Dive deeper into the current state of the debate over junk DNA. Find out why Intelligent design theorists have long argued against the idea that non-protein coding DNA is useless evolutionary junk, and how others are now shifting their thinking on the functionality of DNA. On a new episode of ID the Future, Dr. Casey Luskin gives me an update on the paradigm shift around the concept of “junk DNA” - idthefuture.com/1845/

As a college biology professor, I always assumed (and taught) that for the information in the DNA to be able to make sense for the creation and maintenance of the human (or any other) organism, the DNA that codes for proteins constitutes the words, and the rest of the DNA must constitute the grammar. I actually just learned from DI that there has been an intense debate about the role of non-coding DNA for decades. The idea of junk DNA is just silly--I guess, just as silly as the whole mindless evolutionism paradigm.

@WyvernYT

2 ай бұрын

Well, sort of? As you know, there's plenty of non-coding DNA. That's not the same as "junk DNA" which was an idea briefly kicked around a few decades back. The fringe loves a dramatic phrase, though.

@APRENDERDESENHANDO

Ай бұрын

I really doubt you're a college biology professor, but, in the slightest chance that you're not an internet troll, how do you explain the c value paradox? How to you solve the onion test? How do you explain experiments on knockout mice in which mega bases worth of genome were deleted, with no noticeable effect on the mice health? How do you even explain that crossing over doesn't cause mayor disruptions and harmful mutations each time it occurs, without huge portions of the genome which are non functional?

I bought 'The Selfish Gene' after I left uni because a) it was on my supplementary reading list, and B) because it was a famous book. I read the first page of the preface, laughed and stuck it on my shelf. About fifteen years later I looked at it, saw that the spine showed it to be unread and thought, 'That is a famous book, I ought to read it.' So I read the first page of the preface, laughed, and remembered why it was unread.

@Pyr0Ben

2 ай бұрын

and here we have a true gigachad in their natural habitat

@hxhdfjifzirstc894

2 ай бұрын

I've always found Richard Dawkins to be a pompous idiot, more concerned with the sound of his own voice, than intellectual honesty.

@neilenglish7433

2 ай бұрын

😂😂

@davidj.steiger3178

2 ай бұрын

I forced myself to read it, and did. Happy for having done so I was able to point out many of its critical flaws. So at least there’s the upside of know what your enemy is thinking, and why. (Basically, I just did the same thing Patton did with Rommel.) The effort did pay off for me, but I know exactly where you’re coming from, as well…

@DartNoobo

2 ай бұрын

Well now I am intrigued

Thank you guys for all the hard work you do!

01:24 bro called me-out so hard on that..

Thanks for sharing! These are a fantastic resource I use when teaching high school students.

@TrevoltIV

2 ай бұрын

God bless you for teaching kids real science

@joelebert9767

2 ай бұрын

Hey me too (when I was still in the business).

@SwanOnChips

2 ай бұрын

When I was in public High School (I'm 65 now) I did several presentations against evolution in classes, including mentioning things at the genetic level! The other students were HUNGRY to hear an intelligent alternative!

EXCELLENT GUYS.....KEEP GOING....PLEASE DO POST MORE OF LIKE THESE TYPE OF VIDEOS...I PS:I don't like podcasts!! i love these types of videos.......this channel is the best!!!

It's actually pretty funny to think that the presuppositional commitment to materialism has been the "science-stopper," while ID predictions have led to more discoveries. Wonder if Dawkins will ever admit that!

@mirziyodm

2 ай бұрын

He literally played it as "science has always predicted it" 🤦

@hxhdfjifzirstc894

2 ай бұрын

Dawkins is, in no way, an intellectually honest person.

@user-dz9zl4wz8b

2 ай бұрын

So, what ID predictions have actually led to more discoveries? I'm not aware of any -- at least not any that are correct.

@Papa-dopoulos

2 ай бұрын

Haha, good old Dawkins. “Good and evil don’t exist. Only blind and pitiless indifference.” “Oh BTW God is super evil. Oh and he doesn’t exist.” LOLLLLL

@s.unosson

2 ай бұрын

@@user-dz9zl4wz8b Well, this video mentions the ID and common sense prediction that "Junk-DNA" is not junk.

Thank you for all the great work you do! I tried sending some atheists to your videos, but they refused to even watch them, and even debate them based on the titles alone. (They were expecting me to answer questions from memory that were already answered in the videos) It's sad that so many people are Darwinist zealots who refuse to even consider the possibility of a created world. Even the ones that believe we're all in a simulation, which by definition is a created world.

@YoungEarthCreation

2 ай бұрын

If they have “free thinker” in their bio, you be sure that it is the last thing they are. I tell them to remove it hahaha

@BabyBugBug

2 ай бұрын

Worldviews are things people will kill and die over, my friend. Humans have done this for thousands of years.

@DartNoobo

2 ай бұрын

Unfortunately there is a lot of quacks and zealots on the religious side too.

Once again, a beautiful job. Thank you all.

Really great and accessible breakdown of the topic, and as entertaining as science can possibly be!

@5:33- Okay, so those little Darwin fish are really funny!!! 🤣🤣

@imaw8ke

2 ай бұрын

Yep, had to watch it twice!

The best video series in KZread. You should do one about the minimum biochemical reactions needed for life. Even in a simple cell there are 800 reaction going on, if one stop result in death. Well done hero 🎉🎉❤

@mtman2

Ай бұрын

"NO its all an accidental mixing of eroded rock chemicals billions of yrs ago and makes perfect sense it only needed lots of time!" LOL

Priceless. This video shows how the confident claims of materialists can be, in the words of Michael Behe, just a "pretense of knowledge."

Thanks! UI have been waiting a long time for someone to aggregate updated material on this topic. Great job!

Why can’t humans synthesize their own Vitamin C but other mammals can?

@MountainFisher

2 ай бұрын

Yes, and your point is?

@beste7187

2 ай бұрын

​@@MountainFisherBecause humans have a pseudogene in their DNA that can no longer synthesize vitamin c

@BoguslavSL

2 ай бұрын

Because we can eat it? We also cannot digest grass and many mammals can. Not all machines run on the same fuel

@BoguslavSL

2 ай бұрын

Besides if you eat little to no sugar there is very little need for vitamin c, check studies on people living on meat and fat only, by the way nutrition is another field full of lies and corruption. Check keto/carnivore

@Pyr0Ben

2 ай бұрын

I see 2 reasons: 1) Maybe we were once able to and since a mutation or two has messed up the process 2) We're meant to go outside and eat vegetables

Thx...

Other predictions: 1 .The fossil record would reveal graduations of merit. 2. It is impossible to recover proteins from dinosaur fossils. 3. Fossils found in different geologic strata ought to be different and highly dissimilar.

In computer programming, there's an error verification method called a checksum, which is used to ensure that the data saved or copied, is done so without error. At a glance, checksums don't look like information, but they're crucial for ensuring data integrity. It would be interesting if some of this seemingly "junk dna" was actually a cell's checksum. Most of man's inventions just imitate some natural system that already exists, so it wouldn't surprise me if this programming method existed in cells first.

@joelebert9767

2 ай бұрын

And very often in nature the designs match human designs (ex. 4 bar linkages) suggesting the human mind was fashioned after the divine one.

@ArvinWallace

2 ай бұрын

The more I write software, the more I marvel at how similar life is to object oriented programming. I believe not one jot of our DNA is useless. I see it all as methods handed down from the prototype. Seeing myself and others as an instance of this prototype. God is so good.. And what an amazing writer of software he is.

Yes!!! A new video! Watching now, and already shared it to X.

"Natural Selection Didit!" 🤣🤣🤣

@TrevoltIV

2 ай бұрын

Natural Selection of the gaps

@MS-od7je

Ай бұрын

@@TrevoltIV and nothing is smarter than super computers and all humans to have ever lived, cumulatively!

Worth the wait. May all false (and evil) theories go up in a puff of smoke. Thank you Long Story Short team!!

@PaulMarostica

2 ай бұрын

Credit the scientific method for discrediting mistaken theories. In science, the purpose of making a theory is to test it, then improve it to be consistent with the results of the tests, then test the improvement and improve it, etc. If you've stopped testing and improving a theory, and you are using it, it's a technology. A problem with this can be that some people accept and promote a theory technology while ignoring that the theory fails to be consistent with the results of some tests.

GREAT VIDEO AS ALWAYS

One of the unanswered questions of Darwinism is how two very similar species can co-existence in the same environment despite one being ostensibly "superior" to another. One of the big hoo-rahs i have seen about the intelligence of chimps is that they hunt monkeys by orchestrating ambushes as a group. If the survival of the fittest mentality were really present here, shouldn't the chimps not only hunt the monkeys for sustenance, but also try to exterminate them because the monkeys' anatomy and arboreal lifestyle makes them a kind of minor rival to the chimps? This failure to eliminate rivals is also at the cellular level. One confounding quote from early in my high school biology class was that "eukaryotic cells are more complex than prokaryotic cells, so it makes sense that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes." This matter-of-fact tone sounds convincing, until you realize that it does not explain how the first eukaryotic cell was able to survive since it presumably arose in a crowd of prokaryotes which, despite having rudimentary defenses, would likely have seen the unfamiliar organism as a threat and killed it immediately. Even if we were to assume that many eukaryotes developed simultaneously in the same general area, and were so powerful that they could just plow through their prokaryotic competition and pursue domination, then we have to answer the question of how prokaryotes have managed to persist over billions of years until today despite their superpowered eukaryotic cousins bullying them all that time.

FINALLY!! ANOTHER MASTER PIECE FROM LONG STORY SHORT!! I'VE BEEN WAITING 😁

The old junk DNA argument: "We can show function for the vast majority of the human genome" The new junk DNA argument: "We can't show function for over half of the human genome, but we think we will in the future"

Excellent work! Keep these coming!

very interesting and I would like to know more.

Awesome video! Thank you!

Thank you Discovery science, keep up the good work

Please talk about the "vestigial organs".

@liothemachine

2 ай бұрын

he already has videos on that on the channel

@EyeToob

2 ай бұрын

I looked for a video on vestigial organs by Discovery Science, and this is the one I found kzread.info/dash/bejne/nX6b0rWIcdebpcY.html

@MountainFisher

2 ай бұрын

They're not vestigial, see the other video. Your appendix saves your microbial 'seeds' if your system gets flushed out by disease or chemicals. That's just one.

@DartNoobo

2 ай бұрын

​@@MountainFisherhence the quotes

good to see LSS

Thank you for this and your other videos. They are very informative. I find the “Forming fear-related memories & phobia” functions very interesting. Makes me think of things I’ve learned about how some people hold fear and trauma in their body.

Appreciate the info in the video. Thank you for producing such accessible content for the scientific lay-person.

Your animations are improving so much LSS 💙

@beste7187

2 ай бұрын

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about the content.

@joelebert9767

2 ай бұрын

​@@beste7187point out something specific and refute it.

You guys are hero's! Great content, wonderfully engaging and irresistibly delicious to ingest! Thanks for another great intellectual meal. :-)

Keep making videos!❤

It would seem that the science of the gaps can't see the TREE for the JUNK

Love these, keep it up!

Question: Does the DNA sequence determine the form of an organ or is that information encoded somewhere else in the cell? (Thinking about the eye muscle that works like a pulley and also the ring like tendon through which it goes...is this complex system determined by the base sequence in DNA or by something else? Thanks)

@YoungEarthCreation

2 ай бұрын

The DNA sequence in the HOX gene is what determines body layout plan and the sequence in the PAX-6 gene is for eyes

@LarghettoCantabile

2 ай бұрын

Developmental gene regulation networks, which involve both coding and noncoding DNA.

@bolapromatoqueejogodecampe8718

2 ай бұрын

@@YoungEarthCreation Thanks. 👍

Your vídeos are terrific! Keep on making time.

THE MAN THE MYTH THE LEGEND HE'S BACK!!!

Question, If protein coding is done by codons (3 nucleotides) are the wholistic, non-protein sequence expressed by a different number of nucleotides? What is their structure, a larger number of nucleotides?

@MountainFisher

2 ай бұрын

See epigenetics.

So, therefore, magic!

@nowhere529

2 ай бұрын

Cope!

How about a video about the alleged ERVs?

Susumu Ohno proposed that 95% or so of the human genome had to be junk in an attempt to explain what protected us against the accumulation of mutations. Then, others put a theological (ie nihilistic ) spin on that hypothesis . But the threat of genetic entropy and the role of recombination in protecting us from extinction seems to be insufficiently researched.

I made sure to teach my children everything that up-to-the-minute evolutionary science teaches. I had no qualms about them learning this stuff. I wanted them to see first-hand just exactly how intellectually bankrupt it is. Evolution is a Just So story for atheists and can only ever inhibit scientific progress because it is a false paradigm.

@PaulMarostica

2 ай бұрын

In my thinking, the bankruptcy is that of those who believe something contradicting observable evidence, which I think is a form of delusion. Biologists have collected and presented hundreds of pieces of observable evidence consistent with evolution having occurred. As far as I can tell, all that creationists have is a belief, and an insistence that anything contradicting their belief is wrong, which I think is both delusional and extremely bankrupt. Any 1 can claim anything is true. Prove your claim that evolution is a false paradigm.

Yes! Another Long Story Short video :D :D :D

May we expect an episode about adding new information into genome? Is it possible at all? Do we know examples of such events?

@DartNoobo

2 ай бұрын

Yeah it is all over the place! Random mutation and natural selection, duh. Oh, in the papers? Why are you asking? Are you dumb? Are you a brainwashed religious zealot? Are you uneducated? Do you not understand how evolution works you backwards catholic caveman? I bet you want inquisition to return, you blood thirsty monster! This is the typical answer you'd get.

Great. Please do a video about junk evolutionists.

Love the jean-gnome, LOL!!!

Cool

Thanks very much for this content so fun to watch. Keep it up people, The Kingdom of Elohim is coming!

This videos series is really the best educational program!!!

As a computer scientist, I always thought "Junk DNA" was a junk idea. The human genome is only about 4 billion base pairs long. Four billion might seem like a lot but it encodes for how to build a human being at the molecular scale! And it was clear to me that there must be error-correcting information included, or life would have died out long ago. It was known, after all, that very small coding errors resulted in deadly genetic diseases. We had not discovered the error correcting sequences, nor the error-correcting mechanisms, and so (again from a computer science perspective) the idea that you could say that all the remaining code that we didn't know the function of was "junk"...well, that's an ignorant position to take.

@DartNoobo

2 ай бұрын

Since sintetic DNA is reality, I wonder how difficult it would be to excise all the "junk" DNA and leave only the protein coding parts. If it doesn't function, then clearly junk DNA isn't junk. If it does function, then it is junk and discussion is closed.

Despite any inaccuracies in predictions or claims, evolution remains & will remain the dominant paradigm due to science's adherence to methodological naturalism.

@YoungEarthCreation

2 ай бұрын

Yeah it is protected by law, it’s not going anywhere. That’s the agenda We have no say

@hxhdfjifzirstc894

2 ай бұрын

Actually, Neo-Darwinian Evolution has been a failed theory for decades, already. "Science" isn't actually science, if it's done with an unjustifiable philosophy.

Hate that all of this information takes so long to be established. Fifty years to say, "Oh, I guess it wasn't junk.". I'll be long gone before any of the Darwinians decide to look at what the ID movement is doing with ideas like biologists working with engineers.

@Papa-dopoulos

2 ай бұрын

If you’ve heard Metaxas on this (he’s a discovery science guy), he recently gave a very eye-opening talk about this - how culture is so slow to let go of wrong assumptions and accept corrected ones, and that many of our institutions suffer in these 50/60/70 year gaps because they operate on the old data. Even now, materialist evolutionary theory proponents are meeting quietly because they know that their creative mechanisms don’t explain nearly enough of the biodiversity we see. But no matter what they conclude, we both might be dead before it hits the frickin headlines 😂 But alive in Jesus, letsgoooooo

This video is misleading in the sense that there was public (among scientists) disagreement with the idea of ‘junk dna’, based on the notion that biologists were simply incapable even of knowing the function of the genes they could detect, much less parts of dna they knew nothing about, back in 1978. The idea was simple: junk dna people were making claims concerning parts of dna about which they could have no knowledge. Thus they could not know whether it was junk or not. Since this disagreement goes back at least as far as 1978 among professors of biology, it’s hard to see how someone could take any ‘scientific credit’ for having doubts about junk dna as late as the 1990s. Why is the video claiming this? [Note that I went to a (very poorly attended) public lecture by Dawkins in 1978 during which multiple biology professors disagreed with the idea of ‘junk genes’, touted by Dawkins, based on the logical objection I outlined above. Nobody agreed with Dawkins that he could know whether any of the dna was junk. I was the only one in the room who was not a biology professor.]

@DiscoveryScienceChannel

2 ай бұрын

Thank you for your comment. Please re-watch the video and footnotes that address this.

@SystemsMedicine

2 ай бұрын

@@DiscoveryScienceChannel Hi. Thank you for your comment. You might want to reread my original comment, which you did not address, which is not addressed in the video (obviously), and which the ‘footnotes’ do not address. As a first hand participant in the incident I mentioned, you’ll have a little trouble convincing me that my position is unfounded. [The video makes a nice case that the notion of junk genes has dragged on, not that someone in the 90s was the progenitor of the opposite view, because that opposite view was certainly around among biology professors in the 1970s. Cheers.]

@Unknown5001

2 ай бұрын

@@DiscoveryScienceChannel The poster is informing you that you don't seem to understand that the existence of junk DNA was disputed by biologists since the beginning of the concept, and that people like Richard Dawkins (known to be "adaptationists") disagreed with the concept of junk DNA since, to their minds, natural selection would get rid of junk DNA. So in the minds of people like Dawkins, junk DNA was never a prediction of evolution. It gets even worse when this video claims junk DNA was based on ignorance, rather than a collection of several independent lines of evidence(genome size variation, sequence conservation, mutational load, most of the genome is actively silenced since it's made of decaying retroviruses, pseudogenes, retrotransposons etc.) that junk DNA is real and that many species have large amounts of it.

@DartNoobo

2 ай бұрын

So apparently you and this handful of biology professors are the only people aware of how long this schism runs in time. Because all this publications cited in the vidoe didn't know that. And all people involved didn't know that junk DNA is a fringe idea. Doesn't mean you are wrong, but it means that popular videos like this still are needed

If intelligent design theorists have been claiming junk DNA is not junk, and it turns out it's not junk, then good for them. I'm not a biologist, but I've been wary of the assumption that junk DNA is junk, and I've been waiting for that assumption to be thoroughly tested. I'm still waiting. If junk DNA really is not junk, it will still not prove Intelligent design is correct, it will only prove that those who believed junk DNA is junk were wrong.

@borisleoro8943

2 ай бұрын

Learn about Dr. Kruse work buddy

@conversative

2 ай бұрын

@PaulMarostica It never claims that it proves intelligent design to be correct. But it is a demonstration of the predictive power of intelligent design and an example of a failed prediction based on evolutionary biology. Watch from @7:36 The "correctness" of intelligent design is founded on the logic of the design inference.

@DartNoobo

2 ай бұрын

Thoroughly tested? Remove the junk part and enjoy the show.

@chrispark2698

2 ай бұрын

You're right - the lack of "junk DNA" doesn't prove ID correct, but it does show the dishonesty and false assumptions perpetrated by the presuppositional commitment to naturalistic materialism.

@lutherlaosi5294

2 ай бұрын

did you watch the whole video??? your question already answered in it!. Honestly why some peoples write a comment and ask redundant question if they didn`t bother to watch the whole video first?

Creationists present a factually correct history of the junk DNA hypothesis challenge level impossible.

Don't mean to pat myself on the back, but I've been saying for years that it is completely obvious (and should have been obvious to the scientists) that if all the genome did was direct the production of a variety of protein molecules it would be virtually useless, because in order to build a body (or anything else !) you need FAR more than just the building MATERIALS, you need precise instructions of when, and where, and how to FORM the parts and ASSEMBLE the parts. A human being is not just a pile of protein molecules !

@MountainFisher

2 ай бұрын

Did you know carbohydrates hold information too?

Science worshippers should watch this video. Question: "What was there before the big bang?" Answer: "Oh evolution proves ...."

Interesting. It reminds me of the climate scam position. They regard that the science is settled rather than consider that they may be wrong (despite a 100% failure rate of all models). I noticed that this video appears not to be monetised. Must go against the algorithm's predetermined bias.

Keep spreading the truth ❤❤❤

Like everything else, ID leads to breakthroughs, Naturalism leaves us spinning out tires.

Too short!

"junk DNA" is a poor excuse to resist the humility of saying "we don't know yet". It's a sad irony that the scientific fields require humble acceptance that hypothesis can be wrong and must be reassessed, and yet it's occupied by so many people who clench fist onto presuppositions because they want that grant money and fear of being blacklisted. Thanks for sharing the vid! 😊 The Lord does make junk, He makes beauty from the ashes!

@TrevoltIV

2 ай бұрын

They do that pretty much every single time they don't know something. Another example is the appendix, they claimed for years that it was useless and even caused millions of people to get theirs removed without necessity, but now we know it's a part of your immune system and filters out toxins, which is why when it bursts it can kill you.

One correction... Intelligent Design has its roots in the late 70s and 80s if not earlier. I have a terrific technical book by A.E. Wilder Smith from the 80s that addresses Intelligent Design as an answer to the DNA problem of junk DNA. Otherwise, this is a great video on DNA v junk DNA

What does the religious books say about the so called wise man? In thinking that they are wise, they become fools.

@liothemachine

2 ай бұрын

*the Bible ☦️🙏

Excellent. I never believed it was junk. Saying it was junk was pure hubris.

"The Evolutionary Myth of Junk DNA... All Evolution is a Myth built on a fairytale built on a misconception. All

1st of all Atoms & DNA are certainly not self created easily grasped if being honest... 2nd Life of any kind didn't/couldn't somehow "eminate" from a rock 3rd from the Sun nor anywhere else...! People need to get grip...lol

Why does this video omit mention of the 2014 ENCODE paper that significantly walked back the claims of the 2012 paper? Has the author of this video read that paper? The ENCODE authors in that paper provided criteria for what would constitute "function" as opposed to "activity", and showed data that, according to their criteria, indicates most of the activity they were documenting was likely spurious rather than functional. It's called "Defining functional DNA elements in the human genome" by Kellis et al., and I encourage everyone to look it up and check for themselves. Discovery Institute isn't telling the whole story. About 1 minute in, "it was assumed that the other 98% was junk" - that's not accurate and has never been the case. About 2 minutes 10 seconds, those publications are not *predictions*. They are *descriptions* of the evidence that overwhelmingly indicates that most of the human genome is nonfunctional. The graphic at about 5 minutes is a misrepresentation, conflating activity and function, as so many creationists do. To be fair, many ENCODE members did the same, but the 2012 paper was more circumspect and precise than the press releases and creationist narratives. About 5 minutes 30 - the consensus is very much *not* that "junk DNA isn't junk". Virtually nobody still agrees with the 80-100% functional claim Birney made (except maybe Birney). All the quotes from around the 6 minute mark - why didn't you do that for the what you called "predictions" early on, even though some of those papers and books are more recent than what's shown here? What specific % of the genome do creationists think, per about the 6 minutes 45 mark, "regulates gene expression"? Has the author of this video read Larry Moran's book?

@joelebert9767

2 ай бұрын

Let the record show that Dan puts his chips on junk DNA.

@RedefineLiving

2 ай бұрын

They made a response article to your incorrect comment. Silly Dan, so angry at God that you can’t even understand what you are criticizing. What’s even worse is that you are completely unable to provide me with a line of reasoning, which supports your conclusion that there is no God, so this is all you can do.

@RedefineLiving

2 ай бұрын

@@joelebert9767 I wish every Christian thought about God as much as Dan does. He’s completely obsessed, although his worldview is falling apart.

@Pyr0Ben

Ай бұрын

Dr. Dan the Retcon Man

First! I could not resist 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Assuming 98% of our DNA was the greatest scientific feet of all time.

First

The mythological goddess, Evolution, has been disowned and disavowed by her former husband, Science, who, because of her constant, continuous and cantankerous lying about herself AND her husband, refuses to grant her any further support: "I have released her to the streets of Olympus, that she may die if her life is merciful and be ridiculed for the rest of creation's timescape if life is as miserable as she made me. May her misery endure for all time," her husband, Science, was heard to say.

"For God's wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of people who suppress the truth (about God) in their wickedness because WHAT MAY BE KNOWN OF GOD IS PLAIN TO THEM, FOR GOD HAS MADE IT PLAIN TO THEM. For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes, namely His eternal power and Godhead ARE CLEALY SEEN, BEING UNDERSTOOD BY THE THINGS THAT ARE MADE, SO THAT THEY HAVE NO EXCUSE..." (Romans 1:18-20) Written in year AD 57 God has made His existence clearly known by His creation........ The design in His creation...

atheist = BELIEVER in abiogenesis + chance

I appreciate the effort you put into creating visually appealing thumbnails. They always catch my attention.