Can you explain why you are removing comments from this page?

@KenJackson_US

2 жыл бұрын

KZread frequently removes comments that express opinions they disagree with. It's much easier to win arguments if you can just delete what your opponent says.

@xdcmagicker

2 жыл бұрын

@@KenJackson_US When I 1st landed here I was surprised to see almost no dissenting voices. However, I thought it would be fun to kick off a discussion. After getting no response I checked in incognito mode and surprise, surprise my comment was gone. I should not be shocked to see this level of deceit but I have to say I was rather taken aback. I spent hours pulling that info together.

@loricalass4068

2 ай бұрын

@@xdcmagicker they have the right to do whatever they want with their channel. If they want to get rid of trolls, then they get rid of trolls. What are trolls? People who just want to start a fight, or who really don’t understand the issues, or who even hate the truth. Why let them clutter up things? People who think they get to do and say whatever they want regardless, are suffering from something called entitlement.

@crabb9966

27 күн бұрын

​@@xdcmagicker youtube does this automatically, it's AI

Isn't it funny how every single piece of information presented here is based on the findings of careful scientists, based on the robust system of the scientific method, yet trying to disprove the actual theory which allowed those scientists to come up with this information? It's like using the formula E=mc2 to mathematically prove that Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong.

@jonkettell4321

3 ай бұрын

We all have the same evidence, the same facts, the same information. What we disagree on is the inferences made from the evidence.

@vladtheemailer3223

2 ай бұрын

​@jonkettell4321 that's called postmoderism.

@TrevoltIV

Ай бұрын

That's called letting the opposition debunk itself. It's good science.

@bellottibellotti9185

23 күн бұрын

So go ahead lay out the evidence that proves evolution

@bellottibellotti9185

23 күн бұрын

​@@TrevoltIVso lay out the good evidence

Can we get a video about ERVs (retro viruses)?

Abiogenesis is a failure

@hxhdfjifzirstc894

2 жыл бұрын

The best scientists in the world could take all of the freshest organs from newly deceased humans and re-assemble them in perfect laboratory conditions -- and never would they end up with a living human... let alone starting with mud and electricity.

@Golfinthefamily

2 жыл бұрын

@Latrodectus James miller Urey isn't even really accepted much anymore. The chemicals used don't follow early earth conditions (as they have found) and when they did the experiment without glass, it did different things. Miller-urey doesn't get us abiogenesis, as it is still nowhere near life.

Interesting how many comments are missing. It will say "view 4 comments" and when you click,, only one. Why so many comments removed?

As usual, an excellent presentation of information.

Your argumentation is along the line: oh we have discovered a 4000 thousand old pyramid over there but since we haven't discovered individual brick that means pyramid just spawned there. Fossils are incredibly hard to make since you need an array of conditions for it to be possible. And since a "hard" body part is one of the preferable one's you won't be having many fossils before Cambrian era since those were (most definitely) soft body organisms. And even despite of that, many so called transitional organisms have been found. And also how does this prove intelligent design. "Science can't prove/disprove it therefore god" is not an evidence of god.

@promisesrkept

2 жыл бұрын

You seem to have accepted the religious beliefs and claims of the modern evolutionists. There is no evidence of transitional forms but the cultic claims are often taken by faith.

@cameronosborne7405

2 жыл бұрын

The intermediate fossils should outnumber the fossils we have already found showing full species at every strata that is the problem. For every fossil discovery at a given layer on the earth, there should be innumerable intermediate fossils at the same layer. Your comparison to the pyramids would be better worded as something like "The pyramids were built 1 million years ago, yet no humans were around when it happened, so who built them?" That would be an equitable comparison to the intermediate fossil problem. No transitional fossils have been found, just variations within a species. You need to find fossils that show how major organs, limbs, regulatory systems, etc gradually appeared, and how at each intermediate step of producing these new novel features on an organism were functional and necessary for survival at each step. The resulting picture should be truly grotesque, if all of those necessary intermediate organisms actually existed.

@digitaal_boog

2 жыл бұрын

Tl;dr The absence of one thing does not prove the existence of another.

@stueve

2 жыл бұрын

The problem for the Darwinian theory is that not only have the intermediate fossils that Darwin hoped for not been found, but what has been found in the fossil record has made Darwin's dilemma more acute. Even if it's true, as you suppose, that Cambrian pre-cursors generally have unpreservable soft bodies that we shouldn't expect to find, you're left with an argument from silence, not science. We have indeed found soft body organisms preserved in the fossil record, though - even in the Burgess shale. Darwin's theory should link, for example, the hard-bodied trilobite to its soft-bodied precursor through a series of transitional forms. Not all of these transitions should be soft-bodied. This video is a critique of Darwinianism. There was no attempt to "prove" intelligent design. Proofs exist in math and logic, not historical science.

@dewbye63

2 жыл бұрын

James Tour

If I were Satan, I'd be thinking about showing up as aliens around now

@mikem2809

Жыл бұрын

One way satan can use to spread his lies is to make us think aliens are a thing. Another is to confuse the Word of God. Both are prevalent today and both are easily debunked. Eg google nazi ufo and factor in 85 years of nazi research into these crafts.

Where is the evidence that scientists opposed Darwin’s theory for findings that species were evolving all of a sudden? To be clear of what I am asking, what scientists were saying that and what exactly did they say?

@08:12 Good question. If u will make a viable answer u will get a Nobel prize. As time are passing by, and we get better and better tools, we find MORE and MORE fossils categorized as new species. At the time of Darwin we barely had any specimens of the extinct ape species, yet now we have dozens, DOZENS of hominins species. Scientist can't really make a good classification model of species, BECAUSE of evolution, because they are too entangled. With an intelligent design would be effortless We know, EVERYBODY knows, that animals change to adapt better. If u think that there is a limit, PROVE THE LIMIT. This IS THE ONLY THINK you can do to disprove the one common ancestor which is an extrapolation from adaptation. U can talk all they long about trilobites, the fact is, they EXISTS, and the most important in a layer where u CAN'T find any other more complex creature. This are FACTS, make your own conclusions. Because intelligent design, as u propose it, doesn't make any logical sense. U can't explain trilobites, u can't explain fish that spend most of their life out of the water, mammals who spend all their life in the middle of the ocean, laryngeal nerve path, how much stuff contains DNA in regards to different animals and how much resemblance have based only on their body structures and functions (which also as a FACT we know that's not directly corelated), The evolution theory model today is much more refined than that of Darwin Origin of species idea, and we keep updating it to make a much more precise model of our reality, but till then just by telling lies will not overthrows it. And again it's A MODEL, its not the truth, but right now it's the best model we have and we use it to make predictions with it and it WORKS. (Ex Oil industry). PS. Gradual change does NOT EQUAL linear change. When u bring out sudden changes u contradict linear change NOT gradual change. Gradual it only means small steps, not necessarily the same rate. And if would put a little tough behind it, u would conclude that because changes are selected (be it natural or artificial) it's painstakingly obvious that the speed is DETERMINED by PRESSURE. And just because in grand scheme of history of earth, 6 millions of years is anything but small. I mean ffs, we made so many changes to dogs in just a few centuries, don't contradict common sense.

@richardpoljan4971

2 жыл бұрын

I grew up breeding animals. Evolution is esentialy natures breeding program. This guy has it right. Cambrian Explosion completely discredits Natural selection and Evolution as an explanation for the origin of life.. Just like Darwin said it would. Props to him for being a good enough scientist forsee the undoing of at least part of his theory. That is top notch! But the story in more Complicated than "Darwin was wrong, HaHa". 1: What they call "species" in the fossil record is completely made up. We have no idea which animals could successful breed with each other. Fossil hunters would have to call hot-dog dogs a different species from Great Danes. But they are the same species in real life. 2: Racist animals: Believe it or not there are many animal species that can successful breed with each other, but chose not to. The best example of this is reef dwelling fish. Most of the fish that you will see on a reef can fertilise each others eggs. They just chose not to. 3: Convergent evolution: Where environmental factors drive multiple spices to look similar to each other. Mules. Donkeys and horses are very different anatomicly. Yet they can breed and produce mules. Mules were thought to be infertile. But we have examples of mules reproducing healthy and fertile foals. Thus recombinant species are possible. 4: Parallel Evolution There is also the case of the Russian Sturgen (Caviar) and the American Paddle fish. These species of fish look completely different and have been isolated from each other for almost 200 million years. Yet when breeders accidentally fertilized caviar with Paddle fish sperm, a hybrid batch of fish was born. These hybrids were able to reproduce and seemed to be Quite vigorous and resistant to disease. This should not have been possible. Yet it happened. The way I see it either God created the animals (and probably multiple batches of them at different times). Or Aliens are out there playing galactic Johnny Appleseed with us. No other explanation fits the evidence.

@echo2302

2 жыл бұрын

Contradicting common sense is the basis of creation theory. No evidence, no proof any kind, not even a hint of god's existence and yet they talk about it like it's the obvious truth. And the worst part is that here they are trying to disprove the actual science that has empirical data to back it up, with their own "science".

@The_Lord_has_it

Жыл бұрын

Those dogs will ALWAYS just be dogs tho no matter what evolution has to say. Everyone is always looking at nostradamus and his vague prophecies and at the same time denying hundreds of prophecies that came true in the bible. Some in minute detail and relying on previous ones to come true first. The city of tyre was destroyed exactly in the way it says and was written hundreds of years earlier. The temple in jerusalem- destroyed with not one stone left on top of another and the Jews dispersed to the four corners of the earth. And then usual becoming a country again after 2000 years. In one day, just like it says. And then it's people returning to their land. There's so many. Anyone that grew up before the internet, social media and technology that's seen how things have accelerated (like birthing pains in the bible), can attest to what's happening in the world. Morality has practically flipped. There has to be something there. How about klaus Schwab and the one world order? That's ok the bible. There's a one world religion foundation opening 2022 in Abu Dhabi. No God, just Gaia, care for the environment, and above all putting your faith in govt to care for you and tell you what to do. There are a lot of fake Christians out there but the ones that have believed in our hearts (that's the key. It really is), have seen our lives changed. It's also crystal clear everything that's happening in the world. I hope maybe your heart isn't hardened enough that you can't see something's a little off. Look around. Ask the Lord to show you. Be sincere and mean it. Ok, that's all I got (for now). Have a great day and may God bless you and lead you to salvation. 🙏

@MrDuckskin

Жыл бұрын

Information theory. DNA and the information therein doesn't appear out of thin air. Natural Selection, does exactly what it sounds like and nothing more. It can only select Genes (biological information) that already exist. It doesn't create or evolve anything. You can mutate and lose information, or get deformations. But never have we observed a positive mutation that isn't a coincidence of loss of information being subjectively helpful. Therefore if we cannot observe it, it is not science, hence a religion. I would suggest a cult since guys like Hitler took and ran with this idea and caused uncountable terrors and loss of life.

@AchHadda

5 ай бұрын

You need to prove the assumption of common ancestry first, secondly how life started to

brilliant.

But in the 150 years since Darwin's publication, we have found a number of intermediate species....more and more with each succeeding decade....

@ExNihiloNihilFit319

2 жыл бұрын

Yes and no, there's a lot of speculation in homology. I'm not a denier but a skeptic.

@JamesAsp

2 жыл бұрын

@@ExNihiloNihilFit319 No we haven't found any intermediate species. Just because one animal is a forefather to another animal, they are still within same kind. Birds can through adaption create many different kinds of birds, but they are still birds. Dogs (wolfs included) can be breed into many kinds of forms, but they are still dogs. If the difference becomes big enough, procreations doesn't work, as with horses and donkeys into mules. They are usually sterile. Exceptions exist but put one extra generations in there with more differences and they can't breed either. There seems to be a barrier for when adaptations are not possible after a certain limit. Edit: Sorry, meant to David.

@dobrien51

2 жыл бұрын

@@JamesAsp where is this supposed barrier? You know that “birds” constitute thousands of species. And tens of species of canids and felids. Were they all separate creations by your god? ‘Fraid not. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Read something besides whatever holy book you prefer.

@Diviance

2 жыл бұрын

@@JamesAsp Actually, we have found nothing BUT intermediate species. Every single fossil is an intermediate species. Because all of life, at any given time, is in an intermediate stage. You are simply wrong. In every way.

@roqsteady5290

2 жыл бұрын

@@JamesAsp the fact that horses and donkeys have sterile offspring is precisely an example of speciation and how evolution works in that respect. In the past horses and donkeys had a common ancestor, but different parts of the population developed along different lines, probably due to isolation from each other. Those different sub populations are what became modern horses and donkeys. And incidentally the only reason dogs are all considered to be the same species although big dogs and little dogs could not possibly interbreed is because there is a breeding pathway: little dog to medium dog to big dog. But if you killed off all medium dogs, big dogs and small dogs would actually be different species this is called a hybrid swarm. You see species are a human classification not something that is really out there in nature. So no there is no limit that keeps animals from mutating too far from their ancestral forms and really if you imagine there are not many examples of evolutionary progression then you are just plain wrong and can easily remedy that with 10 minutes on Google.

I’ve been researching evolutionary theory for quite a few years now and I’ve been investigating alternatives such as ID in my quest to make sense of it all. As more and more information is presented and new discoveries are made, it becomes more and more apparent that evolution as an explanation for the diversity and appearance of life on this planet just doesn’t make any sense. As a former atheist, I now see that such a world view just doesn’t withstand scrutiny any longer and, looking back, it really never did. The only obstacle that evolutionists have between their ideas and the truth is a stubborn refusal to accept a creator. I know all too well how difficult that leap is to take. The implications just seem too profound to embrace.

@DamianSAAAN

2 жыл бұрын

You studied this in university?

@chanseyinthehood8415

2 жыл бұрын

Well i see no evidences for rejecting an hidden omnipotent being influencing genetics mutations, even though it's an unnecessary hypothesis given that we know mutations happen all the time. But i just don't want people to call it "intelligent", when all i see in our body is a fantastic mess : most people suffer from backpain because the designer, if he exist, thought it would be funny to make our spinal chord curvy, we sometimes get killed by the own cells that are supposed to protect us, our eyes are so bad in their function VR games designers can fool it to make us walk in circle while we think we're going straight. What's more about the eye, this designer choose to make some nerves pass in front of the photoreceptor cells, whereas Octopus don't have this problem. And i didn't even mention how dumb some insects' life cycle are, or the fact that there's actual marine organism that have nothing but lungs to live underwater.

@amhariqbal2524

2 жыл бұрын

As an theist myself what made you accept a creator

@rvcamping863

2 жыл бұрын

@@chanseyinthehood8415 Your objection is not a scientific one but an emotional/spiritual one. "Why did God make me this way?" is a question of identify and purpose. Life is the pinnacle of design. Engineers envy the designs in life wishing they can replicate such designs. But you point out a real issue with this existence: Why is there pain and suffering? Why is there death? Why and I alive then die? Why is there such suffering? Why are humans so hateful to each other? Science cannot answer any of these. You have to look outside of science to answer these.

@daverobson3084

2 жыл бұрын

@@rvcamping863 " Life is the pinnacle of design. Engineers envy the designs in life wishing they can replicate such designs. " Hahahahahahaha! Good one. Wait. You were serious. Okay. Let's see. There are living things that can fly( Birds. Bats. Insects). Given your claims we should endeavor for our own DESIGNED flying machines to top out their altitude at 37,000 feet( The highest recorded flight for a bird). That would be our goal. But wait. Even our airplanes can go to 96,863 feet. That's not counting space craft, which can go higher. Well. Then . Certainly there are animals that we strive to match the speed of for our designs. So we dream of one day achieving a flight speed of 200 miles per hour( the fastest recorded flight for a peregrine falcon, the fastest known bird.) And yet we have barely achieved speeds of only............mach 6.7( 4, 473 mph, or 22 times faster than the bird). And our spacecraft can go faster. Surely then the fastest land animal, the cheetah, which can run about 70 mph, can outrun our best land vehicles, the fastest of which top out at a paltry ..........763 mph.. No. Wait. That's ten times faster. But certainly the fastest swimming animal can easily outpace our fastest nautical designs. I mean the black marlin( the purported fastest swimmer in the world) can go about 80mph, while our feeble achievements merely achieve.....nearly 320 mph. Only 4 times faster. Sure. There are things that some life forms do better than our artificial stuff, but, we often can out design life. We have made heavier elements( which do things natural ones don't) than nature, as far as we can tell. We make machines that go faster, higher, and longer than life forms. The hottest temperature achieved( created) by a life form is about 100 C by the bombardier beetle. But we make machines that create heat of over 5 TRILLION C.

It's really clever that our intelligent designer thought it would be appropriate to give us too many teeth for our mouths, and a nerve that loops around a major artery of the heart despite only needing to go from the brain to the larynx, and sinuses that have to work against gravity which leaves them susceptible to infection, and a mechanism in which our pores raise when we feel cold, despite us not having enough hair on our bodies to retain significant heat by doing so, and a tail bone, and to make the DNA of all organisms in such a way that mapping them out shows a tree, and to make fossils of creatures like the tiktaalik (in between fish and land animal) and archeopteryx (in between dinosaur and bird), and australopythicus afarensis, homo habilis, homo ergaster, homo erectus (creatures that succeeded each other and became less ape like and more human like), and to make the bone structures of some wildly different species very similar (humans, dogs and whales have slight variations of the same arm structure), and to make the embryos of all vertebrates have gill slits, and to make creatures that live their entire lives under water, yet have to come to the surface to breathe. Our designer sure was trying to make us think we evolved but we're smarter than he thinks haha. Cheers truth seekers, for we are better than the scientists.

@pharmagator

2 жыл бұрын

Boy are you brilliant! We are so lucky!

@JamesAsp

2 жыл бұрын

Abdel oh boy... There is a big reason we question evolution and that is because all the things you mentioned as good evidence for evolution in your post has already been debunked as proof for evolution... You are just starting to dig into this topic.

@abdel4455

2 жыл бұрын

@@JamesAsp How have they been debunked, and if so then why is it still the scientific concensus?

@Alexander-the-Mediocre

2 жыл бұрын

@@JamesAsp Debunked by who? Citation needed. But I bet its no biologist or scientific papers....

1. "Slowly" and "Gradually" does not mean "with the same speed". That speed will depend on the speed of change in nature that governs the natural selection. Sillies. 2. Quoting Darwin on possible doubts on his theory is like quoting Max Plank on his doubts on the principles of Quantum Mechanic. Yeah. we know the electron don't spin around the nucleus. 3. Compare the "Darwinian argument from silence" to the silence from the so called "intelligent designer". LOL. 4. So what are the facts of intelligent design? mum's the word, I guess.

Actually, two years after Darwin's death, that very intermediate evidence was found: Archaeopteryx, QED!

@hazeyswayze9910

Жыл бұрын

what you can choke to death buy eating or getting cancer or your immune system killing you by eating a peanut. Adam and Eve were created in gods image but broke his trust causing them to be human with disease and illness

@silentvoice6737

Жыл бұрын

that was turned out to be a big lie

@Dawkinsbulldog

Жыл бұрын

@@silentvoice6737 Be grateful if you could show where I can check out your claim. But, please, don't direct me to a Creationist or ID source, okay!!

@chrisschilling7585

10 ай бұрын

​@@silentvoice6737 All twelve fossils from that species? They're all lies, are they? Why, you must be a paleontological genius!

@chrisschilling7585

10 ай бұрын

@@Dawkinsbulldog He has no source. He pulled it out of his arse, or more likely some other creationist's arse. But they may have got it originally from Fred Hoyle. I understand Hoyle made some strange claims about the fossil specimen in London's NHM allegedly being a forgery.

1. "That new species appear suddenly and abruptly", no, not at all. if perhaps you are referring to de cambrian explosion then not really. the cambrian explosion refers to a RELATIVELY sudden and abruptly increase in abundance of fossils. this "explosion" lasted around 13000000 to 25000000 years which is RELATIVELY fast and not overnight. in the cambrian shelled and armoured animals like bivalves and arthropods emerged and proliferated, prior to the cambrian soft-bodied animals, which are hard to fossilize, dominated. thats the transition, from hard to fossilize pre-cambrian soft-bodied organisms to cambrian organisms with easy to fossilize hard structures. 2. the problem with the fossil record, and darwin was well aware of it, is that fossilization is a rare process, only a very few organims out several end up fossilized which makes the fossil record rather spotty. yet enough fossils have been found to have a clear enough picture of how organisms evolve up to this day. 3. "the abrupt manner in which groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations"? does this imply that it is a fact that different groups of animals appeared at different times? 4. indeed, the fossil record is spotty. this is well known and is also well known why. most organisms do not fossilize. 5. intermediate organisms have been found, even in darwin's time. similarities between theropod dinosaurs and modern birds have been noticed, thus it was hypothesized that there should be a representative of such transition, an intermediate between bird and theropod, a bird with unfused finger bones and a teeth. not long after archaeopteryx was found. it was also hypothesized that there should be a representative of the transition between fish and tetrapods, then tiktaalik was found. it was known for a long time, way before darwin, contrary to the ego of some people that humans are apes but it was not known why that is, the theory of evolution gives an explanation, organisms chage little by little over the generations and all species today are different lineages descended from a common ancestor, humans have a rather recent common ancestor with chimpanzees. since darwin, way more fossils have been found and we know way more about the evolutionary history than he could at his time. 6. again, we have indeed found fossils of intermediate species,such us: archaeopteryx, sinosauropteryx, cryptovolans, sinornithosaurus, rahonavis, yanornis are examples of species between theropods and modern birds; panderichthys, tiktaalik, acanthostega, ichthyostega are examples of species transitioning from fish to tetrapod; aegyptopithecus, proconsul, afropithecus, paranthropus, kenyanthropus, australopithecus are species from human evolutionary history; and so is the case with horse evolution, whale evolution, elephant evolution, crocodile evolution, octopus evolution and so on and so on. you just have to do a little research. 7. "20 animal phyla made their appearance within one single geological period", when would the other 15 phyla have made their appearence? 8. although scarce, there are precambrian fossils prior to the cambrian, such as dickinsonia, kimberella, tribrachidium, foraminiferans and colonies of bacteria. 9. there is evidence of life prior to trilobites. the 75 seconds is just a comparison, the time span you are claiming is still 6000000 years, which is 20 times the time humans have existed on earth. 10. with the cambrian several phyla emerged. during this period there only early representatives of these phyla existed, representatives that are no more and have been long replaced with their descendants. there were no starfish nor dragonflies nor any species of today existed during the cambrian and none had a literal sudden appearance 11. the science of evolution has, like any other scientific discipline, also made huge leaps in the past century. the "explosion of animal forms" is figurative. 12. do you mean that species are discovered all the time. true, new species are discovered all the time, that does not mean however that new species appear out of nowhere, they simply were there till someone noticed them. pretty much all species today have representatives in the fossil record that links them all together at some point in time. you are wrong. the theory of evolution, stronger than ever, is the foundation of modern biology pretty much all evolutionary history is known and represent in the fossil record, from bacteria to early multicellular life, from chordates to fish to tetrapod, from the ocean to land, tetrapods turning into amniotes and then splitting into synapsids and diapsids, synapsids becoming mammals ans diapsids diverging into lizards, turtles, crocodiles and dinosaurs. mammals diverging into marsupials, ungulates, carnivorans rodents and primates and dinosaurs becoming birds, in summary and omitting a lot of branchings. no organism ever popped out nowhere as you imply

can you outline what are the central points of creation theory? that is missing from this presentation. what is it, how it aligns with the observations that we see. for example does creation theory hold that all species were created and coexisted at the same time, but some of them are extinct? the creationists really should lay out their theory.

@richardpoljan4971

2 жыл бұрын

Hopefuly this will help you out.. Creationists have gotten hung up on the whole "6 days" thing for a long time. 6 days of creation is Ludacris in our current understanding of time. Our understanding of time keeps changing but, that is a LONG story (Time passes more slowly the closer you are to Black hole). The basic argument is we believe that God created the universe and everything in it. The earth, plants, and Animals were created in separate batches (days for easier compression by middle eastern shepherds 5000 years ago). The Fossil record backs this order of creation up with evidence. And disproves evolution as the mechanism for creating life. Now, Breeding is still a real thing ( who knows what birds looked like 300 million years ago?) Animals can change appearance but their family line stretchs back to the original Animals created by God.

@warrenarthur4902

2 жыл бұрын

Bear in mind that identification of a problem needn't be bundled with an alternate solution, when the limited size of a communication medium or event is a reality. There are multiple alternatives in this situation, and many would not count as "creationism", as is it commonly portrayed at least.

@GORF_EMPIRE

2 жыл бұрын

We have a faith that God created everything. We can no more prove that then anyone can prove evolution on a macro scale unless you use deep time as a crutch...which proves nothing.

@iranpop80slover

2 жыл бұрын

Lol there is absolutely no way they can come up with a description that would consistently match with observations of the universe

@philblagden

2 жыл бұрын

This is an Intelligent design (ID) channel so most people here are not young earth creationists, although I am. So I will give you a my synopsis. Most creationists believe that God created all living creatures (or their ancestors) in the first week of creation. He didn't start with a bunch of lifeless chemicals or even RNA/DNA or a single-celled creature. We believe that many basic types of creatures have changed over time and diversified into many sub species but that the basic types do not change from one to another. Fish did not become tetrapods, and in fact the fossil layer supports that Tetrapods existed before Tiktaalik (their supposed ancestor) for example. Dinosaurs also did not become birds, and it is now widely accepted that Archaeopteryx was a perching bird and not a dinosaur evolving into a bird. Two key missing links blown out of the water in recent times. Creationists, in contrast to both evolutionist and advocates of ID, believe that the majority of the fossil layers were laid down in quick succession, during the time of Noah's flood. We believe that the fact the soft celled creatures who could neither swim or walk or crawl effectively got buried first (in the supposed "oldest" layers) supports the flood and creation, rather than provides evidence for them having evolved first. The fact that fishes come next and make up a majority of the world's fossils is interpreted as showing that they were unable to swim or crawl upwards through the mudslides effectively rather than this proving that they pre-dated all other creatures by a long time period. Marine fossils found at the top of some of our highest mountains is also a strong indication of the global flood. The fossil record shows no evidence whatsoever of transitions from invertebrates to vertebrates, even among fish or other sea creatures. We also see fish in the Devonian layers with supposedly advanced features such as the ability to give birth rather simply lay eggs and wait for them to hatch. The finding of "recent" mammals like rabbits in the same rock layers as dinosaurs also puts the evolutionary timeframe in serious doubt. See also discovery of dinosaur soft tissue, blood and even DNA. There isn't a plausible scientific reason why all of these components could be preserved for 65 to 70 million years even in the coldest conditions. We view the discovery of over 30 living fossils as further proof that the evolutionary time frames are dead wrong, and also as proof that despite years of changes and mutations, that creatures and plants and trees have not changed as significantly as you would expect if the supposed evolutionary time frame was true. We look at the density of creatures found buried in so many layers of the fossil record as proof of a mass extinction event, namely the flood. You only have to research the number of Nautilus found buried per square meter in some parts of the Grand Canyon and the diversity of their ages at the moment of their burial to verify that a cataclysmic event took place. The same can be said for dinosaur remains deposits so often bundled together to see that their death and rapid burial in mud was not a small event. We view the lack of signs of erosion between rock layers as a lack of evidence for long ages and proof that in most places, the layers were deposited in quick succession. We view the events during and after the eruption of Mount Saint Helens as proof that given the right conditions that multiple rock layers can be laid down in a short space of time. Also, that coal, or at least low grade coal can be formed relatively quickly as seen in Spirit Lake. So these process, given the right conditions do not require millions or even thousands of years to occur. Carbon dating of coal and even diamonds also supports the fact that these compounds can be formed quickly and are not as ancient as supposed. We view radiometric dating as an imprecise science to say the least. It makes many assumptions which cannot be proven. When used in rock dating, we often see different types of radiometric dating in the same rock layers give massively different results showing differences of over 1.5 billion years. Also the discovery of polonium 210 halos and studies of Helium diffusion both indicate that under certain conditions that Uranium decay can be accelerated. So to summarise we see a complete lack of animal, fish and bird types changing from one to another. We see lack of any evidence for evolution from invertebrates to vertebrates. We do see mutations giving rise to new species (which we view as a subdivision of type and not a new creature) sometimes giving rise to adaptations affecting function. We also see many creatures having no evolutionary ancestor such as bats, dinosaurs and many others. We see creatures having advanced features in rock layers where they were supposed to be early prototypes of their kind. We see mammals with dinosaurs and dinosaur remains remarkably well preserved. We see Palaeontologists like the late Stephen J Gould completely at odds with molecular biologists as to the mechanics of how evolution is supposed to have occurred. This proves that the fossil record does not show gradual change. We also see long debunked lies appearing in textbooks or even in scientific journals as proof that evolutionists are clutching at straws trying to prove this theory. Take for example Ernst Haeckel’s drawings of supposed similarities between human embryo's and those of other creatures - still appearing in Irish science high school textbooks 80 years after they were proven to be faked. See also the often repeated lie that human and chimp DNA is 98% similar or just 1% different. The difference is more like at least 20% and this does not bode well for proving that we have a common ancestor given the massively increased number of mutations required and the supposed time frame. This also highlights another problem for evolution and that is the fact that macroevolution can neither be proven nor falsified. So it is much more of a dogma than a theory, and there is little or no honest questioning and re-evaluating of this theory permitted despite the paucity of evidence in its favour.

This isn't anything. The reasons species quickly appear is that, when a new niche opens up, animals are quick to adapt to it. Therefore, after large extinctions and other events where a bunch of niches suddenly opened up, new species appear quickly. This is basic science, and all of you are living in ignorance

@silentvoice6737

Жыл бұрын

so why we don't see any new species appear thousands of year ago?

@silentvoice6737

Жыл бұрын

what are the prove?

@FOSHIZZELL100

10 ай бұрын

This is shortsighted. Radiation evolution is definitely addressed in this video, nor denied. He references that in the geological evidence the phyla count on earth suddenly increases a significant amount during the Cambrian period, a blink of an eye in the history of life on earth.

@AchHadda

5 ай бұрын

So this claim need to be proven

Crossover of the century! Thank you Lukas and Discovery! نشكر الرب لهذا الفيدو

I am completely convinced with Intelligent Design. No question in my mind. However, if the fossil record shows abrupt and sudden introduction of species, what is the reasoning behind that? Does the Designer just "dump" new information into nature and suddenly new species appear? I'm not doubting, just looking for the answer. Thank you.

@xjarheadjohnson

2 ай бұрын

Even the Catholic Church is discarding much of its own myth, in favor of well-researched understanding & real-world observations. *Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God is not 'a magician with a magic wand'* _"Speaking at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pope made comments which...put an end to the “pseudo theories” of creationism and intelligent design..."_ SOURCE: INDEPENDENT, Adam Withnall Tuesday 28 October 2014 10:43 GMT

@VictorHugoAlvarez-tc4tg

2 ай бұрын

New Species When?????

@blusheep2

Ай бұрын

@@xjarheadjohnson What a worthless response. You just copy and pasted an earlier comment that doesn't address the man's question in the least.

@blusheep2

Ай бұрын

Any answer here would be speculation. The speculation is that God guided evolution. When we say a new species suddenly appeared we aren't talking about over night. We are talking about geologic scales of time. So a million years is a very short amount of time to witness these changes.

I wish i could see the dislikes ok this video 🤣🤣🤣🤡

@digitaal_boog

2 жыл бұрын

Eh you can see the ratio. Look at the number of views to the number of likes

@GORF_EMPIRE

2 жыл бұрын

@@digitaal_boog Wrong... you assume that EVERYONE even bothers to like or dislike.

@GORF_EMPIRE

2 жыл бұрын

Ah so you lean on a logical fallacy? Since when has popularity proven to always be the truth? Now that's clown.🤡

Darwin answered the question long ago. Fossilization is very rare, and preCambrian fossilization is essentially so rare that it consists in .1% of the 10% of fossils that survived from 4% of all the species that have ever lived. He said that as long as fossilization occurs very rarely, it does corroborate his theory. Lots of links have been found, and yet they are continuously discounted. Lots of forms of life weren’t “created at once,” but rather are simultaneously changing, and intercommunicating their alterations through a collective unconscious. This theory wasn’t developed at the time of Darwin because Jung had not made it yet. Anyway, it has been observed that the psyche has instincts, deeper animal instincts we inherited. There are even physical structures (like the Notochord of early fish as a precursor to spinal chord/brainstorm.) Occasionally, some fossils got preserved, but most did not. Different Phyla DO have similarities with eachother, Eukaryotic cells. Flies and Elephants are horrible examples of ‘anomalies’. They are so incredibly distantly related, that they have BECOME different phyla. Phyla easily exploded because life found 20 ways that work ASAP, and expanded upon them. The Caelocanth’s existence only corroborates Evolution because it shows that when change is not needed, not much changes. When a great amount of change in the environment happens, organisms are forced to adapt faster. Natural selection is a combination of Selective breeding, which can be observed directly, and molecular mutations, which also can be observed directly in a molecule, called DNA which is the backbone for all known life on EARTH. There’s a whole lot more to this than missing bones. Tell me this someone, why can’t intelligent design and Darwinism be fused in the sense that Evolution is driven not by a random process, but by the direct will to transcend itself, the Will to overcome its self.

@JamesAsp

2 жыл бұрын

But that will to trancend itself says then that there is an intelligent force in it or behind it. How else could it have a will? How did that will arise if so is the case? That will is what believers then would call God.

@psychedelicearth1239

2 жыл бұрын

@@JamesAsp Yes I agree, there is some sort of force behind/within it and it could be argued that if there is a God, then that is it, the totality of both the constructs of the living and the livers. If it were, it would be All or nothing, and so All that, being the forces and the intelligence behind the forces, and the source of intelligences of ourselves: They all are the same energy and that pulsing unimaginable matrix is the Designer and vessel of the design. An experiment with a crow that got stranded on an island ended up in the crow choosing to change its Selectively breeding habits, and create an incest bloodline so that it received attributes that were beneficial(adapting to the seeds on the island) until it became a identifiably different species. Would the crow KNOW how to do that or the physics behind it? Or does the DNA know that intrinsically? Or is this something ONLY God knows, then somehow is acted through the crow by means of its subconscious? I think getting this deep will lead us at least closer to understanding it than assuming someone is necessarily “pulling the strings” when I feel like even a creator could only act indirectly, not from a comfortable palace somewhere in the beyond, but “the journey is the destination” kind of thing. Just my take on it

@michaelwill7811

2 жыл бұрын

Origin: Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance kzread.info/dash/bejne/iWWTraePkabfkaQ.html One in 10^164... The estimated age of the universe (13 to 14 billions years) is not even remotely long enough for one protein to have formed by chance, much a less the large number of proteins need to form the simplest life and all those proteins being formed at the SAME TIME so as to combine into a living organism.

Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859. The reason that you have to try and argue with a nearly 200 year old book is because you can’t disprove the mountains of evidence across hundreds of thousands of modern studies. The constant association of evolution and Darwin and viewing On the Origin of Species as the Bible of evolution is something only “Creation Scientists” do. The book is almost 200 years old. Lol.

@patprr1756

2 жыл бұрын

That fairytale for adults ( Evolutionism ) is well and truly finished .

@richardpoljan4971

2 жыл бұрын

Dude come on, you've got to admit something is fishy here. Breeding only gets you so far. And as far as I know humans have never been able to force species differentiation in a lab. That is spooky because there are incects and protists that reproduce many times per day. Take those Trilogies. If they reproduce 3x per year how many generations is that over a 6 million year window? 18million. How are you supposed to go from zooplankton to trilobote in just 18million generations? There's not enough time, even if you assume that everything goes right.

@richardpoljan4971

2 жыл бұрын

You only try to belittle other people's arguments when you think that they might be right. But you don't want them to be😉

@redletterdays8534

2 жыл бұрын

Are you really arguing that using the primary source is not appropriate? 😅😅😅 Let’s give you the benefit of the doubt, and say you’re smarter than both Darwin and the guy who made this video… please enlighten us, and tell us why Darwin’s doubts were unfounded, and why the video creator’s argument is irrelevant.

@loganwillett2835

2 жыл бұрын

i find it interesting that rather than use these “mountains of evidence” you speak of to refute the position taken here, you just claim that darwin’s works are too old to critique. but that doesn’t make sense because darwin’s work is still taught and is foundational to the evolutionary theories taught today. so you can’t just disregard darwin’s work when his specific theory is still being taught. and that’s the whole point of the video, the intermediate forms his theory was reliant on have not been found. which is why i think you didn’t list your supposed evidence, you just critiqued the approach here in the video.

A question for intelligent design. Why do many species of mammalian males have mammary glands and nipples?

Evolution should be referred to as evolutionism. It is religion.

@katamas832

2 жыл бұрын

Give me a non-overbroad definition of religion that matches Evolution. I'll wait.

@rydrakeesperanza5370

2 жыл бұрын

Nope. A religion requires among other a belief in a higher being, which is non existent in the theory of evolution.

1:00 "Darwin`s Hypothesis" isn't it a Theory by now or was it still a Hypothesis of Darwin while it is different in the Theory of Evolution?

@kijul468

2 жыл бұрын

It is theory by now, What Darwin proposed at his time would have been a hypothesis back then and now evolution is a theory and includes a lot more that Darwin's natural selection.

His tree of life shown is incorrect.

@betawithbrett7068

Жыл бұрын

Hey Stephanie, in what sense is it incorrect? Since Darwin's Tree of Life idea was his theory based on his idea of various animal groups, if someone's sees variations of the animal arrangement, it is not about correct or incorrect, since it is a theory unsupported by the fossil record, but rather a different animal arrangement on the Tree of Life theory, no?

'Transmutation' is Lamarks theory of evolution that Darwin criticised and is completely different from mutation and natural selection, you misquoted Darwin at 9:58

@OneVoiceMore

Жыл бұрын

You misspelled LaMarck. Do better, pretender. He didn't MISQUOTE Darwin... words mean things. Names are spelled a certain way. They are NOT completely different, as Darwin and LaMarck both believed environment could produce change EXTERNALLY in a single generation. So maybe sit down and shut up pretending to know something.

No, Darwin was not "making an argument from silence" when he said that the reason they hadn't found transitional fossils was because the fossil record was incomplete. If he had said "the fossil record is incomplete, and that proves I am right about evolution," THAT would be "an argument from silence". But that's not what he said. He said that the fossil record being incomplete only meant that the absence of transitional fossils DID NOT DISPROVE his theory of biological evolution. That is not an "argument from silence"; it is an invalidating-of-someone-else's-argument, from silence.

@benstr8156

Жыл бұрын

So where are the monumental finds of transitional fossils? (Silence)

Excellent presentation! Thank you!

This is great! I'll be back for more. This is like Dr. Meyers' Book come alive. Thank you for a clear concise presentation.

Because trilobites appear fully developed in the Cambrian Period, it appears likely that the ancestral trilobites originated during the Ediacaran Period (630 million to 542 million years ago) of Precambrian times. Oops....

@zenuno6936

2 жыл бұрын

'appears likely' Nice evidence you got there. And if you had it for one species, you'd still need it for the millions of others that pop out of nowhere.

@OneVoiceMore

Жыл бұрын

I laughed out loud when you suggest the real EVIDENCE (trilobites appear fully developed in the Cambrian Period) is belied by your idiotic GUESS that the ancestor exists, undiscovered, and unconnected..... There is NO APPEARANCE of ANY KIND that your guess is real, or a gotcha. You sound stupid and dogmatic. Show evidence, instead of your religious dogma. "Our Theory is INVISIBLE, and requires no proof."

I love this video. Its basically "if i quote mine enough, and ignore enough stuff, the opposing sides stance makes no sense! Im amazing!" Funny how after 200 years you have to argue with a dead guy cause you know that the evidence of current biology is just impossible to dismiss.

@blusheep2

Ай бұрын

Its my guess that you didn't really watch the video all the way through before posting this comment. The proponents of ID are not anti-evolution. They have issues with "Darwinian Evolution," which is evolution that is explained through the mechanism of Natural Selection. When it comes to the Origin of Life, there is "evidence of current biology [that is] impossible to dismiss."

If evolution is true, we would expect the fossil record to be this flawed. We do not expect to find a fossil of every transitionnal form. But we still find some. For example, we have a great understanding of how whales became marines species, whereas their ancestror were only swimming land mammals, because we found "transitionnals forms" of thoses species in the fossil record. Pakicetus is anatomically similar to Maiacetus, which is anatomically similar to Georgiacetus, which is anatomically similar to Basilosaurus. They are more and more adapted to an aquatic life, as shown by the evolution of their limbs and middle ear bones. But given that the fossil record is flawed, and that we lack many evidences to present a proper lineage of those organisms, we just say they're similar and try to build a phylogenetic tree. We don't say that Basilosaurus ancestror is a member of the Pakicetus genra, because we *know* the fossil record is flawed. So we don't assume that some fossil is a "transitionnal form", because we don't have a way to know if it is part of the lineage of a given organisms (i think it doesn't apply to micro-organism, where the exact lineage can be retrace), but it sure does have a common ancestror.

@Golfinthefamily

2 жыл бұрын

Will you watch this video (and the 2 other response videos to critics afterwards? Whale evolution doesn't work. kzread.info/dash/bejne/qaWT0bufpKSYn9o.html

@chanseyinthehood8415

2 жыл бұрын

@@Golfinthefamily I've watched it. I've learned nothing knew. Fossil records are flawed, as we expect them to be as fossilisation need very special conditions to occur. I don't know about the genetic point, i didn't manage to find the article about how a Homo sapiens population could only fix 2 beneficials genetic mutations in their genomes in 200 000 000 years.

Did you know that Charles Darwin lived in the 19th century and quite a bit has happened since then that supports evolution?

@hxhdfjifzirstc894

2 жыл бұрын

This is not quite true. Fundamentally there is a difference between microevolution and macroevolution and it's simply incorrect to conflate the two. There is a difference between adaptation to current conditions and changing from one species to another. You can choose to look deeper into the subject with an open mind, or you can mindlessly repeat whatever you have been indoctrinated with.

@kijul468

2 жыл бұрын

@@hxhdfjifzirstc894 Except microevolution leads to macroevolution. Microevolution is not adaption at all. Microevolution is variation within a species. Adaption is defined pretty much as natural selection. Macroevolution is evolution on or above the species level. You have a species and there's a small amount of variation in populations within a species that get separated and continue to build these small variations until they keep accumulating in each group and not being shared between the groups until enough variation leads to an inability to interbreed. Maybe you can choose to look into it on the actual side of actual science instead of you mindlessly repeating whatever you have been indoctrinated with.

@gandysweet4288

2 жыл бұрын

@@hxhdfjifzirstc894 agreed!

Intermediate forms do exist think ambulocetus, pachicetus, indoheus archeopteryx, dorudon and so on they have been discovered after Darvin

@abdel4455

2 жыл бұрын

Dude, don't even bother. I have no idea why this guy thinks there are so many holes in evolution when evidence from the fossil record, DNA, vestigial structures etc. are undeniable and the theory still sits firmly at the core of biology.

@Deinonuchus

2 жыл бұрын

I was going to say something sarcastic about crocoducks, but there are enough people who swallow that crap that someone might think I was being serious.

@shadowmax889

2 жыл бұрын

@@abdel4455 we should bother. The fact that there are people that do know better is enough reason to debunk on the comment section of any creationist video

@patprr1756

2 жыл бұрын

@@abdel4455 Hell bound God hating reprobates , are incapable of knowing facts .

@patprr1756

2 жыл бұрын

Not one have been found and never will be found , they simply don't exist.

I feel like genetics works more like an on/off switch. Most creatures have the ability to adapt to a new environment, but cant become a new species entirely. I think we can see this, most situations where youre told of an animal adapting, they can easily adapt back into their original environment. Even something like growing a bone, with that fish example if youve heard of it.

@megabeaver23

Жыл бұрын

The reason why they become a new species is due to speciation events in which two or more groups become separated from one another and start to diverge as there are no longer interbreeding between each group. Species never stop being part of the previous group they were before but are recognized as diverging from other modern populations. This has been seen in flies, geese, goats, all livetsalk and in lab animals.

@sailoroftheinternet3290

Жыл бұрын

@@megabeaver23 darwins finches are a perfect example of that

@killerbee6484

9 ай бұрын

​@@sailoroftheinternet3290they still the same type of birds with different adaptations

@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440

6 ай бұрын

You guys really need to study Biology.

3:07 Quote mind, who would've thought. The video had such a promising start, but the dishonesty gotta start SOMEWHERE I suppose. The full quote: "As on the theory of natural selection an interminable number of intermediate forms must have existed, linking together all the species in each group by gradations as fine as our present varieties, it may be asked, Why do we not see these linking forms all around us? Why are not all organic beings blended together in an inextricable chaos? With respect to existing forms, we should remember that we have no right to expect (excepting in rare cases) to discover directly connecting links between them, but only between each and some extinct and supplanted form. Even on a wide area, which has during a long period remained continuous, and of which the climate and other conditions of life change insensibly in going from a district occupied by one species into another district occupied by a closely allied species, we have no just right to expect often to find intermediate varieties in the intermediate zone. For we have reason to believe that only a few species are undergoing change at any one period; and all changes are slowly effected. I have also shown that the intermediate varieties which will at first probably exist in the intermediate zones, will be liable to be supplanted by the allied forms on either hand; and the latter, from existing in greater numbers, will generally be modified and improved at a quicker rate than the intermediate varieties, which exist in lesser numbers; so that the intermediate varieties will, in the long run, be supplanted and exterminated." Darwin often leads up to certain problems by first presenting the case and ending it with a question, THEN he proceeds to explain WHY that's not an issue. This is the same thing with the eye quote of his, I guess there's a trend here. Tl;dr: There are far less intermidiate organisms than normal forms, and thus we shouldn't expect to see them everywhere, and we'd expect to see them in lesser numbers. 4:06 No, he was making a prediction. Like most people in SCIENCE do. Predictions are the STRONGEST aspects of a theory. If a theory can predict future findings, that's a pretty good theory. And of course, if you understand fossilization, you understand the abrupt nature in which animals show up in the fossil record. Fossilization on land is extremely rare, so as we expect, very few fossils in relative to the number of organisms that have ever lived, show up. 6:35 The precambrian strata is no doubt lacking in fossils, but they exist. You also need to keep in mind: Before shells formed, very few organisms even fossilized, as soft-body is the rarest to fossilize. So any transition between soft and hard shell would be scarce, if not null due to already how little the precambrian has to offer. Regardless, we find bacteria, and a few shelled organisms in it. What we see is a lack of fossils before the cambrian, not a sudden emergence of life. This is not an argument from silence, it is a fact that the precambrian is lacking in fossils compared to other layers. Since we DO find life in the precambrian. 7:10 Probably not within 6 million years, we simply see them pop up in the fossil record within 6 million year span. Coelocanths went silent in the fossil record ever since, only for us to find them still kicking. No fossils =/= not existing. We can't even fathom the number of organisms that we will NEVER know about because they never fossilized or we never found them. So basically, no, the cambrian is not a sudden spur of life, but the precambrian, which by its very name, comes BEFORE the cambrian, is severely lacking. But because there are still organisms there, we know the cambrian is not when life appeared, it's only the time period it diversified the most. This argument would be valid if the precambrian didn't exist, but, it exists.

@DiscoveryScienceChannel

2 жыл бұрын

As stated previously, this claim of dishonesty is FALSE. After the quote you mention, Ruegger explicitly provides another quote by Darwin that offers Darwin's response to the objections to his theory raised by others. And THAT quote makes basically the same point (in fewer words) as the passage you cite. So there was nothing dishonest here. We'd encourage viewers to watch the video for themselves and judge whether Ruegger accurately conveyed Darwin's views. Regarding some of the other points you raise (like soft-bodied animals that aren't fossilized), watch further episodes in the series. This is episode 1. Many other issues will be discussed in future episodes.

@katamas832

2 жыл бұрын

@@DiscoveryScienceChannel No, he provides context that matches Darwin's response to the second quote, which is that the fossil record is hardly complete. But it is presented as the only explaination for it and tries to dismantle that, when Darwin gave another one after the first quote, that is how much fewer transitional forms exist and how gradual they are. The video presents the fossil record as a place that should be full of transitions, when that's not the case. And we know this, even Darwin knew. I watched the video lmao. That's why I didn't comment on the second quote, that was surprisingly well represented.

@michaelwill7811

2 жыл бұрын

"The precambrian strata is no doubt lacking in fossils, but they exist" What percentage of those, that do exist, are evolutionary ancestors to fossils found in the Cambrian strata? Sources, please. "Probably not within 6 million years" Your opinion of "probably not" is based on what evidence? What sources do you have for that evidence?

But any way you try to frame paleontology, you end up with the issue that even that 6 million year timeframe for the Cambrian explosion to occur is 1000x bigger than the estimate laid down by the YEC model. The 3.5 billion year timeframe of paleontology is irreconcilable with a young earth. Also, there is a reason as to why the Cambrian explosion appears like an explosion: the organisms are soft-bodied. The explosion is noticeable due to the amount of obvious fossils in the form of shells. Another thing to note is that at around 9:16 you misquote Darwin's statement by leaving out the explanation proposed by him. The original quote goes like this: >The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists- for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick- as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life .. at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection. For the development of a group of forms, all of which have descended from some one progenitor, must have been an extremely slow process; and the progenitors must have lived long ages before their modified descendants. But we continually over-rate the perfection of the geological record, and falsely infer, because certain genera or families have not been found beneath a certain stage, that they did not exist before that stage. In all cases positive palæontological evidence may be implicitly trusted; negative evidence is worthless, as experience has so often shown. We continually forget how large the world is, compared with the area over which our geological formations have been carefully examined; we forget that groups of species may elsewhere have long existed, and have slowly multiplied, before they invaded the ancient archipelagoes of Europe and .. the United States. We do not make due allowance for the enormous intervals of time which have .. elapsed between our consecutive formations,- longer perhaps in many cases than the time required for the accumulation of each formation. These intervals will have given time for the multiplication of species from some one or some few parent-forms; and in the succeeding formation such groups of species will appear as if suddenly created" Darwin explains why it isn't a valid criticism.

@zenuno6936

2 жыл бұрын

There is nothing new in the long version of the quote. He hoped the fossils would be found, but they werent. Also this is not a young earth channel.

@CJFCarlsson

2 жыл бұрын

Yes. It seems that dating is crucial. I play computer games. Like Cyberpunk 2077 and lots others and in the game there are hills and trees, a handful of them, and there are people. The hills would be thousands of years old and the rock would be million of years old, the tree maybe 50 and the persons 10, 20, 30 and so on. Yet we laugh and say it is just a simulation so it was created over just a few years. So nothing in the simulation is older than that. That means that everything in that world is a factor 1000 years YOUNGER than the YEC model. Thereby disproving it, or maybe not.

@philblagden

2 жыл бұрын

And yet, no matter how many millions of years you add into the mix, there is still not even a hint of evidence in the fossil layers of evolution from invertebrates to vertebrates. Or even from non winged insects to winged insects. Still no evolutionary ancestors found for bats, dinosaurs, and a whole host of other creatures. Not to mention some of the most popular "evidences" for evolution have suffered setbacks as recently discoveries put their place as supposed missing links in doubt. Take Tiktaalik for example. Footprints found in rock layers supposedly 18 million years older than Tiktaalik show that Tetrapods already existed before their supposed ancestor. Archchaeopteryx is now widely accepted as a perching bird, and not a dinosaur supposedly transitioning towards a bird so you can cross that out as evidence for evolution also. Also the fact that we are finding "recent" mammals such as rabbits in the same rock layers as dinosaurs, something evolutionists told us for years wasn't going to happen based on their understanding of the evolutionary timeframe. Not to mention the problem of at least 30 living fossils of creatures found which were supposedly long extinct as per studies of palaeontology. Or the massive unsolved problem of abiogenesis. The only things that work in evolutions favour is the fact that many people really WANT it to be true, and the supposed long age of earth and the cosmos. Anyone who thinks that there is strong evidence for evolution after looking at the rock layers is simply biased. The missing links are still not there still after over 150 years of searching.

@MarkNOTW

2 жыл бұрын

Pointing to the assumed age of the earth to support this theory is hand waving.

It"s interesting that Darwin recognized many of the major short comings of his theory even then. Unfortunately for him , 150 years of science has proven those concerns right. Although , the arguments used to support Neo- Darwinism have been become a much wider diversification of speculations to address these sudden explosions of life and the great devoid of transitional fossils. This is a well known fact amongst scientists that work in this field and due to this understanding , many of the explanations used to support the theory have become a parody of contradictions in an effort to support the science of the day. Fossil records are poor because they require perfect geological conditions and thus very little evidence. Fossil records are excellent as per the Cambrian explosion and there's endless intermediate fossils, but we just haven't found them. We have a fragment of bone and we create a species and from a partial molar they create an entire history . There's no limit to the allowed Ad-hoc explanations because the very nature of the theory is as much an ideology as it is an actual science.

@shenanigansofmannanan

2 жыл бұрын

It's pure paganism, my friend. Nimrodic at its most and witchcraft in its depth... a fable and fairytale of man's attempted ability to mimick Yahweh and think we are equal to His Glory.... all attempts to explain this world without Yahweh creating it, is Satanic, of the Adversary, is a lie told by fallen angels and the disembodied spirits of the Nephillim (demons) that can never enter Gods presence again so they tell you 99% reality and then give the 1% lie that you believe to keep you from The Way, The Truth and The Life through Jesus Christ.

@GORF_EMPIRE

2 жыл бұрын

" Fossil records are excellent as per the Cambrian explosion and there's endless intermediate fossils, but we just haven't found them." Imagine saying that God is real but I can't show Him to you. How is the above quote any different than a statement of faith? It's not.

@hectorhernandez215

2 жыл бұрын

But intelligent design is well inferred by fossils..but many prefer Darwin's opinion..

@MarkNOTW

2 жыл бұрын

@@GORF_EMPIRE it’s a faith proposition either way. The different is science isn’t supposed to be about faith and yet that’s what’s required to believe in TOE.

@geobla6600

2 жыл бұрын

@@GORF_EMPIRE Well it's different because the fossil record is excellent and the evidence shows a sudden appearance of fully developed animals and not Darwinian gradualism . This does infer a creator and an intelligence is involved. But saying that , ones impiety is not scientific criticism. Being critical of the merit of a theory should be based on the scientific evidence and not defending a theory which fails to supported itself from the cellular level to the fully developed species.

Can anyone help me here? As ID is obviously a departure from the biblical account of Creation, does that now mean that in the view of its adherents that the whole moral ethos behind the biblical Creation story is now redundant?

@ron88303

3 ай бұрын

Moral ethos is a human condition; not an ID condition.

@xjarheadjohnson

2 ай бұрын

Even the Catholic Church is discarding much of its own myth, in favor of well-researched understanding & real-world observations. *Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God is not 'a magician with a magic wand'* _"Speaking at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pope made comments which...put an end to the “pseudo theories” of creationism and intelligent design..."_ SOURCE: INDEPENDENT, Adam Withnall Tuesday 28 October 2014 10:43 GMT The Pontifical Academy of Sciences is a scientific academy of the Vatican City, established in 1936 by Pope Pius XI (nearly 300-years after the scientific method was established). This academy was established because the Church was continually being embarrassed by skill & speed at which the scientific community was understanding the real, physical world around us. The Church believed, with their own scientific academy, it could get ahead-of & be able to contradict, the scientific community.....or at the very least, to establish their own team in order to verify scientific discoveries, as well as the practices & protocols of the scientific method, itself. Since then, I am not aware that they have ever done anything, but confirm the discoveries of the scientific community & verify the integrity of its methods. ....Because that is all the scientific method simply is: well-researched & verified understandings, based on real-world observations,

But a pidgen is still a pidgen and a whale is still a whale. And don't forget Darwin thought the cell was a blob of jelly.

@xdcmagicker

2 жыл бұрын

Don't forget Darwin predicted how speciation worked long before we had any knowledge of genetics.

@thanushan3981

2 жыл бұрын

How do you define what a 'pigeon' is?

@neildegrassetysonwithaknif7124

2 жыл бұрын

And yet we still observe populations changing genetically over time due to selective pressures acting on inheritable traits Do you go to Isaac Newton for the latest in gravity and particle physics? Do you think everything he proposed is true today?

@katamas832

2 жыл бұрын

And a vertebrate is still a vertebrate

@DamianSAAAN

2 жыл бұрын

@@xdcmagicker he also understood the bare bones mechanics of his theory so well and the logical implications that he correctly induced the mechanisms of inheritance it would need before the mechanisms of inheritance were known.

I'm always struck by the contrast between the efforts of Darwin critics, who focus on evidence, and the efforts of Darwin defenders, who focus mostly on attacking Darwin critics.

@robertmize327

2 жыл бұрын

Ad hominem is always proof of a weak or non-existent rebuttal.

@Seanph25

2 жыл бұрын

@@robertmize327 true

@katamas832

2 жыл бұрын

Huh? I don't know who has you been listening to, but people who defend Evolution generally bring up a preponderance of evidence in favor of it.

@daverobson3084

2 жыл бұрын

What the hell have you been reading, watching , listening to? Aronra, Dawkins, Prothero, Reed, Professor Dave, Coyne all provide tons of evidence. Sure, Ra likes to poke fun at creationists as does Prothero, but they rely on lots and lots of evidence that they not only reference, but consistently , and vigorously , cite the research that they are utilizing.

@neildegrassetysonwithaknif7124

2 жыл бұрын

@@katamas832 what evidence? I have my evidence-ignoring glasses on so I don't see it!

so we hear a lot here about faults in the theory of evolution, but nothing about the evidence that supports creation theory. what gives?

@Golfinthefamily

2 жыл бұрын

like DNA itself, a finite universe, a bodily resurrection of the Messiah, Molecular machines... etc.?

@tomosko2669

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah well. If they can not prove their own thing, the need to resort to damaging the real thing. Which they totally fail to do.

@billjohnson9472

2 жыл бұрын

@@Golfinthefamily just mentioning a bunch of words doesn't do it. you have to actually explain the tenets and implications of intelligent design, and how they align with the observations that we see today in geology, chemistry etc.

@ijaripanju3408

2 жыл бұрын

@@Golfinthefamily DNA is a scientific discovery that perfectly backs up evolutionary biology. There is no evidence for a bodily resurrection , and if there was that would only mean that Jesus went back on any "dying for your sins" essentially nullified the sacrifice . And molecular "machines" are naturally occurring.. Oh and a finite universe ...because an all powerful infinite being can't create an infinite universe right ?

@gandysweet4288

2 жыл бұрын

@@billjohnson9472 all information has a mind behind it: hieroglyphics, written page in a book, computer code. These Come from an intelligent source. DNA - far more complex that these examples- is sufficient evidence in itself that there is a Creator / Designer! We can discuss here the intricacies and processes of DNA and as we do we would further understand that there is a “mind” ) behind all processes of creation

Actually, pre-Cambrian lifeforms have indeed been discovered.....even though they were mostly soft bodied creatures and thus not conducive to fossilization.....they are there......

@garjog1

2 жыл бұрын

can you give us a link to studies that show the transitional forms?

@megabeaver23

Жыл бұрын

All fossils are transitional forms. If you have children you are a transitional form as your off spring do not share the exact genetics of you, the differences seen are so insignificant that they would not be aparent unless you had your children's DNA examined.

@lrn_news9171

Жыл бұрын

How is there evidence of their existence and age if they're not conducive to fossilization?

@OneVoiceMore

Жыл бұрын

No one said they weren't. They said they weren't ANCESTRAL. Seriously, listen better.

@DumbAsh00

Жыл бұрын

@@garjog1 every fossil is a transitional form. We are a transitional form....

Why argue that Darwin was wrong in certain views? Newton's views have been proven wrong (incomplete). Does that mean that gravity does not exist? Of course not. Darwin's errors do not mean that the theory of evolution is completely wrong. Scientific theories are tested and improved. On the other hand, how does intelligent design solve the problem of other human-like species? And, btw, there are indeed plenty of "intermediate" species.

@marknieuweboer8099

2 жыл бұрын

Lukas is a narrow minded christian. He thinks that Darwin is the secular version of Jesus and Origin of Species is a secular Holy Book.

@page8301

2 жыл бұрын

All life forms are intermediate. In 10.000 years life will look markedly different from what it looks now. We only ever see the tiniest of glimmer of the entire picture that is life that has been going on for roughly 3 billion years.

@Bomtombadi1

2 жыл бұрын

But evolution bothers creationists more than gravity.

@fotzilla3832

2 жыл бұрын

Because they don't have any issue with gravity... truth be told, they don't have an issue with evolution, outside of humans sharing common ancestry with any other animals... if Darwins theory and all subsequent work on the subject was identical to what it is today, with the only difference being that humans were distinct and removed from the process, you'd never hear a PEEP out of them on the subject.

@johnmonk9297

2 жыл бұрын

Frank patz name them. I bet each one has been proven to be a hoax. Yet evolutionsts still spout them knowing them to be false. Like wise the so called intermediate man have been proven hoaxes and they are either ape or human. Nothing in between.

Waiting for someone to show up saying this is all wrong.

@drfaizal1521

2 жыл бұрын

Just ask any half-way competent scientist. Or better yet, Google "Meyer's Hopeless Monster, Part II". There, you will find some of the information and evidence that this video pretends does not exist. You're most welcome.

@sweetpeabrown261

2 жыл бұрын

I'm here and posted on March 9. Have fun reading Darwin's actual quotes.

You can pretty much guarantee that no one watching and agreeing with this is a scientist, has taken an evolutionary biology course, or has even read on the origin of species

@semperfi4ever507

2 жыл бұрын

So everyone who disagrees with this video has taken said courses? In other words your comment is not a true statement. For it to be true and not just a biased uneducated opinion, everyone would have to be questioned. So plot on with your atheists drone

@davidcook8134

2 жыл бұрын

I have a degree in Biology, Summa Cum Laude. This required an evolutionary biology course. I got an A. I then got a medical degree. The more I learned about biology, especially the human body, the less plausible I found orthodox evolutionary theory. I abandoned belief in it before I ever encountered Intelligent Design theory. I find it much more plausible. What’s your guarantee worth?

@s.unosson

2 жыл бұрын

The idea of science is to have your eyes and ears open for new discoveries and new information, not to close eyes and ears when alternative or new ideas are presented. Science should not be a club of self protecting "yes"-sayers.

@DamianSAAAN

2 жыл бұрын

@@semperfi4ever507 Emotional response, pretty sure I hit the nail on the head with you judging by that.

@howelldude

2 жыл бұрын

I have. Evolution doesn't work.

Very nicely presented and researched. Well done!

Darwin is revolutionary because he was the first to observe things about evolution and look into them more. No one says he got everything right. The thousands of scientists have built on what he discovered right up to the amazing genetics 🧬 we now know about. Trying to make Darwin the ONLY evolutionary biologist is like saying the Wright brothers built a flying machine to take us to the moon and beyond. No it's not - but as with Darwin - it's a very important first step.

@Dunger974

Жыл бұрын

These people pretend that the origin of species is like the Bible for scientists.

@shellydrelly

Жыл бұрын

What other notable evolutionary biologists are there?

Maybe there is not one creator, but a group of creators.

@blusheep2

Ай бұрын

It could be if the designers were an alien race "installing" life on our planet, but if we are talking about God as creator then the "multiple creator" doesn't work.

Of the 1000 largest universities on earth, how many teach, as science, your specific model of the history of life? What is you model of the history of life, btw?

5:14 - this is the most remarkably funny part of the video. Quoting Stephen Meyer's (misleading) definition of phylum just to poison the well by sneaking in abstract design concepts like 'architecture' is hilarious in itself, and then I looked down and realised you'd printed out the quote in the same way as Darwin's 😂😂 As though Meyer is even a scientist. Btw, unlike religion, science doesn't care WHO came up with an hypothesis, and rarely even the initial formulation. So tackling Darwin's flawed model (which of course it would be - he had no way of measuring or detecting what we can now. We don't roll our eyes at Newton for not factoring General Relativity into his Laws of Gravitation!) is not the takedown of an entire theory you think it is.

@zenuno6936

2 жыл бұрын

What's your point? Whatever a phylum is is irrelevant to the argument. Darwin needed the fossils to corroborate his theory, but they didnt, then nor now.

@frankpatz8708

2 жыл бұрын

@Muzaffar Krylov Science is a methodology. Theorize, test, evaluate, etc.

@megabeaver23

2 жыл бұрын

A phylum is a grouping by which we classify common ancestry. It is relevant as phylums are designed using both the fossil reccord and homologous DNA. Common ancestry is a demonstrated fact, the technology used is the same technology used to prove who your cousin or parents are.

So concise and comprehensive.

@DumbAsh00

Жыл бұрын

Don't forget "inaccurate"

Write your paper and submit it for publication. You tube videos are not science.

@blusheep2

Ай бұрын

Demski has both peer reviewed papers in Information Theory journals and he has public sourced papers that the scientific community has taken notice of and you can read for free. Those papers are not about everything he talked about here, because he is just making a presentation, but the papers he has published play a role. Just go look them up before making assumptions.

I assume that creationists accept DNA evidence confirming relatedness between any two humans. Why then, do they dismiss [presumably] the very same technique for determining relatedness between any two species? At what point does comparing genomes to determine relatedness stop working?...This is the question no creationist I've ever encountered has been able to answer.

@Daniel23544

Жыл бұрын

Animals can be related to one another. What’s your point?

@mikem2809

Жыл бұрын

I would say it has been explained to you but you didn't accept it. Genesis states very clearly every creature within it's kind eg dog x dog. Any similarities in dna is due to same creator not relatedness to a bug. If we were related to a bug we would also have offspring with a bug but we both know that will never happen.

@lrn_news9171

Жыл бұрын

IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM? No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he “agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement.” Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are “the easiest way to discredit intelligent design.” In other words, the charge that intelligent design is “creationism” is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.

@lrn_news9171

Жыл бұрын

We share 90% of our DNA with rats, what's your point? Someone could simply assert that we share DNA with animals because we were created by a common designer

@cameronclark447

Жыл бұрын

@@lrn_news9171 Yeah you can take it either of two ways. Think about a Apple products. They are all different but have similar characteristics same with species.

Wonderful video, and the effect is that Darwin's intellectual humility and prescience have conceded in advance that the current state of evidence disproves his theory. "Darwin's hypothesis in the Origin of Species was essentially this: starting from one common ancestor..." Darwin did not hypothesise on the origin of life. He wisely said that, on the then-current state of knowledge, it would be as vain to speculate about the origin of life, as about the origin of matter. Nor did he make any hypothesise about mutations, as he knew nothing of genetics. He spoke only of "variations" i.e. phenotypic variations only, and had only a dim recognition of what we would call genotype. Darwin was a great, careful, thorough thinker with admirable intellectual humility. He openly expounded the problems with his theory, and spent 20 years amassing evidence against it wherever he noted a problem. His focus was the origin of species, not life, nor phyla. He thought that if he could show the process by which sub-species originate, this would show how species originate, and so on up the taxonomic levels to phyla.

Great in content but terrible in presentation. Slow down a little, add a few microseconds between breaths and sentences, and allow yourself an occasional pause. Also, the jumpiness of the background due to zooming in and out playfulness does not facilitate greater understanding. Why do that if it is distracting? After 12 minutes one feels one's had an earful.

I have been following “Discovery” since they began, taking all the courses, watching all the videos, and reading all their books. I like the speed at which you give the information-not too fast and not too slow. Perfect!!!

Thank you for this presentation. You pack in a lot in just 12mins! Keep up the good work by shining a light on Darwin's own words and concerns. He highlighted some potential flaws in his theory. You mentioned the problem of the fossil record. Another is the complexity of the eye. It is good to review these comments with the hindsight of time, to see how the 'theory' holds up against his expressed concerns. As exemplified by the fossil record...not very well. I look forward to your next chapter.

@Andy-ej4bb

2 жыл бұрын

The so called issue of the complexity of the eye can be debunked just by observing living creatures with various forms of light detection.

@neildegrassetysonwithaknif7124

2 жыл бұрын

@@Andy-ej4bb don't waste your effort - they don't actually understand animal biology

@KenJackson_US

2 жыл бұрын

The existence of a wide variety of eye designs does _absolutely nothing_ to debunk the obvious conclusion that those designs had to have been designed, @@Andy-ej4bb.

@Andy-ej4bb

2 жыл бұрын

@@KenJackson_US please don't bear false witness, you'll end up in your imaginary hell. I didn't say it debunks the need for it to be designed, I said it debunks the argument he used to suggest evolution has a problem with eye design. The often quoted argument that eye complexity debunks evolution is "if you remove one component then you have a non functioning eye, evolution wouldn't have made non functioning eyes while waiting for the other genes to make the missing parts". When this argument is given it is given alongside an image of a highly developed vertebrate eye, which is a very dishonest representation of eyes in general. This argument is fully debunked by the fact that there are an enormous amount of methods of seeing. There are more forms of eye unlike vertebrate eyes than there are species of vertebrate. Because the video started with so much of what was either ignorance or dishonesty I didn't watch the whole thing, like I said in my post, so I don't know if he quoted the full argument or not later on, but when he mentioned eye complexity as a problem for evolution it was instantly clear what he meant. This argument, that relies on the belief that only a fully functioning vertebrate eye can possibly exist, is debunked by the fact that the eyes in question are overwhelmingly outnumbered by eyes that, according to the ID argument, don't exist. They exist, that alone disproves his argument. My first post wasn't particularly long or complicated. Your reply used good English, you're clearly educated. You fully understood my post. This leaves only one conclusion as to why you gave an intellectually dishonest response, it's because you're afraid of engaging in rational debate because if you analyse your cult mythology too much it will crumble.

@Andy-ej4bb

2 жыл бұрын

@@KenJackson_US if they were designed then your deity did an amazing job of making them look like they evolved. I like it's sense of humour.

*Updated Comment* I'd like a video on Wisdom teeth. Would Adam have had Wisdom Teeth? why would God give us Wisdom Teeth if we wouldn't have needed them? do we actually need them and for some strange reason a lot of us have to take them out? why do some people not have them at all? etc: asking because appendix, tonsils, things of that nature all seem to have a purpose and Evolution doesn't appear necessary, but Wisdom teeth seem odd to me in the terms of Man's jaw seeming to have changed and became smaller over time, but would that suggest that Adam and Eve had a large Jaw that could hold Wisdom Teeth? But why would they need them if they were originally intended to live in the garden? It's all very confusing for me anyway. So upon my research I've found that wisdom teeth have absolutely nothing to do with Evolution (no surprise there) but everything to do with our diets. People in first world countries tend to eat softer foods and because of this our mouths tend to not grow properly to accommodate not just wisdom teeth, but all of our teeth in general. which is why so many of us have crooked teeth. If you were to look at skulls from just a few hundred years ago you'll notice very straight teeth and they all have their wisdom teeth. People who live in places today that tend to eat tougher foods that require more chewing tend to have straighter teeth and their wisdom teeth. And funny enough my own mom has all her wisdom teeth and her diet has always consisted of eating harder foods (such as almonds) so it's not an evolution thing, it's our mouths growing at a slower rate due to our soft food diets. #FirstWorldProblems

@seal9390

2 жыл бұрын

Without my wisdom teeth i find it a hard time eating nuts and dry fruit. Also the reasons why many people get them removed is, our diets and the food we est are so soft that it makes our pallete grow inwards instead of outwards. Their is a intresting study, they check aboriginals diet and teeth and check their kids that eat our western diet. And guess what happens with the kid's teeths.

@brooklynvlogs9396

2 жыл бұрын

@@seal9390 I'm guessing they grow inward? Lol idk what happens?

@57strub

2 жыл бұрын

It has been explained very well by evolution why we have wisdom teeth. Our ancestors had bigger jaws with more teeth because they ate much rougher and courser foods such as raw vegetables, nuts and raw meats. The fossil bones of our early ancestors had protruding jaws to accommodate more teeth and stronger jaw muscles. But as man learned to cook with fire our foods became much easier to chew. Natural selection has favored smaller jaws over tens of thousands of years but we still have the same number of teeth. If you try to explain this with creation theory then you must accept that God made a bad mistake when he made man. Why would an all knowing infallible God do this?

@57strub

2 жыл бұрын

Evolution explains wisdom teeth very well. Read my former comment.

@shadowandreality

2 жыл бұрын

If something is rudimentary, that does mean it had a function. And when you can live without something it does not mean it is not useful. About your examples: You seem to have your information from some time ago. I was misinformed as well about these. the appendix... even Wikipedia nowadays suggests it has important functions. And so do the tonsils if you look it up.

Awesome

Creationism. You are creationists. You have to pretend like science is a religion based off of a prophet so that you have any argument against it

Very informative. watched all his 3 videos. 1. There are certain gaps in evolution theory. There might be lack of Preserved fossils and intermittent fossiles due to limitted exploration. In some places, the fossils might gave got mixed up due to varios geological changes happened over long period, like erosion, deposits, continental movement etc, which might have resulted in lack of fully coherent and sequential evidences. 2. All precambrian era lifeforms need not evolve in to much different species. There might be many reasons like harsh environment etc. 3. Since we don't know whether hypothesis"A" or "B" is not explaining the answers fully, we can't conclude "X" (intelligent design) is the correct answer out of billion possibilities. To prove one as truth, finding gaps in others is not a correct logical approach. 4. Intelligent design can be told as reliable once they find human fossils around 7 days after the formation of earth that is much beyond precambirian Era. 5. There are more evidence of evolution happening, even among smaller group of isolated human who are now having new traits than others. 6. There are numerous intelligent creation theories across world. Even in the same holy book itself. there are two contradicting version. Since African's couldn't spread their God's to western. we can't ignore their God as intelligent creator. 7. The statement on ocean deep bore holes for drilling oil wells, may not be accurate since the entire extend of offshore deep sea borehole might be less than 1km^2 area which is insignificant compared to entire surface of earth. Moreover those bore holes are crude and the specimen, if collected, along with drilling mud is nearly useless for this kind of study. 8. The remains of soft sponge fossils do not negate the evolution. There might be certain environmental conditions, which can preserve soft too.

@patientestant

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you for the summation.

@masada2828

2 жыл бұрын

Soft tissue does not remain as soft tissue over millions of years, it is obviously younger, much younger. There are not two, but one version of Creation, the second expounds the first and they do not contradict. Man is not evolving but adapting to his environment. Mutations are never beneficial. There can only by two versions to the beginning of mankind: Creation by an omnipotent God or, Evolution.

Strengthening belief and scientific enquiry are orthogonal pursuits. Don’t expect much sense then.

@OneVoiceMore

Жыл бұрын

Your assertion is false. Witness---- what if someone strengthens BELIEF IN THE TRUTH? Then your assertion is just bloviation. I don't expect much sense from you. Just vomitus of consensus.

Awesome seeing this collaboration!

Feathers, once thought unique to birds, have evolved in dinosaurs long before birds developed. Sophisticated new analyses of these fossils, which track structural changes and map how the specimens are related to each other, support the idea that avian features evolved over long stretches of time. Oops...

@zenuno6936

2 жыл бұрын

There is no interminable number of intermediary species fossils as the theory requires. oops Darwin said then, and we can safely say now that everything as been dug.

I'm sorry, but what's your point? Can't quite make it out..

Wow! I have never seen a better explanation of intelligent design and the problems that sudden appearance of species in the fossil record have proved evolution not having fossil record proof.

I do believe in Darwin. What I am saying that Darwinism doesn't explain everything fully

TDI FLASH - Brasil

*We appreciate your efforts .... The world need enlighteners like you*

@imagomonkei

2 жыл бұрын

Enlighteners? More like comedians.

Remember what Sir Arthur Keith, a famous British evolutionist has once frankly admitted: “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable." The evolutionists' Curse 👿

@katamas832

2 жыл бұрын

Nah, there's absolutely no record of him ever stating such a thing. With his views generally known, such statement would be uncharacteristic of him, so it's safe to say he never stated this. This quote is from The Nineteenth Century magazine according to Wikipedia, not written by him, only about him.

@Golfinthefamily

2 жыл бұрын

@456 Plus macrovolution is NOT provable. It is an inference from data. It is a faith position.

@laserfan17

2 жыл бұрын

Too bad that statement is a creationist lie, and even if it was truly said, it wouldn’t matter, no one gives a crap about what a single man said, only what rigorous methodologies have demonstrated to be true. 🤷🏻‍♂️

@michaelwill7811

2 жыл бұрын

@456 Plus What is completely provable... macroevolution or microevolution?

"Gradual change over time" is not a hypothesis and does not completely and accurately describe Darwin's claims.

This proves that evolution theory is solid and the best we have and that in the fosile records there are gaps still to be discovered.

@OneVoiceMore

Жыл бұрын

The 19th century called. They want their debunked theory back. The geologic column is COMPLETE. Gaps gaps gaps, weird overlaps, inversions and OOPAs. So, read some books from THIS century, and catch up.

🇷🇴👍

Wow! Excellent content! Thank you and keep it up!

why not compile your observations and present it to the scientific community?

@chrispark2698

9 ай бұрын

The group of scientists working with Discovery Institute is constantly publishing books, papers, videos and more to the scientific community.

"Hi.. My name is Lukas. I believe I have disproven one one the most important and best supported theories in all of science. I ''publish' this amazing discovery, not in a peer-reviewed journal, but on KZread."

@BibleResearchTools

2 жыл бұрын

DrFaizal wrote, "Hi.. My name is Lukas. I believe I have disproven one one the most important and best supported theories in all of science. I ''publish' this amazing discovery, not in a peer-reviewed journal, but on KZread." The theory is already disproven (since Darwin's days, in fact,) but many still have not gotten the message and believe it is true. Lukas is helping to inform them that there is no underlying data support, and it is false. Dan

@akashverma4280

2 жыл бұрын

There's nothing to disprove which is something based on belief.

@neildegrassetysonwithaknif7124

2 жыл бұрын

@@BibleResearchTools so then what evidence disproved that populations *don't* actually change over time? What evidence disproved that individuals with more beneficial traits for survival and reproduction *aren't* more likely to pass those traits on to the next generation? I'm sure that you have the research that actually did this, considering how sure you are in the falsehood of evolution.

@neildegrassetysonwithaknif7124

2 жыл бұрын

@@akashverma4280 Its just based on belief? Oh well, I guess we can just ignore all the scientific research showing evolution in the modern day, right? The development of DDT resistance in mosquitoes - A mutation arose in mosquitoes that allowed them to break down DDT so that it isn't toxic. As a result of selective pressures, the trait spread across populations, and thus many researchers are dealing with mosquitoes that have some resistance to DDT-infused pesticides. Sources: Tchigossou et al. (2020). Investigation of DDT resistance mechanisms in Anopheles funestus populations from northern and southern Benin reveals a key role of the GSTe2 gene. Soko et al. (2015) Insecticide resistance in malaria-transmitting mosquitoes in Zimbabwe: a review. The development of antibiotic resistance in diseases and bacteria. Sources: Francesca et al. (2018). Antibiotic resistance evolution of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis patients (2010‐2013) MacLean et al. (2019). The evolution of antibiotic resistance: Clinically relevant evolution studies are needed to help fight the spread of antibiotic resistance. Schneider et al. (2021). The Interplay of Electrostatics and Chemical Positioning in the Evolution of Antibiotic Resistance in TEM β‑Lactamases. The natural selection of the Galapagos finches in response to drought and the subsequential speciation of finches on the Galapagos islands. Sources: Carvajal-Endara et al. (2020). The ecology and evolution of seed predation by Darwin's finches on Tribulus cistoides on the Galápagos Islands Schluter (1988). The Evolution of Finch Communities on Islands and Continents: Kenya vs. Galapagos. The speciation of Gammaridean amphipods in Florida caves as a result of geographic isolation. Sources: Cannizzaro et al. (2020). A new species rises from beneath Florida: molecular phylogenetic analyses reveal cryptic diversity among the metapopulation of Crangonyx hobbsi Shoemaker, 1941 (Amphipoda: Crangonyctidae) Cannizzaro et al. (2019). Morphological and molecular analyses reveal a new species of stygobitic amphipod in the genus Crangonyx (Crustacea: Crangonyctidae) from Jackson County, Florida, with a redescription of Crangonyx floridanus and notes on its taxonomy and biogeography Want even more evidence that shows that populations change over time and that speciation can occur as a result? Look at the rise of the COVID variants. Look at the development of new virus strains like with the flu. Look at the speciation and changes that occurred in artificially selected crops, livestock, and domestic animals. And many more!

@KenJackson_US

2 жыл бұрын

*DrFaizal:* _"... one of the most important and best supported theories in all of science."_ Oh good grief! Do you seriously think you've just described microbe-to-man evolution?

Ensatina

Roughly 99% of life on earth has gone extinct. How intelligent is that? Frankly, if I employed a designer who's designs failed 99% of the time, I wouldn't be paying them, that's for sure. As far as 'suddenly appearing', all fossils 'suddenly appear'. A fossil appears somewhere, either on the surface or in a dig, and there it is. Why would you expect precursor species to be there as well?

@gandysweet4288

2 жыл бұрын

Didn’t Darwin admit to back his theory, there must be thousands of intermediate fossils found in every geological column? Therefore he proposed fossils would not suddenly appear but would change over time.

@michaelwill7811

2 жыл бұрын

"Roughly 99% of life on earth has gone extinct. How intelligent is that? Frankly, if I employed a designer who's designs failed 99% of the time, I wouldn't be paying them, that's for sure." What percentage, of the 99%, perished due to design flaws versus natural events or even due to man's intervention?

@redletterdays8534

2 жыл бұрын

What makes you think extinction is a failure? That’s a pretty big assumption.

That is true, however as time emerges the paleontologist agreed with the Charles Darwin.

@semperfi4ever507

2 жыл бұрын

Only the militant atheists. There are scientists who are not theists who disagree with evolutionists. Then there are those who disagree and realize ID is the best answer. Sadly many are under cover for fear of losing their jobs or funding. Coyne would come to mind as one who goes after ID proponents.

Evolution looks very intelligent to me. It also follows continuously with the foundations of human existence in that animals choices and our choices lead to consequences. That is fundamental to life, agency. DNA and adaptation is quite amazing and I do not see any reason God would not work through evolution. It is a beautiful process like much of life, and other observations of this universe/creation. Scripture reveals many important lessons that do not occur elsewhere. God certainly keeps us humble and gives us opportunities to work and find more details on how he works. Humble scientists can understand their theories do not explain all of creation. Boths sides should strive to understand that they do not know all.

@k3630

2 жыл бұрын

Evolution is the most retarded idea man has ever invented. Adaptation is a brilliant aspect of Gods design, but Darwinian evolution is just stupid, and is antithetical to God

@Juriter87

2 жыл бұрын

Only one problem: God not creat death. Evolution is systematic death's live form. This is not christian philosophy and this is not promise God's. Sorry for my primitive English.

I thoroughly enjoyed your video, thanks. I will most certainly follow the series of videos. 👍

Evolution has made a monkey out of many.

@Golfinthefamily

2 жыл бұрын

@456 Plus common designer. Just like we are genetically 60% similar to a banana.

@michaelwill7811

2 жыл бұрын

@456 Plus Curiously, all cars share many of the same design concepts. Wheels, seats for at least one occupant, an engine of some type, some device to hold the fuel for the engine, a device to determine the direction the cars is going, etc... I think the reason all cars share so many common components is because they are simply good design ideas. Why re-invent the wheel for each new car model, if it works fine as is? Perhaps that is also why genetics shows how closely we are all related...

good thing is was proved right 1000 time since his death..

@ced3763

5 ай бұрын

genetic really nailed the coffin for creationism.

@killerbee6484

4 ай бұрын

​@@ced3763how is that just because we have similar to another animals that proves we have a common ancestry because we share 99 of our genes with banan and also 90 with mice although we are different morphologically and physiologically

@czipcok1994

3 ай бұрын

​@@killerbee6484it proves it, cause we haven't seen a single other way of mixing and exchanging genes than reproduction (at least in case of animal kingdom). Now. You can argue that "well god just made it this way!". Alright. How many times have we seen god make something? Is it more logical to assume that something that we observe everyday happened yesterday or assume that something that we never saw happen was done by someone who we never ever detected?

@blusheep2

Ай бұрын

You really don't get it. He and his ID colleagues aren't claiming that evolution is untrue. They are saying that evolution can't be driven by Darwinian mechanisms of natural selection alone. The current science agrees. That is why few scientists cling to Darwinian Evolution and promote the Modern Synthesis. A decade ago the most prestigious and oldest scientific academy in the world held a scientific conference on the alternatives to Darwinian Evolution. It sought to look at other mechanisms that might be able to explain how it all happens. The conference didn't make any waves, in the end, because they didn't have anything new to offer.

Just can't let it go can you? Even if god existed, which he doesn't, evolution by natural selection would still be true. It would be the way he created life. Over time it may be refined, but it will never be over turned.

@semperfi4ever507

2 жыл бұрын

Strong arm tactics by militant atheists will help keep your vision alive. As a former atheist, there is only so much cover up put out by atheists. More and more scientists are coming out from the nazi straggling hold, to ID. It only a matter of education. I realized the fake being put out and began questioning. After a few miracles that only could be God, I am a 100 percent believer. It's so satisfying to know that I know

@s.unosson

2 жыл бұрын

So you mean evolution is true because it is true.

@sombrecynic4966

2 жыл бұрын

@@s.unosson No. Try rereading the comment it may help you in understanding what I'm saying. I wasn't attempting to demonstrate evolution because it's been demonstrated for the last 150+ years and if that doesn't convince you nothing I say will. I'm just saying even if you proved god existed right now nothing about evolution would change. It would said be just as demonstrable. It would be the way god created the diversity of life. There's a reason why evolution has withstood the 150 years of criticism and falsification. You can accept evolution and still be a Christian. Have a nice evening. ❤

@k3630

2 жыл бұрын

Evolution is the most retarded idea man has ever invented, and is antithetical to God. Scientific discoveries are smashing that theory apart daily

@michaelwill7811

2 жыл бұрын

"Even if god existed, which he doesn't" Your proof that God doesn't exist is?

Nice job Lucas.

There are many problems with this analysis, and I will focus on three. First, Darwin was being an excellent scientist when he pointed out weaknesses in his own theory. If they had proven to be weaknesses then over time science would have quickly relegated his theory to the scrap heap. Science did not and so this analysis is based on exaggerated conjectures. For example, this analysis omits the process of allopatric speciation, which both explains the weaknesses Darwin pointed out and makes predictions that have been verified -- all good science. For the Burgess shale there is an additional factor involved. The Cathedral Escarment (the geological formation which created the conditions for the shale) was uncommonly good at creating conditions where cartilaginous creatures would be preserved. At last count there were only two of such formations found, the other in China. The suddenness of the explosion can be explained in good measure by the fact that cartilaginous creatures don't create fossils outside of such conditions. I think the overall issue here is that this and other creationist critiques of evolution are, in fact, only critiques of Darwin's theory. The two are not the same. It's actually easy to criticize in its initial form when science, in fact, marches onward.

@dooglitas

2 жыл бұрын

Your argument is inadequate and fallacious. Your first argument is based upon a false assumption. You are correct that Darwin was being a good scientist when he pointed out the weaknesses of his own theory. However, your assumption that "science" would have quickly relegated his theory to the scrap heap is a false assumption. That is not evidence that his theory was valid. First off "science" doesn't DO anything. It is a methodology used to investigate the physical world and and analyze the evidence found and then to devise experiments to test hypotheses made regarding the evidence. It is PEOPLE who make conclusions. You are assuming that scientists would have found that his theory was invalid and would therefore discard it. The fact that they did not does not prove his theory. The theory still lacks the supporting evidence. Yet secular scientists still hold to it nevertheless. When you mention "allopatric speciation," you are conflating "speciation" with "transmutation of species." They are not the same. Speciation is not the same as "evolution" in its broader meaning. The old term "transmutation of species" is actually a much better and more specific term than "evolution," which has several meanings and allows for equivocation, which is the fallacy you are engaging in when you mention "allopatric speciation." Speciation actually involves a reduction in genetic information/variation. It does not create new genetic information. For transmutation of species to occur, there would need to be vast amounts of new genetic information introduced into a genome. There is no mechanism by which this could occur. Your discussion of "cartilaginous creatures" is merely a form of argument from silence. The fact remains that there is no real fossil evidence that supports the transmutation of species, even after 150 years. The paucity of certain shale formations does not "explain" the "suddenness of the explosion" you referred to. It is simply an excuse for the lack of evidence. There are many, many criticisms of Darwin's theory, and those criticisms have not been invalidated in any way, while the more knowledge we attain regarding physiology, biochemistry, and genetics, the more unfeasible Darwin's theory becomes.

@anthonygelbert3818

2 жыл бұрын

The creationist critiques of evolution are mainly concerned with the evidence of intelligent design, not just Darwin's discredited assumption that natural selection is an "additive" process. For example, gene studies in dogs have conclusively shown that all the species variations from the wolf they devolved from are the result of subtractions in the genes, not "evolutionary advantages" from "beneficial" mutations. At the level of molecular biology, the "Natural Selection" mechanism, the linchpin of Evolution Theory, is exposed as unscientific speculation. You see, the factorial math used to determine the probability for the existence of the extremely complex structure and function of the first cell is irrefutable evidence of Intelligent Design. soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-090522165938.png There are many others, from the numerous physical constants required for even the existence of molecules and the many irreducibly complex cellular machines within cells (e.g. Chaperonin 🦉aids the assembly and folding of other protein molecules in living cells). Furthermore, scientists have discovered that the quantum base of reality exhibits the golden ratio, something totally unexpected in an allegedly "random" universe. Though the video this screenshot is from is no longer available, the quantum base of reality exhibiting the golden ratio is an established scientific fact: soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-270522172558-13271555.png soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-270522171824-1278989.png Factorial Math proves we are not the product of random undirected processes: soberthinking.createaforum.com/gallery/soberthinking/1-200422175637.png

Astoundingly summarized

Excellent. Thank you very much and God bless!

"DARWIN BAD!" Well good thing scientists have done an unfathomable amount of research and have expanded on his theories an extreme amount and made the theory of evolution a lot more complicated and proven hehe

@shaquilleoatmeal2685

Жыл бұрын

yea I dont understand the facination with ONLY darwins theory and though processes. Science has become so advanced, and his theory more concrete

@betawithbrett7068

Жыл бұрын

Observation: I have noticed people with a conscience, knowing good vs evil, feeling guilty of their evil behavior, like a porn addiction, fornicating out of wedlock, mistreating other people justifying themselves with excuses etc etc... needing Darwin to be right, because nature sure looks designed, and they don't want to stand judgment before their creator after death... the death coming soon to a life near you. 🙏 oh Darwin pls pls pls be right.

@OakenTome

Жыл бұрын

@@shaquilleoatmeal2685It’s because if they actually approach the modern science their ideas fall apart, and they know it. It’s a lot easier to tear down old ideas that have already been corrected and improved than it is to confront the new ones.

@chrispark2698

9 ай бұрын

Darwinism is NOT proven, and the more research that is done, the more evidence that is gathered, the more implausible Darwinism becomes. The fossil record contradicts Darwinism. Origin of Life research shows naturalist theories of life's genesis to be more than implausible. Genomic research is showing multiple competing "family trees" of life, not a single tree from a common ancestor. Everything Darwin predicted has yet to be confirmed.

Nature is an amazing thing, but that exactly what it is... NATURE. Nothing more or less. No supernatural designer...just natural processes producing extremely interesting results. It's hard to believe but so is quantum mechanics and we require that knowledge for modern everyday life

@lrn_news9171

Жыл бұрын

Cool story bro

@OneVoiceMore

Жыл бұрын

You've done nothing more than dogmatically state something you can't prove. Assertions are for the weak Show EVIDENCE. So, DEFINE NATURE. You just throw it out there as a self-explanatory word. What defines what you call NATURE, and what defines what you call SUPERNATURAL. Do not use these words to define these words. It makes you sound stupid. Was pre-Big-Bang supernatural? It dis-existed outside the space-time continuum, and was literally NOTHING and NO TIME --- from which everything came. I'm interesting in hearing you flail around, sure you're right, but laughably wrong. You're like the Steady State Universe nards, who suddenly had to shut up when we discovered red-shift.

@travisbicklepopsicle

10 ай бұрын

​@@lrn_news9171well, then demonstrate the 'story' is incorrect. Are you actually denying the reality of quantum mechanics?

Goodness gracious. Will the evangelicals ever stop picking on Darwin? He was a nice old man who had some good ideas. Did he think they were final? No, he did not. Did he know that evolution would always be an evolving theory? Yes, he did. And yet there is one principle of his that we can see in action all the time. The principle is that failure to adapt to a changing environment can lead to extinction. This is currently observable in the Abrahamic religions. Young people live in a world of organ transplants, space travel, and instant global communication. They do not live in a world of miracles, angels, and demons. That is the changing environment. But the Abrahamic religions cling to the old dogmas and their myriad credibility issues. That is the failure to adapt. I wonder what the evangelicals are going to do about that.

@blusheep2

Ай бұрын

You don't have a clue what this fella believes. These guys that promote ID have in fact adapted to changing environments. None of them are anti-evolution and I've never heard anyone of them disparage Darwin. They talk about the methods that he used in coming up with his conclusion. They criticize the weaknesses of those methods which are still held to by many current evolutionists though they are moving away from it at alarming rates.

Charles dawrin the father of evolution believed in God maybe not God of the Bible but God of the universe its a brute fact 🙏

i love debunking atheist fairy tales

@hxhdfjifzirstc894

2 жыл бұрын

I don't believe in atheists. There's simply no evidence that they exist.

@djgfdGG7967

11 ай бұрын

You can't no religious person has.

@Mockturtlesoup1

8 ай бұрын

Fairy tales? You mean those stories with talking animals, magical beings and creatures, witches, spells, curses, blessings, angels, potions, incantations, people having super powers/magical abilities(like Samson and his hair for example?) Oh wait, that's the Bible. Also, what does evolution have to do with atheism(or fairy tales for that matter?)

@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440

7 ай бұрын

Like what?

@ericgraham3344

5 ай бұрын

Fairytales? Dude Your Book has a TALKING Snake, “Fairytale”? Your Book Has a TALKING Donkey. “Fairytale”? Your Book Says that a FULL GROWN WOMAN “Came” From a Man’s RIB-CAGE. “Fairytale”? Your Book Mentioned UNICORNS “9” Times. “Fairytale”? Your Book talks a a White Horse “With” WINGS. “Fairytale”? Your Book Talks about A MAGICAL TREE. “Fairytale”? Your Book Talks about a FLAMING SWORD. “Fairytale”? Your Book Talking about a Tree SO BIG That EVERYBODY in the WORLD can Physically SEE It. “Fairytale”? Your Book Talks about a Golum Spell. “Fairytale”? Your Book says that A 500 Year old Man “STOP”! A “500” Year old Man build a Zoo Boat, “500 YEAR OLD”. “Fairytale”? Your Book tells Us That a Man lived in the Stomach of a BIG Fish for “3” day “Fairytale”? Your Book has a DRAGON in it. And you Have the Nerve to “Fairytale”? Your Book said that ZOMBIE Walked the Streets of Jerusalem and Visited Their Families. “Fairytale”?? We CAN NOT FIND NOT ONE Person Gravesite of ANYONE in that Book. “Fairytale”? Your Book Tells us that a WHOLE SEA “Opened” up For 6 Million People to Walk Across. “Fairytale”? You Book tells Us that the “INTELLIGENT DESIGNER” Come Down to Earth and Had a MMA Match with a Human Man. “Fairytale”? Your Book Tells US that the Earth is FLAT. “Fairytale”? Your Book Tells us that THE ALL “POWERFUL” GOD can not Move a Metal Chariot🥴 “”Fairytale”?

Needs a list of peer-reviewed archival PRIMARY REFERENCES attached to these kinds of videos ! . . . any *school student* could THEN make actual use of this.

@b4868

2 жыл бұрын

Very good idea. We should equip students to understand and defend this.

@KenJackson_US

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, you can shield your eyes from the obvious overwhelming problems with microbe-to-man evolution by hiding behind the need for more peer-reviewed papers. But the lack of papers documenting the flood of evidence says more about motives for blocking publication than about the evidence that's getting blocked.

@ThompPL1

2 жыл бұрын

@@KenJackson_US Need to read my last sentence . . . STUDENTS need those Refs that are actually used in this video in order to intellectually counter their materialist teachers without being summarily shunned out of classrooms.

The irony of atheistic darwinism is that if the Bible was to say, "Nobody designed animals, God allowed a simple life form to evolve into more complex lifeforms over time, and eventually apes became humans," atheists would be able to say, "no scientist has observed the transition of a non human to a human, all we ever observe is that animals reproduce after their own kind, therefore the Bible is false." If the Bible stated that God designed life to develop from nonliving material atheists would actually be able to say "that's nonsense, we know through observation that living cells only come from preexisting living cells, therefore what the Bible says is false." If the Bible was to say, "God allowed fossils to exist to prove the transition of one kind of animal to another." Atheists could say There are monumental gaps in the fossil between the fossils of humans and any other creature and fossils can't tell us what characteristics their parents had, let alone what characteristics their great, great, great... grandparents had, therefore it would be illogical to look at the bones of a human and assume they came from a nonhuman; Therefore the Bible is false." If the Bible said, "The transition between apes and mankind took millions of years," atheists could say, "No scientist has observed millions of years, therefore what the Bible says is not credible." The only reason why atheists believe in darwinism is because they don't want to accept what the Bible says. It's not that darwinism is a credible ideology. It fails the standards of science in every way. the Bible stands up to the test of science time after time regarding what is testable, observable, repeatable, and verifiable. Trust documented history and observable science; embrace Christ.

@chrispark2698

9 ай бұрын

Amen brother!

This presenter quote mined at 3:17 using only the first half of the Darwin's quote which honestly points to objections to Evolution, while leaving out the rest of the quote that explains why the objections can be waved away. Very dishonest of you. Is this part of the god inspired "moral compass" you claim to have access to? Why not discuss this Evolution honestly. Here's the full quote for your listeners: 'The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists--for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick, as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection." This is the part he dishonestly left off: "For the development by this means of a group of forms, all of which are descended from some one progenitor, must have been an extremely slow process; and the progenitors must have lived long before their modified descendants. But we continually overrate the perfection of the geological record, and falsely infer, because certain genera or families have not been found beneath a certain stage, that they did not exist before that stage. In all cases positive palaeontological evidence may be implicitly trusted; negative evidence is worthless, as experience has so often shown. We continually forget how large the world is, compared with the area over which our geological formations have been carefully examined; we forget that groups of species may elsewhere have long existed, and have slowly multiplied, before they invaded the ancient archipelagoes of Europe and the United States. We do not make due allowance for the enormous intervals of time which have elapsed between our consecutive formations, longer perhaps in many cases than the time required for the accumulation of each formation. These intervals will have given time for the multiplication of species from some one parent-form: and in the succeeding formation, such groups or species will appear as if suddenly created."

@DiscoveryScienceChannel

2 жыл бұрын

After the quote you mention, Ruegger explicitly provides another quote by Darwin that offers Darwin's response to the objections to his theory raised by others. And THAT quote makes basically the same point (in fewer words) as the passage you cite. So there was nothing dishonest here. We'd encourage viewers to watch the video for themselves and judge whether Ruegger accurately conveyed Darwin's views.

@Rafayhailerrr

2 жыл бұрын

@@DiscoveryScienceChannel but I want to just understand if the point of this video is implying that this intelligent designer is the God of any religion on earth (most likely the Bible as you are an open apologetic).

@laosi4278

2 жыл бұрын

The "dishonestly left out quote" you you just mentioned are basically saying that Darwin hope that discovery of future paleontologist would give evidence to support his theory which basically as video says the evidence of silence, it still doesn't give more weight to the evolution theory

@xdcmagicker

2 жыл бұрын

I did wonder why there were so many one-sided comments here

@parkinson1963

2 жыл бұрын

@@laosi4278 which it has. Amazing what happens over 150 years.