ
நிச்சயமாக வானங்களும், பூமியும் (முதலில்) இணைந்திருந்தன என்பதையும், இவற்றை நாமே பிரித்(தமைத்)தோம் என்பதையும், உயிருள்ள ஒவ்வொன்றையும் நாம் தண்ணீரிலிருந்து படைத்தோம் என்பதையும் காஃபிர்கள் பார்க்கவில்லையா? (இவற்றைப் பார்த்தும்) அவர்கள் நம்பிக்கை கொள்ள வில்லையா?
(அல்குர்ஆன் : 21:30)
Adaptation is real and measurable, but no species has ever changed to a different one, small changes like a harder beak or thicker fur, to cope with environmental change or cataclysm and if you ask me even that is god lookin after his creation!! Darwin most likely observed adaptation but hungry to answer the big question he went as over board as man can and said his grandfather x 1000 was a sea horse!!!
What you are explaining is evolution.
PRAISE GOD THANK GOD FOR THESE SCIENTISTS COMING OUT
If god created us we would not have tech
If he wanted us to have tech we would be far more advanced
@@TiltedHandle these tech & science is actually improving & destroying the earth at the same time. God's creation is far better. I think God didn't create us for struggling to improve our lives. If He willed He could have given us the utmost technological & easier lives
@@TiltedHandle What is that chaotic logic? Oh my...
@@TiltedHandle this invisible being that nobody has ever managed to get actual evidence of besides feelings? No measurable evidence.
Husbandry/breeding proves greyhounds, wolves, and chihuahuas share a common ancestor.
It doesn't prove they are related to cats, mosquitoes, and bananas.
We dont need speciation for evolution to exits.
No, but DNA does.
God made the world and everything in it
when one person says something, its an opinion, when dozens say the same thing, its a script..... to be sure skepticism is necessary, be skeptical of anyone claiming to Know for certain what is beyond the purview of all of humanity.... however, people as a whole are fallible and accruing a collection of skeptics is now as easy as going through an appropriate amount of people, a numbers game if you will.....
Yeah, but these are not your "average Joe" skeptics.
It's a script that they all freely agree with.
It's a script that opposes the prevailing dogma, so by agreeing they are taking a big risk of damaging their careers.
This video is very helpful.
As with any case where there is skepticism and controversy, it’s on us to examine the arguments and decide. If we dismiss one side or the other without examination, then we have willingly chosen to be ignorant.
Evolution is not bulletproof. I think, that god created everything and Jesus Christ died for us.❤️
The theory of god creating us in seconds is not bulletproof too but I believe god created the universe and then let nature do everything else believe what you want to if its not stupid
🤔
Q: Who is God?
A: Jesus.
Q: Is Jesus the Son of Mary?
A: Yes.
Q: Who made Mary?
A God.
Q: Who is God?
A: Jesus.
Q: Is Jesus a newborn son?
A: Yes.
Q: who is his father?
A God.
Q: Who is God?
A: Jesus.
Q: Is Jesus a servant of God?
A: Yes.
Q: Did Jesus die on the cross?
A: Yes.
Q: is he a messenger?
A: Yes.
Q: who sent it?
A God.
Q: From God?
A: Jesus.
Q: Did Jesus pray when he was on earth?
A: Yes.
Q: Who did he pray for?
A: To God.
Q: Who is God?
A: Jesus.
Q: Does God have a beginning?
A:NO
Q: Who was born on December 25th?
A: Jesus.
Q: where is god?
A: In heaven.
Q: How many God is in Heaven?
A: Just one god.
Q: Where is Jesus?
A: He sits at the right hand of God.
Q: How many gods are there in heaven?
A: Just one god.
Q: So how many gods are there?
A: Just one god.
Q: Where is Jesus?
A: Sitting next to the Lord.
Q: Are you sitting in a chair?
🤔
I love Jesus (peace be upon him) but he wasn't killed though, he was ascended until the time when he'll come back to fight the false messiah.
Quran 4:157:
"and for their saying, “We have certainly killed the MasīH ‘Īsā (Jesus) the son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah”, while in fact they did neither kill him, nor crucify him, but they were deluded by resemblance.Those who disputed in this matter are certainly in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it, but they follow whims. It is absolutely certain that they did not kill him,"
ruclips.net/video/8aeOX8tLQKo/видео.html
And the proof of this 'god' is what? A book/series of is not evidence. Feelings are not evidence. Where is the measurable data? What is this being made of? Where are they?
Amazing arguments. Best i have ever seen. So scientific. Bravo! Bravo!
And why exactly are they sceptical?
max they do not believe that Darwinian evolution answers the complexity we see in the world. They are not saying it is intelligent design or that some God did it. They are just saying that the theory of evolution is flawed and should be questioned. They sign this petition knowing that just by questioning the theory they could be fired and ran out of their respective fields.
They are skeptical because, like any true scientist should, they have followed the evidence wherever it leads. Some of these scientists have written books that tell more fully their scientific reasons for skepticism. Three that I am currently reading that are excellent...
1. “Heretic”, by Matti Leisola who is the former dean of Chemistry and Material Sciences at Helsinki University of Technology.
2. “Undeniable” by Douglas Axe who directs the Biologic Institute in Seattle
3. “Zombie Science” by Jonathan Wells, a Ph.D. In molecular and cell biology from U.C. Berkeley
it is cool to be sceptical
to say, it is not even bad to be sceptical
but bad is if your scepticism is your only argument
@@onehappydawg wrong, it all begins at catholic university and they don't believe there is no god
Because they’re skeptics not real scientists, or more simply put conspiracy nuts to attached to their conservative beliefs to believe in actual science.
I've been skeptical about this for many, many years.
What is said is not that they’re skeptic about the theory but encourage skepticism about everything so nobody will take anything without thinking as fact
Random or chance is non sense when there is fixed time in the creation.
It's great to see this. I've been battling some Neo-Darwinists. Most aren't a problem, but one is particularly well versed. I need a solid reference/s which show not enough time has passed to allow for current biology to have evolve as it has via random mutation. Please just reply to this post. THANK YOU!!!
As a former atheist turned theist, I can assure you there's a mountain of evidence which forced me to evaluate my beliefs concerning the universe and its origin. If we're just talking about evolution and the formation of life, then I would point to the many paradoxes concerning abiogenesis (the water paradox, the oxygen paradox, the DNA-protein paradox, etc), the Cambrian explosion, the darwinian dilemma, the Galapagos Finch beak oscillation, and the one that was the nail in the coffin for evolution.. presence of soft tissue and a carbon 14 to nitrogen 14 ratio still present in dinosaur fossils supposed to be 65 million years old. All these topics require some study time, but if you want, I can help with that. Just lmk
just go with good old mantra "evolution is just a theory" works 100%
@@miikeV33 Did you actually study this stuff?
Because most of these arguments are based on ignorance.
revolutionary enlightenment! I'm your fan from Iran.
I can't understand why people get so worked out over evolution when they are missing the most important thing to question. The real question isn't evolution, the most important question is who programmed DNA/RNA? DNA is code, analogous to computer code, with complex sets of instructions to codify cell function, organs, etc. Without DNA/RNA the evolution taught in schools isn't possible. Mutations happen on DNA, and natural selection selects DNA code. Scientists may claim evolution is a 'fact' but the theories or hypotheses of the origin of life are not a fact, scientists do not know where DNA/RNA came from.
DNA is *not* code.
Code needs to be decoded using some arbitrarily agreed upon coding system before it can be used. But DNA is used directly, without ever being decoded. Neither does the cell have the capability of handling code, since code only exists in minds, and a cell doesn't have a mind.
(I am a C++-programmer, btw.)
DNA is a molecule and it reacts chemically, that's it. Don't read something into it that isn't there.
Yes, evolution exists as a matter of fact. A "fact" is an independently verifiable observation. Anyone can independently verify that evolution exists. (It of course requires that you understand what evolution is, and most people don't...)
God.
Very well said and it is another great argument to the other arguments I just posted on this site. Simple evolution theory is patent nonsense and does not stand up to even the most superficial of scrutiny
@@antiHUMANDesigns
May you enlighten us with the real definition of evolution?
It's God. Scientist today act like believing God and believing in Science are two contradictory things but really God gave us numbers and technology we just needed people to discover them.
Well done lads
Macroevolution simply does not stand up to scrutiny. Disgraceful it's still taught in institutions of learning. If you don't support Darwin you don't get grant money. It's always about money and pride.
I'm sick of Darwinism too everywhere. They hit it like idk what - that "evolution is a fact" - it's fucking not. It demoralizes and takes God out of equation, teaches children to act like apes therefore - kill, steal, party like crazy, have sex like crazy and cause emotional distress and problems + suicide to people. It's fucking time to wake up and push the news out - that we are NOT APES.
It's fucking humiliating and completely wrong. But sadly children get brainwashed.. oh Lord have mercy.
But why are they skeptical? What is the argument?
Common sense.
Tom Summa
Coincidence is that I just finished reading an anthology with 66 books written by 40 inspired writers that explains everything.However I have another book for you called In Six Days .It explains in detail why 50 reknown scientists,biologists,engineers,anthropologists and geologists have come to the conclusion that Gods word is true.Seek your arguments in this book.
Edited by John f Ashton Phd.
@@pleasesubscribe7659 You'd be correct! common sense alone can't explain how we came to life, that's why we have science and the theory of evolution .
Because we supposedly been here millions of years yet we haven’t evolved into Star Trek , and we haven’t see monkeys evolve into humans thats why
Jajaja
I was once an evolutionist and atheist until I was shown different, its hard to grasp at first. I am now a Christian, once you see the deliberate lies dawinists tell you don't even bother with their failed theory any more, its like the little boy who cried wolf. May Yeshua bless each and every atheist out there, for they know not what they do.
If molecule to man evolution were true then abiogenesis would necessarily have to be true as well. But since abiogenesis is not true it then follows that molecule to man evolution is not true either and has no foundation on which to stand.
Good to see scientists using their God given common sense. Darwin's theory of evolution has never been proven, aside from the fact it's absolutely nonsensical.
You don't 'prove' things in science. You prove things in mathematics. In science, you find evidence.
Firstly, the origin of life is related to abiogenesis and evolution relates to the diversity of life (origin of species). There are two possibilities viz. Evolution or Creationism. Evolution is a fact and creationism is a phantasmogorical belief.
To debunk evolution means to favour Creationism. There is no peer reviewed biological journal that does not support and extend evolutionary studies. SERIOUS scientific studies disputing evolution are all but non existent.
Kurt Wise, a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) has a PhD and an M.A in geology from Harvard University, has the following to say;
“Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young age creationist because that is my understanding of scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college. If all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that's what the Word of God seems to indicate”
(Kurt Wise. In Six Days: Why Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation)
As you can see, it does not matter what evidence is presented now, or in the future, it will always be denied by creationists. Akin to the evidence presented to flat earthers who constantly and consistently deny the evidence.
Kurt has already denied the current evidence. At least his an honest Creationist and categorically stated that present and future evidence will never be accepted. Well, there you have it from the horses mouth
Evolution is technically still a theory despite many passionately believing in it
That's incorrect. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a theory is in academia. A scientific theory is basically our contemporary understanding of a phenomena, not the phenomena itself. As a brief example, gravitational theory is how we explain how gravity works, but gravity itself is a well-established natural phenomena. Same for evolution. The theory of Evolution is our understanding of how Evolution works, Evolution itself is not a theory.
A theory is an explanation of observed facts. The only way to refute a theory is to prove it wrong with better science. You are confusing hypotheses and theory. A hypothesis is close to a wild ass guess, a theory is different and requires observation AND testing. ToE has been tested for 150 years with no outcomes showing it to be false. minor details have been revised as new tech came along and newer, better ways of testing and the discovery (as predicted by Darwin) became available. The overwhelming majority of scientists involved in any of the biological sciences understand that without the ToE we would still be in the dark about many things. Without evolution, biology makes no sense.
Not sure if you are a troll or not. A Theory is the highest form of proof you get in science! Also a Scientific Theory is not a belief. It is a model of how the real world functions.
Darwin's Theory of evolution, about how organisms have random mutations and the ones with the mutations that survives best in their environment is correct. The part where he was wrong was his theory of pangenesis because he didn't know that DNA existed. Offspring have features of their parents, but how? And just because scientists in this video are doubting Darwin's theory of evolution doesn't mean that evolution isn't real. And besides, where is the evidence to back up your claims about evolution?
And besides, where is the evidence to back up your claims about evolution? tell this to darwin
I don't even know if all these comments are bots or not. Sketchy af
we welcome you to electronic land would you like to invest in bitcoin Lmao ...
only joking but that was funny ...
That was cool.
I invite people here to watch the movie called: *Expelled: No reason allowed in science*
It explains that many scientists that objected Darwin's belief were expelled from their profession! After that movie you my man will know that Darwin's belief is a religious belief not at all scientific
Nah, just made me realize that some people really don't like being told that they're wrong.
@@matteomastrodomenico1231 You've just described disciples of Darwin.
i dont get you two whichside are you on
How would darwin even get people expelled lol
You’re right. Darwin wasn’t even a scientist to begin with! He lied, and now we’re worse off because of what he did.
I tried to understand evolution in school but it lacked any logic to me...
How can you relate a lion to a cockroach if evolution is true!?
THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING!!!!! And they say we believe in a fairytale. Even if evolution were real, it'd be theistic because there's no way the world just decided that it wanted life within it and it just so conveniently made billions of organisms to satisfy each others needs, form the food chain, etc
The world is too complex to be like the theory of atheistic evolution says. The theory of atheistic evolution first says that the universe was created by chance then again says that the by chance amino acids order themselves into meaningful sequences to create life. There isn't a genetic code before this to tell the amino acids to become something meaningful though. The heart had to be working at the same time as the lungs as and diaphragm while also having the liver work to filter blood which is also means the bladder had to be there. Male and female couldn't have evolved from the same organism because the other one wouldn't know how the other is evolving to develop body parts that fit exactly together. Creature stay in their same species. There are adaptations within species but not from a common ancestor. We will never find the missing link.
ruclips.net/video/ZVl_PvR4Bm4/видео.html
"The world is too complex to have a complex origin"
The fact alone that you recognize adaptation proves evolution.
Careful ongoing examination of evidence is the rule for all scientific theories. Pitting the theory of evolution against religion is one orthodoxy taking on another. Not Darwin's fault. Like Newton, the man was a Christian who did a lot of wonderful work.
If careful ongoing examination of evidence is the rule for all scientific theory then when findings are presented it should be presented as such and not as fact as it is so oftent the case. This 'Careful ongoing examination of evidence' sounds like a perfectly constructed cop out when science is proven wrong.
@@zalanahara270 I don't think science is ever proven wrong. Only one's interpretation of the evidence gathered through scientific study.
I am very skeptical too
Darwinism, a defunt theory and an ideological worldview.
There's nothing ideological about it
dude this youtube channel is literally an "ideological worldview", darwinism is merely and observation and is no way defunct
Bro darwin just give a theory any other proof will debunk that theory ok bro ☺️
@@BigBADSTUFF69what exactly is the observation
enlighten us
Ever heard of Project Steve? ;-)
I just hope Richard Dawkins stays alive long enough for his theory to blow up. Bang Bang!
Hope he lives long enough to accept God and obey him.
amen
@@dorcasmcleod9439
Richard Dawkins didn't come up with evolution and given the intellect of creationists, I give it a couple more centuries before they come up with something useful
*Intelligent design can be seen and is found under every rock nook and cranny. Remove that from any equation and it's pseudo science.* I'm subscribing to this channel!
When more than 1000 scientists around the world are sceptical with Darwin's theory and you are bashed for not believing it by someone who doesn't even study biology
It’s really just people wanting to be self-righteous trolls and cowards if you dare doubt something that Darwin was never around to witness. The human-ape theory makes sense but fish makes no sense at all and sounds like someone would pull out of their ass when they were drunk. To think people would so easily believe something they were never around to see and bully someone else for not having their same cult mindset is pathetic.
1000 scientists aren't a lot. Especially if most of them aren't even biologists.
while more than 90% of scientist know that evolution is a fact. 1000 scientist mean nothing
They are only skeptical regarding the MECHANISM of neodarwinism, but they are NOT skeptical that evolution happened! Don't be fooled
U can't explain Biology without chemistry
😇
Of freakin course. Its an outdated theory.
Intelligent Design can be found everywhere. Teaching the masses that something comes from nothing contradicts basic fundamental math which teaches 0 + 0 = 0, or nothing comes from nothing. I am skeptical too, and that is an understatement, great channel here!
جزى الله أبو أسامة خيرا
Onko täällä ketään suomalaista? 💙🇫🇮
Saatanan perkele!! Miten eksyit tänne
Evolution logic: How to create life? Put water, sand, mud, and everything you can find from nature in a jar. Then you shake it for 5 million years.
If there is any chance of something happening in the universe it will happen so if there is a chance of that happening it would happen
That's not evolution you're decribing.
Para quienes buscamos esclarecer las cosas, no nos contentamos con las versiones "oficiales". Buscamos las disidencias, las alternativas. Y si existen muchas y consistentes, abrimos la mente a explorarlas mientras que se debilitan los paradigmas tradicionales. Por lo menos, que a nuestros hijos (Jair) no se les atrofie la mente con creencias erróneas.
I'm skeptical that an inexplicable, all knowing, all powerful cosmic superman just poofed life and the whole universe into existence by sheer force of will.
...but He is explicable and He's not human, infact there is nothing or none like Him!
I'm sceptical that the whole universe could just pop into existence all by itself without any explanation...
Hahaha I'm sorry but, as a human I refuse to have a monkey or a fish as ancestor 😂 no sens
non scientist with opinions in the comments amaze me
Where can i see the whole list? It's nothing really interesting that some scientists are against evolution -it is expected, since scientists are also normal human beings and are thefore affected by society-, though i would like to learn their backgrounds.
Did you at least try going to dissentfromdarwin.org which featured in the short video? There on the front page, you'll find a button to "download the list". Not that hard!
The website is shown at the end of the video.
If they were merely "affected by society" they would adhere to the prevailing dogma.
These 1000+ are affected more by evidence.
Sir/Madam: The use of the word skeptical is their way of steady as she goes. They and who knows how many 1000s more scientists now BELIEVE it is laughable if it were not so sad. Money in pockets will trump the truth in any field in the world we live in. Anyone, yes ANYONE who has a basic bio-chemical knowledge will join the ranks if honest and has the guts. That includes you. And you say, as is standard, oh another religious nut. Say it after you have a good look through an electron microscope., or even watch Utube videos on DNA on molecular machines of the cell and use your GREY MATTER. Evo is impossible.
Just google it: descentfromdarwin.org/com. also, evolutionnews.org, There you could download the list.
Yes.we not from apes
The human-ape theory is one thing but fish is ridiculous garbage.
Im skeptical...
Existing species of complex organisms could not possibly have originated through natural selection. Besides which, why would God NOT influence evolution? Then, too, there is all the evidence of design - and design requires a Designer.
God doesnt need evolution to create something. He Can just talk it into existence
Pretty much similar with Einstien's Time Dilation myth.
Natural Selection is not random. Most mutations are neutral and there ARE random mutations. Certain genetic traits gives certain organisms an edge over their counterparts, depending on the enviorment. Certain genetic traits are weeded out of the gene pool due to the lower chances of survival. Any traits that promote higer survival chances whether mutual or beneficial, changes the genetic frequencies down generations, thus that is Evolution. I can give examples if anyone wants to reply. Now Natural Selection isnt the only mechanism that causes evolution. There's sexual selection, and Artifical selection, like man made domistication or cultivating. Dogs and bannahs are a perfect example of Artifical Selection. Look how different dogs and bannahs have evolved differently from their wild ancestors.
But can a banana evolve into a dog if you just give it enough time? Do we have any evidence that random mutations are capable of creating a new organ or the circulatory system for example? This also assumes that life can evolve from dirt. I have yet to see any scientific evidence for any of this.
Dog begat after their kind and so do plants. Variation in genes. Darwinian evolution is main topic of evolution. Which is still gene variation I think. The contentious point is gene variation can bring forth humans from fish, fish from bacteria. And at some point supposedly bacteria from inorganic molecules. Before that torrential rain on rocks eons ago. Im not science major, anything more complex I'll will fried my brain circuits.
@@Carnivorousplantyum Not at all, because that is not what evolution is whatsoever. What ever you are talking about is magic. If a bannah ever became a dog, that would defy every law of Nature and Evolution. You've been taught wrong
@@naturalLin You are absoultly wrong. Again. It is impossible for some creature to turn into another "kind". All life on Earth are modified versions of everything in our Ancestry. We do not descend from bacteria. They are on a separate lineage, however we may descend from common single celled ancestry. For an example. Dogs are modified Wolves, Wolves modified canines. Canines are modified Carnivores, which are modified Mammals. Mammald are modified vetebrates, which are animals, and Animals are Eukarotes. Dogs were always wolves, wolves were always animals, which are a collection of cells with a nucleus that has been modifying through DNA replication for 3.5 billion years
@Quintus Caepio There is nothing to avoid because there isnt any hidden intelligent overlord dictating the "Natural Process Of Evolution". When we say Natural Selection, we dont mean Mother Nature is LITERALLY selecting what lives and reproduces, and what does not. Its just that nature is extrememly difficult for life to survive, and enviorments always change. Certain genetic traits gives certain organisms a better chance of survival than organisms with unfit genrtic traits. The ones that gives the most favorable odds, pass on their genes to descendants. Anything that can make a species faster,.stronger, or even more inelligent. Evolution isnt always progressive. A species could evovle to be weaker, or slower or even less intelligent. Theres so much to explain for those who dont get evolution
You should be skeptical. Skeptical doesnt mean to disagree.
I would say scientifically, that this data set is biased from an evidential standpoint. After all, if you don't include the number of people who believe in evolution, then how can I be in any degree certain that the percentage of scientists who are skeptical of evolution is changing, and not the total number of scientists as a collective?
Darwin was full of it!!!!!
Einstein: "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
And yet Einstein never said this.
Even my 11-year-old son gets it saying: "if we come from apes, who's an ape in my family?"
Kids are logical.
Well they believe it is a ape common ancestor not an actual ape.
You obviously have no idea of taxonomy
Y I K E S
They've exchanged the Truth of God, for a Lie.
Nice editing but I can't see how being sceptical is being a dissident
No they are just keeping the volume down Joan. Study a bit of biochemistry and you will be more than just a dissedent.
It might not be a dissent now but you will begin to see more and more scientists join the list. There always have been many scientists who do not believe in evolution but they have been too scared to publicly express that because if they did they would lose their funding or worse lose their job.
Joan it is dissent only in light of the response of the greater scientific community to it. If the greater scientific community embraced the scientific method, i.e., following the evidence wherever it leads, and refrained from insisting ahead of time to only consider materialistic explanations, then the skeptics would not be seen as dissidents. They, instead, would be seen as pioneers who lead the way in questioning everything, including the status quo. They follow in the footsteps of Copernicus, who argued against the “scientific” status quo of his day, that the earth was the center of the universe.
look up james tour
LOL
There are also scientists who believe in a flat Earth.
The difference is simple:
The shape of the earth is observable, repeatable, and testable.
Common ancestry is an assumption based on insufficient fossils and small-scale examples.
Everyone can believe in the common ancestry of dogs because breeding/husbandry is a thing.
However, saying that proves phyletic gradualism is a step too far.
No there aren't actually I mean unless you classify somebody with a RUclips channel as a scientist