DNAunion 001: Design vs. Chance (False) Dichotomy

[TheExtremeBiblicist]

Sorry, but adding trillions of years to beat the odds to explain how evolution produced the biosphere here on earth as we know it just doesn't get it for creationists. Evolutionists want to convenient skip abiogenesis, but sorry, you can't. ITMT an embryo evolves into an infant in just 9 months. So the concept of evolution is fundamental throughout creation. But it doesn't take a trillion years. That's just my viewpoint. Thanks for your video. I like your presentation.

[DNAunion]

@TheExtremeBiblicist

Evolutionists absolutely can "skip" abiongenesis.

Abiogenesis attempts to explain how life arose; evolution explains how life changed after that. So evolution requires that life already exist.

Have you even bothered to read Darwin's "The Origin of Species?"

You seem to conflate evolution with naturalism. They are not the same.

[TheExtremeBiblicist]

Creationists PROBLEM: Even atheists and evolutionists admit the leap from inorganic to viable organic is a huge leap. Amino acids form in the presence of electricity if the basic elements are there but that is a very long way from a single cell developing and then being viable. When you look at the VARIETY of life you know evolution is an inadequate answer.  The Bible says God created many things to produce after its kind, which is what we observe scientifically now.

[DNAunion]

@TheExtremeBiblicist

You are obviously way behind on your origin-of-life studies.

Start by reading up on Jack Szostak's fatty-acid vesicles.

[DNAunion]

@TheExtremeBiblicist

Sigh. The typical anti-evolutionists' argument from increduility. "I can't imagine how it could happen, therefore it couldn't."

Evolution has had some 3.5 BILLION years to generate the variety of life we see today. Do you comprehend how long that is? How about you try this. Count (from 1, by ones, of course) as fast as you can until you reach 3.5 billion. Then let me know how long it takes you.

[DNAunion]

@TheExtremeBiblicist

Sorry, but that cannot be what we observe scientifically, because "kind" is not a scientific term.

Please, define "kind."

[TheExtremeBiblicist]

DNAUnion. You have a wonderful presentation, but I can see the "loopholes" in getting to a consensus on whether there is a God or not and that that is the God of the Bible, etc.

All I can say is, I can understand someone who has no faith in the Bible following the propaganda out there and even valid scientific theory. That's all I can say.

But I'm wondering when ARMAGEDDON gets here how that will affect the radiometric dating theories? I don't have all the answers.But I know God exists.

[DNAunion]

@TheExtremeBiblicist

WHEN Armageddon gets here? No question about whether or not it will? Nope, doesn't work like that.

First, provide valid, objective, positive evidence that clearly shows Armageddon, in the religious sense, is going to come.

[TheExtremeBiblicist]

@DNAunion When Armageddon starts to happen then that will be the proof. "The proof is in the pudding."

In the meantime, the events leading up to this event are shaping up. So, sorry you have to wait but... per the Bible, the UN must rule the world for at least 15 months (or less) before Armageddon occurs. Integral to this is the UN's takeover/outlaw of the Federal Reserve. So that's a key event to watch for. Groups are already demanding to "End the Fed" which = Babylon TG in the Bible.

[DNAunion]

@TheExtremeBiblicist

Fail.

There is no valid, objective, positive evidence in what you posted showing that Armageddon is actually going to happen.

[TheExtremeBiblicist]

@DNAunion Just in passing, FYI, in connection with the timing of Armageddon, Matthew 24:29 speaks of the "sign of the son of man" that would appear to the elect after the State of Israel is set up. That 1 promised miracle is has been observed and is known in the "temple" sect religion of Jehovah's Witnesses. So some of us (albeit not non-believers) have direct proof of God and holy spirit. This tends to make us take a much harder line on depending on science re. reality of God. Sorry.

[DNAunion]

@TheExtremeBiblicist

Nope. That is not what the Bible says.

In addition, Jesus Himself made a prophecy that failed, showing that the Bible is not an reliable source.

[TheExtremeBiblicist]

Nothing in the Bible contradicts that the universe or the earth itself can't be billions of years old. Again, it was already there before the first creative day when God said, "Let there be light." It just meant the earth was not in the same relation to the sun on the first creative day.

Thanks for discussing this. Finding things wrong with false creationist concepts is one thing, finding the bible wrong is another. They are not the same.  Creationists can be their own worst enemies!!!

[DNAunion]

@TheExtremeBiblicist

The Bible also says the earth existed before light.

We know from the CMBR that light existed at least as far back as 13 billion years ago. And we know from radiometric dating that the earth has exited for only about 4.5 billion years.

The Genesis Creation Myth is scientifically refuted; not just in this once case, but in many others.

The Bible is ancient mythology, written by scientificaly ignorant, vastly superstitious men.

[TheExtremeBiblicist]

@DNAunion The current measurements are based on the presumption of constancy. The Bible at least suggests and does not rule out that God may have altered the speed of light for some stars or galaxies to reach the earth sooner than normal and thus there is no guarantee about the age of certain galaxies simply based on current measurements.

So science may, indeed, be reading their instruments right but they can't predict constancy in the distant past.

[DNAunion]

@TheExtremeBiblicist

"Constancy" is not a presumption. Scientific theory makes predictions going back to the time of the CMBR, and before, and tests have confirmed the predictions.

And your "explanation" is quite ridiculous; it is no more reasonable and no more supportable than someone saying that magical unicorns manipulated the physical universe.

By they way. WHY would God intentionally plant misleading information all over the universe? Is He the Great Deceiver?

[TheExtremeBiblicist]

NO. The Bible does not set the age of the earth. It was already there, "formless" when God started the "creative days" which are 7000 years long each. So please REMOVE the false concept that the EARTH itself, the UNIVERSE are no more than 42,000 years long. The earth was ALREADY THERE. But, of course, I can't blame you since creationists have this false idea and you're just responding to it. At any rate, if the earth as pre-creative days it would affect the evidence.

[DNAunion]

@TheExtremeBiblicist

Fail.

The ORDER of several things in the Genesis Creation Myth are backwards.

So it doesn't matter if each day is 24 hours, 7000 years, or millions of years: the order is wrong: the Bible is wrong.

[eepwwtppwe]

you sir win sir. if you aren't part of the internet gaming subculture, let me translate.

YOU SIR ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!!!

[eeritated]

Design and naturalism are totaly exclusive claims.....this video is typical of naturalists, in that you can not address the evident design in biology without your fear about who that designer may be....but clearly you can't have an intelligent, unintelligent cause, it does have to be one or the other.....now please provide us 1 example of highly specified information being produced by unintelligent means.

[DNAunion]

"now please provide us 1 example of highly specified information being produced by unintelligent means."

I can give you many. Humans, chimps, gorillas, orangutans, ....

[Xakryn]

I love the word Dichotomy, like all things in our life, dichotomy is a word that is overlooked way to much because it would help reveal the psychological tricks the media plays with our minds to make us fight over some ridiculous non-issues. I think the fear a lost of faithful have is that a world without religion is a world without spirituality. It is simply not true, Spirituality when opened to full potential, it allows your wonder at the mystery that is the universe to grow...

[Xakryn]

Organized religion and almost any organization that seeks power, is something that becomes open to corruption. Organizations seem to feed upon regulation, and in religions case, regulation is dogma. While spirituality can be good for your mind, to help fuel your imagination, it is not meant to be take literally because each person spiritual experience is their own and things evolve too. Its ironic, religious institutions fight evolution and evolve to do so.

[Tahnz86]

I agree religion brings corruption... that does not change the fact the the universe may have been created though..

[lyndsaywzl]

Insightful video DNAunion.

[powerstone2]

Absolutely excellent! I've addressed many of these points too in my videos too. The false dichotomy fallacy is one that creationists sweep under the rug as it will destroy the vast majority of claims they make.

Even if Earth is 6000yrs,theistic evolution still works-after all,God can just speed it up,can't he?

Also,positive evidence for creation is anything but scientific as it doesn't follow the scientific method. Positive evidence for design is also fallacious

Again,well done.

[ChaosBeing]

Completly true.