@ggcage (continuation of my other comment) ...Thus making a single omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent creator mechanically impossible, in reference to science. A "god" needed something beyond himself occurring at the same of his existence prior to the "creation" in order to be inspired to create something, unless he was, and is, a concurrent combustion of anything and everything you could possibly imagine. We rely on outer sources to be driven to make art and things that mimic life.
"All consciousness need outside reference to be inspired to make something"
That may be true for us, but not for God. God is transcendent. Philosophically speaking, there's not that much difference between Zeus and Superman. Both are morally imperfect beings that are bound by (not all but some of) the laws of physics. God on the other hand is outside the universe, and outside of any limitation.
Because He is outside of space and time, He does not get inspired and then do something. He knows everything that He will ever know right now and throughout eternity. If God went from not knowing something to knowing something in a given period of time, then that would mean that He is bound by time. If God was bound by time, then He would not be God. He would be god but not God, because God is transcendent of time, space, and the universe we live in.
Kepler's idea of God is probably a lot closer than the idea of "an old man in the sky". However, since it's not derived from the Bible, I would be very nervous about accepting it as true. However, out of curiosity let me ask you this: what would you consider to be convincing proof of the Bible, or any particular holy book / religion? What would cause you to convert?
@ggcage Your right about me observing the effects of you, however, I can make an educated guess as to what kind of person you are that would conform to these effects, being your script. And that can be evaluated using science and math. The one reason that I am most skeptical about a "god", is the following. Many consider human's creativity as an example of "godliness", and evidence for a divine creator. All consciousness need outside reference to be inspired to make something.
You do seem to have a scientific background, however, I'd like to inform you that the concept of "sin" is false to begin with.You would immediately assume that I'm a believer of forgiveness, but I don't believe in forgiveness any more than I believe in condemnation. You might say: "Well how do you not call a serial killer a sinner?!". Everyone is a victim of subculture, as Fresco would say. In other words, you and I are a reflection of our environment. You might say:"But how do we make choices?"
We’ve all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Our environment is no excuse. People in good environments are sinful too. They are not good. They are sheltered. They dont show it as much b/c they aren’t tempted as much, but they still have a fallen sinful nature. We may be good by worldly standards but no one is good by God’s perfect standard. The world’s standards are always changing but God’s are eternal and holy, and only His matters in the eternal scheme of things
We have all rebelled against an infinite God and deserve an infinite punishment. Jesus took on that infinite punishment while He was on the cross. The agony of being crucified was just the very tip of the iceberg. He took on the full, infinite wrath of God, and He did it willingly, despite the immense temptation not to. Jesus died for you. It’s the greatest gift ever given and it would be a great tragedy if it were wasted.
Our environment does have a big affect on us. It does make it more understandable why we sin, but it is not an excuse. Adam and Eve lived in a perfect environment, and they sinned, and we would do the same. We have a sinful and fallen nature. Jesus lived in a very bad environment. He was tempted while fasting for 40 days. But He never sinned. He even willingly suffered hell for us while He was on the cross. But He never broke down and did anything against God’s will.
We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Our environment is no excuse. People in good environments are sinful too. They may not show it is much, but they still have a fallen sinful nature. We may be good by worldly standards but no one is good by God’s perfect standard. The world’s standards are constantly changing but God’s are eternal and holy, and only His matters in the eternal scheme of things.
Regardless of what we do, we all have an evil nature. Our nature is what makes us unfit for God. Our deeds only reflect our nature. Only God, through Christ can change our nature. Weve all rebelled against an infinite God and deserve an infinite punishment. Jesus took on that infinite punishment while He was crucified. We all need Jesus to redeem us. We cant save ourselves. Jesus died for you. It’s the greatest gift ever given and it would be a great tragedy if it were wasted
@ggcage I thank you for spending all that time and effort on my comment, and I sincerely admire your tenacity. I appreciate your insights, however, I must ask you this: Were you raised Christian throughout your childhood? (If this is too personal I don't expect you to answer). But nevertheless, I am still not convinced.
Yes, I was raised in a Christian household. However, I went through a long phase of intense doubting, but emerged with even stronger faith. Doubt isnt the same as unbelief. In the end doubt makes our faith stronger, if we study and pray about our doubts.
If you are doubting your faith, I'd like to give you encouragement and say that the resurrection is what Christianity hangs on and there's plenty of evidence for that. If you're not a Christian, let me ask you this. What would you consider to be convincing proof of the resurrection? What would cause you to convert?
@ggcage I was once a Christian, I went to Sunday school, I even went to multiple churches. I didn't abandon my faith because I thought they were "stupid" or "against science". Deep down, everybody is a scientist. But not all scientists are correct. Not because they have something mentally wrong with them, but because many of us adopt our elder's customs. All creationist scientists that I have encountered admitted to being raised Christian, and thus I noticed a distinct pattern.
Well I'm sorry to hear that, but evolution is not a reason to abandon your faith. If you don't mind my asking, why exactly did you leave your faith?
If you left your faith b/c of evolution, then you should come back. If Jesus really did come back from the dead 2000 years ago, then Christianity is true whether or not we evolved. The resurrection is what Christianity stands or falls on. If you're doubting your faith, that is what you need to focus on.
If you need historical evidence of the resurrection, look up William Lane Craig. He has a website called "ReasonableFaith(dot)org" and a YouTube channel called "DrCraigVideos". He has some very good material on the resurrection.
I highly recommend you look at those, but he has some other really good material too. The point is that evolution does not refute Christianity, even if it is true. Please don't let some scientific findings distract you from the mos precious gift of eternal salvation through Jesus.
@ggcage Trust me. Had I lived in the time of Jesus I would have considered him one of my biggest inspirations. But I'd like you to realize that nothing can go beyond the realm of science. Just because some force or phenomena overpowers you and seems too confusing to be understood at the deepest level of existence, doesn't mean it can't be decoded using empirical experimentation and observation. Science is a method of extracting facts, not a belief system. I promise I'll look at those for you.
Did you use science to prove that? Did you use empirical methods to search for nonempirical entities and then conclude that there were none when you found none? The transcendent must exist in order for the empirical to exist. (See Transcendental Argument). If God exists then He wouldn't be detectable by empirical means b/c He is outside of the universe.
Not everything can be empirically observed. Can you observe the number 5? Not the symbol 5 written down, or 5 things but the actual number 5. No. Why? Because the number 5 transcends the universe. The number 5, like all math, is everywhere, yet you can never actually observe the number 5. If the number 5 can empirical observation, why can't God?
@ggcage Your response reminds me of the golden ratio, 1;1.61803... also dubbed "God's fingerprint". I'm in the middle of reading The Golden Ratio by physicist Mario Livio. Livio is not an atheist, nor is he against faith but he has some great books. I'll have you know, although less obvious, mathematics is a branch of the sciences. It is the numeric, measuring, and calculative realm of science.
@ponderbot34 In the mathematical world we can't see with our own eyes what "5" looks like but we can determine its existence because we recognize its value, being five portions of whatever it may be. The numeral "5" is man made to represent the value of five. We can't observe "5" visually, but we realize its characteristics by performing operations of "5" with other numbers and we detect its "behavior". The word "five" is linguistic. The same way we don't know God's name so we call him "God".
@ponderbot34 Third, I feel that it would be too quick to jump to conclusions by saying "God" is a male, I would feel the same if "God" was traditionally considered female. I'm not calling you sexist, but anyways, if "God" created us in his own image, then "God" is far from perfect because our bodily structure is imperfect. Eve coming from Adam's rib is just a story. That scripture is the way it is because the authors lived in a time when females were considered secondary and inferior.
@ponderbot34 Anyways, back to what we are discussing, I can't see you, but I know you exist because you are communicating with me through binary operations in the electromagnetic spectrum. If I wanted someone to prove "God's" existence to me, I most definitely would not expect them to summon "God" before my eyes. A better way is to have "God" communicate with me, just like you are communicating with me.
@ponderbot34 I can analyze small bits of information about your personality by witnessing your messages. I don't have to see, hear, smell, etc... you in order to observe you and confirm your existence. No one that I have witnessed nor during my previous faith in "God" have I witnessed any linguistic or at least codified communication.
My point was that science isn't everything. The laws of mathematics are not governed by physics. Rather, the laws of physics are governed by mathematics. The laws themselves are not physical entities, and are not governed by science. Rather science is governed by them. You cannot observe these laws. You can observe their effects, but the laws themselves are beyond empirical observation.
There are some things that are beyond empirical observation. It's not far out to think that there is a God that is outside of empirical observation. In fact, the Transcendental Argument necessitates it.
An eternal mind is necessary for the existence of our highly ordered universe, and the Transcendental Argument explains why. Another effect from God that we can observe is the Bible, which is loaded with prophecy. There are a couple of links in the description that show hundreds of true prophecies. Those videos I gave you earlier show the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, which was a very profound miracle, and demonstrates the existence of the Christian God
@ggcage In my opinion, the one person that had the most believable model for a "god" figure was Johannes Kepler. He proposed that God is a simultaneous collection of all possible geometric figures and mathematical algorithms. Hence the golden ratio encompassing the proportions of everything in nature, although not everything is perfectly in proportion to that sequence. The way you are explaining "god" to me is very much similar to Kepler's God Model.
I'm not saying "oh, we can't explain this so God did it". I'm saying that because we can explain it. Because there are physical, natural, mathematical, moral and logical laws that govern the universe, and because those laws are so orderly, to allow complex life to exist, they must originate from a mind that is orderly and transcendent. Science tells us what the laws of the universe are. Religion tells us why these laws exist.
Your example of the Toyota and Ford car would actually mean something, if ford and toyota created the internal combustion engine car from scratch (which they obviously did not). Instead they improved on previous internal combustion engine cars(evolution). Your example actually proves evolution more then it disproves it.
You can say naturalistic evolution needs abiogenisis, but not all forms evolution need it.
@godlynessdog I see, but the point still remains that organisms made by the same Creator for basically the same environment will have similar designs. The similarities of earth's creatures doesn't necessitate evolution.
Also, can you name a practical application of macroevolution that is useful in the real world?
@ggcage One of the most important examples of Macro Evolution was the jump from water to land. Macro evolution is practicle, because it helped organisms spread across the world. When there is a niche open, macro evolution will fill it. In the case of water to land, land was the whole niche that needed filling. Where there is space and water, there will be life.
@godlynessdog That's not exactly what I meant. I was asking for a practicle application in the study of Macroevolution, like in medicine or agriculture. For example, understanding Microevolution has given us a better understanding of how viruses mutate. However, Macroevolution has yet to yield practical knowledge that can solve problems today.
there really isn't any difference between microevolution and macroevolution..this is a misconception that u have learned from faulty sources..macroevolution is the result of microevolution over time..many gradual small changes over a long period of time inevitably= macroevolution..think of a baby boy becoming an elderly man..very small changes every day accumulate until after many years what once was a baby boy, is now an elderly man.
I realize that the line between microevolution and macroevolution can be quite blurred, but when I say that macroevolution is impossible, what I mean is that there are limits to what evolution is capable of. Evolution has been observed to create small, noticeable changes. This does not necessarily mean that it can create huge changes. That is a big assumption that lacks evidence.
Are there any organisms on the earth today that are as simple or nearly as simple as the first life forms? If not, then why not? Land animals evolved from fish, but there are still fish. Eukaryotes evolved from Prokaryotes, but there are still Prokaryotes. So if complex bacteria evolved from simple bacteria, wouldn't it make sense that there are still simple bacteria?
Science deals with things that are in this world. Religion deals with things that are out of this world. Perhaps I should explain it in a future video, but the theory of evolution does not contradict the Bible. Science cannot solve all of our problems. The 20th century was the most scientifically advanced century, but it also had the most warfare, genocide, ect. To try to replace God with science is very foolish.
lol..religion deals with things that are out of this world? what is out of this world?..where is the evidence that there even is a such thing as out of this world?
evolution does contradict the story of adam and eve..also, the story of creation where god created animals separately from humans is incompatible with evolution.
and of course science can't solve all of our problems..science is a process of investigating the natural world, not instilling happiness, sense of purpose, etc..
@itzahazylife By 'out of this world' I mean things that are not governed by the laws of the physical universe, such as God, human souls, ect. I would go over the evidence for such things here, but I don't have the space. If you're interested, there's a video I have on it called "Religion: Fact or False?"
Let me ask you this, if science cannot instill happiness, or give a sense of purpose, then what does?
evidence of anything out of this world, would be found within this world, further indicating that it's still not evidence of anything existing outside of this world..u can make a case by saying there is more to this world than we know, but u can't ever find evidence of something outside of this world, from within this world.
@itzahazylife But there is evidence of things outside the physical universe. For example, prophesy. The Bible is loaded with prophesy. People say that Biblical prophesy is vague, but there is quite a bit of specific prophesy. The probability of these prophecies coming true is unfathomably low if there were no higher power behind them. If you're interested, there are a couple of links in my channel description on Biblical prophesy.
and science can give us a sense of purpose..the cycle of life and death. life provides thru death..trees die to give lumber, animals and plants die for food. human beings die for food to bacteria and wild animals..
there's no need for god to have a purpose..life itself can be enough of a purpose..the purpose to life can be to live. and while alive, try to enjoy yourself as much as possible before u die.
"the problem with abiogenesis is that even the simplest living organism is highly complex and has millions of parts"
yes, the simplest CURRENTLY existing organisms!...even the simplest currently existing organism is no where near as primitive as the earliest single celled organisms that first developed on earth.
"steps that would need to occur for like to form have been done in the labs, but only after carefully controlling the experiments"
yes, they did carefully control the experiments..they made sure that the conditions of the experiments mimicked the conditions of the pre biotic earth! lol!!
a theory in science is NOT an educated guess...it is the greatest possible explanation for a natural mystery. it is built by facts..it is an explanation that best fits with observed facts and evidence.
u claim speciation has been observed, but macroevolution is built off of assumptions, lol...speciation is an example of a macroevolutionary event. when one species becomes another species, it usually means that many small changes to one species accumulated over time, until a new species resulted..speciation essentially IS macroevolution.
u then go on about vestigial structures having uses..what u don't realize is that when a vestigial structure adopts a use, it's adopting a SECONDARY use..take wings on a flightless bird for example..this is an obvious vestigial structure..even though the bird may use the wings for other things, it's primary function was for flight, of which the wings are no longer used for.
of course evolution and abiogenesis are connected..everything in the universe is connected..what most people mean when they say abioegenesis and evolution have nothing to do with each other, is that abiogenesis being true or not has no bearing on evolution being true or not..basically, it doesn't matter how life originated for evolution to be true. life could have came from god, aliens, or whatever, but that wouldn't change that fact that life evolves. get it?
"the idea that an organism would arise without any design highly unlikely. (on the order of 1 in 10^5000, and no, i did not just make that number up)"
i know, u got it from other creationists..but, it's a faulty calculation. they calculate the probability of the formation of a MODERN protein, or even a complete bacterium with all MODERN proteins, by random events. and like i said before, the first life was very simple, and abiogenesis was driven by chemistry, which is NOT random.
"yes science is great at solving all kinds of worldly problems, but it is important that we don't let ourselves become obsessed science to the point that we start forsaking the things that truly matter"
that can be translated as this: we can trust and respect science when it is creating modern medicine, computers, and great technology, but once it starts providing evidence and facts that directly conflict with our religion, we must start ignoring it.
Evolution doesn't have any flaws. I don't know what your definition of a hole is, but evolution doesn't have any of what I consider holes.
You say evolution doesn't yeild any use in the practical world. This is false because evolution has furthered the medical, agricultural, and biotechnology feilds so much, and is the basis of all of biology.
Actually, you could say toyota and ford have a common ancestor. In 1807 Isaac de Rivaz of switzerland created the first internal combustion engine.
I have a better example of the relation between microevolution and macroevolution: Microevolution would be the difference between you now and you 6 months later. Macroevolution would be the difference between you now and you 20 years later.
You're right on what a theory is, but evolution isn't a theory. It's a scientific theory. Look up the difference.
Gravity is a law, but there is also gravitational theory. The law of gravity says what gravity is. Gravitational theory explains how and why.
@gregr close but not close enough! evolution works by genes spontaneously mutate, causing changes in individual organisms. If those changes allow the organism to bear more offspring than others of its species and the mutations happen in genes which are passed on, then more and more organisms will start to bear those genes.natural selection help by weeding out the bad mutations!
evolution work on the big scale as well as the small. if you change your DNA (small scale) you change who and what you are (big scale)! so you see you need to go to school! and stop posting videos showing how dumb you are!
THE FACT THAT YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT A THEORY IS SHOWS THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN YOUR VIDEO WORTH WATCHING! IT ONLY SHOWS SIGNS OF A PERSON WITHOUT A EDUCATION!
it is not the laws of gravity. it is the theory of gravity that work by certain laws! this is what you are misunderstanding about it! it is to these certain laws that is being referred to when some one says the laws of gravity! in other wards the theory is made up of part that or called law! and it is those parts or laws that they are referring to! not the hole theory just one of it's laws!
@gregrutz man are you ever dumb!!! this is something you should have learned in junior high! IT IS THE THEORY OF GRAVITY! the theory is not a law!! when Isaac Newton first came up with it he said that gravity work and follow certain law! like what go's up must come down. the theory is made up of all these laws. but it is just a theory not a law! in fact Isaac Newton was wrong on some of his theory. it was Albert Einstein who had refined it to what we know now! and is still being refined!
@gregrutz see this is how dumb you are! first you say it's a law now you say it is a theory! and no the Theory of relativity did not replaced Newton's theory! it helped refined it not replace it! the theory of relativity is not all abut gravity relativity solves for the cosmological and astrophysical realm. limited to only making minor corrections to predictions of Newtonian gravitation theory.
@franktastikart I said a theory explains facts. Laws are found in math. Einstien's math replaced Newton's math. Newton's math still works good enough to fly to the moon, but it was replace, not just minor. Everything had to change.
''Gravitaional Field'' was replaced with 'warped space-time'
@gregrutz You are right. Evolution is never going to be a law, no matter how much evidence proves it. For something to be a law it basically has to be reprentable by a mathematic equation, and with a topic as complicated as evolution; That's never going to happen.
Your analogies are misguided, tremendously. Cells have a number of working parts that change the type of "work" being done based on the environment they're exposed to. They either adapt or perish. To say that it would be nearly impossible to have a random cell evolve into what we see today, shows an enormous ignorance of the cosmos and chemistry. The quote at 6:35 implies that the "worldly problems" don't truly matter. I think they matter...unless you know of a colony on another planet...
When I said "worldly" I wasn't refering specifically to Earth. I was refering to the problems that are material, temporary and not of a spiritual nature. In the eternal scheme of things, these things don't really matter. For example, modern medicine is wonderful, but it only delays the inevitable. The thing is that each person has sinned, and risks the wrath of God, and Jesus is the only one who can save us from that.
@ggcage The inevitable that you're refering to is death, correct? It's not a mystery that life has an end, but I don't understand how the things that are on this planet aren't "eternal"? The dirt was here before you or I, and before our ancestors. Before the dirt was here before the dinosaurs as well. We have archaeological, biological, and historical facts to prove that. Now, what I have a problem with is the fact that you claim to know what happens when we die, how do you know this?
Dirt is not eternal. It may have been around longer than we have, and it may be here long after we're gone, but it doesn't last forever. There will come a day when there is no longer such a thing as planet Earth.
"What happens when we die" can be known because of God's revelation in His word. The Bible tells us that there is a life after this one, where we must account for our sins against an eternal God, and the only way we can avoid this eternal punishment against an eternal God is by accepting His the payment that He has made for our sin on the cross. If God were to just forgive sin without any sacrifice He'd be supporting sin.
The cross really is amazing in that it shows just how much God loves us, and how seriously He takes sin.
But how can we know that the Bible is the word of God? I could go on for quite a while about this, but the Bible has things that no other holy book has. For one thing it has prophecy.
These prophecies have been shown to be written beforehand and accurately predict events no person could've known. If you're interested, there is a link in my channel description to 300 prophecies written about Jesus before He was born.
@ggcage Prophecies to Identify the Messiah,Matthew 1:23 says that Jesus (the messiah) would be called Immanuel, which means "God with us." Yet no one, not even his parents, call him Immanuel at any point in the bible.
@ggcage The Messiah must be a physical descendant of David (Romans 1:3 & Acts 2:30). Yet, how could Jesus meet this requirement since his genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 show he descended from David through Joseph, who was not his natural father because of the Virgin Birth. Hence, this prophecy could not have been fulfilled
@ggcage The gospels (especially Matthew 21:4 and John 12:14-15) claim that Jesus fulfills the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9. But the next few verses (Zechariah 9:10-13) show that the person referred to in this verse is a military king that would rule "from sea to sea". Since Jesus had neither an army nor a kingdom, he could not have fulfilled this prophecy.
@ggcage Matthew (Matthew 2:17-18) quotes Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:15), claiming that it was a prophecy of King Herod’s alleged slaughter of the children in and around Bethlehem after the birth of Jesus. But this passage refers to the Babylonian captivity, as is clear by reading the next two verses (Jeremiah 31:16-17), and, thus, has nothing to do with Herod’s massacre.
@ggcage ohn 19:33 says that during Jesus’ crucifixion, the soldiers didn’t break his legs because he was already dead. Verse John 19:36 claims that this fulfilled a prophecy: "Not a bone of him shall be broken." But there is no such prophecy. It is sometimes said that the prophecy appears in Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12 & Psalm 34:20. This is not correct.
@ggcage Exodus 12:46 & Numbers 9:12 are not prophecies, they are commandments. The Israelites are told not to break the bones of the Passover lamb, and this is all it is about. And Psalm 34:20 seems to refer to righteous people in general (see verse Psalm 34:19, where a plural is used), not to make a prophecy about a specific person
@ggcage "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt." Hosea 11:1. Matthew (Matthew 2:15) claims that the flight of Jesus’ family to Egypt is a fulfillment of this verse. But Hosea 11:1 is not a prophecy at all. It is a reference to the Hebrew exodus from Egypt and has nothing to do with Jesus. Matthew tries to hide this fact by quoting only the last part of the verse ("Out of Egypt I have called my son").
@ggcage "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." Micah 5:2 The gospel of Matthew (Matthew 2:5-6) claims that Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem fulfils this prophecy. But this is unlikely for two reasons.
@ggcage A) "Bethlehem Ephratah" in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb’s second wife, Ephrathah (1 Chronicles 2:18, 2:50-52 & 4:4)
@ggcage B) The prophecy (if that is what it is) does not refer to the Messiah, but rather to a military leader, as can be seen from Micah 5:6. This leader is supposed to defeat the Assyrians, which, of course, Jesus never did. It should also be noted that Matthew altered the text of Micah 5:2
@ggcage by saying: "And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah" rather than "Bethlehem Ephratah" as is said in Micah 5:2. He did this, intentionally no doubt, to make this verse appear to refer to the town of Bethlehem rather than the family clan.
I can assure you that there are answers to all these objections, but it would not be efficient to post them here. If you are truly interested, I would recommend two websites, "gotquestions(dot)org" and "tektonics(dot)org" where you can find these answers.
I don't know exactly what happened to you. I was not there, and I am certainly glad you're still alive. However, I have never used NDEs as a means of defending the faith. I'm not saying they don't happen, but the brain has a way of doing strange things when it doesn't have enough oxygen.
Death is sobering. There is no doubt about that. But thanks to Christ, it has lost its sting. It is a most precious gift, and it would be a great tragedy if it were wasted.
To say that Christianity (or religion in general) is merely a crutch is inaccurate. If people made God up, so that they could feel better, why did the make Him holy? Why did they not make it so that He would approve of everything they desired? Why did they make up a place like hell? Why would they make up a religion where people were helpless wretched sinners?
I still do not see exactly where I have lied. Could you clarify this?
One problem; robots don't reproduce therefore they cannot evolve. If something cannot reproduce then it can't evolve. That's why examples of paintings, writing in the sand, or a building, are absolutely abysmal attempts to debunk evolution. Take out that reproductive ability and you take out evolution itself.
Good question. Your best bet is to find a way to build tiny robots (like cells) that can take resources from the environment and build more robots, which thus can build a giant robot our size. You can use utmost intelligence to compensate for not having millions of years of evolution (where utterly no intelligence was used). For the moment, please be kind to your other fellow dissenters, so long they have good arguments.
If the way that number was obtained is anything like the way you got the number in your old evolution video that was taken down, it was based on the faulty assumption that only ONE sequence works, and falls apart if one out of every 10^100 sequences works
The refutation of this claim for proteins parallels the refutation for DNA.
Read "New Proteins Without God's Help" by Dr. William M. Thwaites. If you google it, you'll see that they have it on the NCSE's website.
Perhaps so, but life forming from nonlife is still astronomically unlikely. It should be realized that this is all happening inside a living organism. It only proves microevolution. It is no different than bacteria resisting antibiotics. The nylon eating bacteria looses efficiency when it comes to digesting other materials, just like antibiotic resistant bacteria have trouble surviving outside the hospital. They are only becoming more specialized. The useful genetic information does not increase
Oh my god your stupid. Sorry to be rude, but you must understnad how stupid this sounds "must of got the southpole by other means" ok, did someone actually say metaphor, or did you just make that up just to say that?
Did it ever occur to you that those holes and gaps are in your OWN knowledge? Talk about being blind..
The basic problem is that the people who attack evolution have not actually studied it. If they did, they would see that there's nothing TO attack. It isn't a Satanic Conspiracy, it's simply the description of a process, providing a very useful taxonomy and a way to understand relationships. I see no way around this problem of ignorance. And it will become far worse if we allow these untutored people to drag our science education back into the bronze age.
I see what you're saying but there are two things that must be considered. First of all, the consequences of sin are much greater than that of Ebola. Secondly what is the cause of Ebola? A virus, yes, but what's the underlying cause? Why are there viruses that are harmful to humans? It goes back to sin. Sin has separated nature from God and caused it to go out of sync, giving rise to diseases like Ebola.
6:40 And there it is! The cheap pseudo scientific lab coat (or veil) slips off, and the greasy bronze-age mythical nonsense is revealed for the world to see! Perhaps you managed to fool a couple of people for a few seconds with that unlettered attempt at scientific distortion and misinformation? Or perhaps not! Idiot.
There is a huge false dichotomy between religion and science. I hope to make a video on this sometime soon, but I honestly don't know when I'll get to. Anyways, the thing is that science is the study of creation where religion is how we can get closer to the creator. True science doesn't conflict religion and true religion doesn't conflict science.
good job gg! think you might could make a video with chopin's music sometime? i'd love to see you do a video about the big bang and creation it's mentioned all in Isaiah! good day!
The line between macro and micro evolution is quite blurry. There is no clear definition. However, I would say that if you have one type of organism going to another type, its macroevolution. For instance, the speciation of fruit flies would not be macroevolution, because they are all still flies. Macroevolution would be a fly evolving into some other kind of insect.
Creationists sometimes argue that the idea of evolution must remain hypothetical because "no one has ever seen evolution occur." This kind of statement also reveals that some creationists misunderstand an important characteristic of scientific reasoning. Scientific conclusions are not limited to direct observation but often depend on inferences that are made by applying reason to observations.
Even with the launch of Earth-orbiting spacecraft, scientists could not directly see the Earth going around the Sun. But they inferred from a wealth of independent measurements that the Sun is at the center of the solar system. Until the recent development of extremely powerful microscopes, scientists could not observe atoms, but the behavior of physical objects left no doubt about the atomic nature of matter.
Scientists hypothesized the existence of viruses for many years before microscopes became powerful enough to see them.
Thus, for many areas of science, scientists have not directly observed the objects (such as genes and atoms) or the phenomena (such as the Earth going around the Sun) that are now well-established facts. Instead, they have confirmed them indirectly by observational and experimental evidence. Evolution is no different.
While direct observation isn't necessarily a requirement in science, it does help. But anyways, one thing that should be noted is that knowing about viruses and atoms would've yielded practical applications, and they did. Evolution (or at least macro) has not. Also, good theories are built on as few assumptions as possible. However, there are many, many assumptions in Evolution.
scientists trying to understand grain crops look at the wild grasses from which the plants humans started using diverged circa 12 million years ago.
The phylogenetic trees used to trace the "micro-evolution" of disease-causing bacteria, and the techniques used to determine the relationships, are the same as the techniques used to describe "macro-evolution."
We can understand diseases better by seeing how they affect our relatives (other mammals)
Check out CA215 on TalkOrigins for more practical applications of evolution.
Having worked as an intern in a biology lab, I can attest to the general truth of what they are conveying.
You should consider not only the practical applications of evolution but also the practical applications of things that were discovered because of an understanding of evolution.
"phylogenetic analysis...can also trace the history of multiple copies of a manuscript and the history of languages (Dunn et al. 2005). "
One thing that should be realized is that people have realized for centuries that certain organisms were similar to each other. Monkeys and other animals were known to be similar to humans (and hence tested) long before evolution was thought of.
The theory has led to several algorithims. But it should be noticed that these applications are mathematical, not biological, and don't require macroevolution to be true at all in order for them to be useful.
You think that, collectively, the smartest brains on this planet are developing technologies and medicines that augment our lives tremendously. But are then turning round and saying "lets push this evolution lie, that'll be a laugh". This is what makes me laugh, and makes me absolutely and utterly baffled and enraged at the sheer, raw stupidity of religious folk. It is absolute and utter stupidity of the highest degree, I want to pick you up and shake you.
Oh and yes you do need "food and supplies" to step out of your bed. We need energy for every single step and breath we take, but this is on a small scale and the energy needed to step out of bed will be sufficient to come from the "food and supplies" you consumed last night. You mention it yourself, it's the same science that provides medicine... but you're missing it, THIS IS THE SAME SCIENCE THAT HAS ACCEPTED EVOLUTION AS THEORY. Do you not get it?
You know nothing of evolution so you should not be spouting nonsense on it please. Even your analogy is shite, we cant walk to the south pole because there is an ocean in the way which makes this an unfair and unequal analogy. Instead lets say micro-evolution = stepping out of your bed. And macro-evolution = walking to the Bearing straight. There, the first involves one step. The other involves the same small step, but 100s of thousands of times over.
The reason I used the South Pole analogy with micro vs macro evolution is because there is a barrier, and evolutionists assume that there are no barriers between lifeforms. Also, I never mentioned anything about an evolution conspiracy. While science is great for making our lives better, it can't save our souls, only Jesus can, and one of the things that makes me doubt macroevolution is that it has not yielded any practical applications in the real world.
Why is it more logical to assume that there are no barriers as opposed to assuming there are barriers?
A soul is the nonphysical part of a person that has free will, is conscious, and isnt destroyed upon death
Jesus Christ is the Son of God who came to Earth and died to pay for the sins of humanity so that they may repent of their sins, avoid the eternal consequences of them, and have everlasting life with God Almighty. It is the greatest gift ever given and it would be a tragedy if wasted
Again you are missing the point, WE DON'T ASSUME IT! we have proven that there are no barriers. That is the difference!!! :P
oke... so we got a nonphysical part of us...? Never heared of it... Maybe you can send me a scientific journal about it...? So i can read it for myself...
OMG now you got me cracking up!! HAHAHA the greatest gift?! I can right now think of a million better gifts.
And again a question, witch scientific journal are you referring to when you talk about this god thingy?
We also have tons of fossils and genetic evidence pointing to mocroevolution and common ancestry. By the way, why can't you believe in God and evolution. Many people do that. Especially scientists that are exposed to the real evidence.
Also, I'm no expert on Jesus' life, so don't take this too seriously. Many scholars think that Jesus wasn't refering to himself as the Son of God. After the Crucification, the apostles figured that Jesus was talking in the third person. This probably won't make sense to you but if you're interested i'll elaborate.
What if the muslims are right? What am I suppose to look at that is going to logicaly convince me that your right about Jesus and the Muslims are wrong? Or them about you? What does one look at when making up their minds? Whats the criteria? I know. You know Jesus. Christians say things like "I have a personal relationship with Jesus, I know hes real". Then a Muslim will say "I have felt the touch of Allah, I know he exists". Religious people are credulous. Someone has to be in this situation.
I see what you're saying, but one thing you need to realize is that the Bible has one thing that no other holy book has, and that is prophecy. Also the Bible has wisdom. Jesus said "Love thy enemies" which completely goes against human thinking, yet its the only way we can truly move on after we've been hurt, which makes me think its from God.
Anyways, if you're interested in the prophecy, there's a vid of mine called "The Bible: Fact or False" and a couple of links in the chanel description
Not true, Islam claims the Quaran has prophecy to. Its all over youtube. Type in Muslim prophecy and you will see> Every religion or faith had some kind of prophecy in it even the Greeks and Romans did, it's nothing new. Ofcourse Jesus has a philosophy that is new and different but this can not be shown as proof one is true and the other is wrong based on you feel its a better philosophy. Its subjective to the culture which one is accepted and which one is not. Have a good day.
I see. I have seen a good bit of it though, but the Bible's prophecy really has a lot more weight than any other. I hope to make a video about it soon, but it will most likely be quite a while before that happens, because I'm currently tied up with other projects.
Macro and micro evolution ARE the same thing. The South Pole arguement was a fallacy because it's only talking about distance not geographical barriers. You make the same mistakes that everyone else does, therefore your video is useless. Sorry.
It isn't a fallacy. Just as there are geographical barriers, there could very easily be biological barriers. People assume that there are none, and don't back up the claim. They assume that just because microevolution is true, macroevolution is also true. The thing is that people have jumped to conclusions to satisfy their worldview. They've done it really to avoid Christ. My quetion is, why would you want to aviod someone who was willing to die on a cross for you.
No,no,no. Micro evolution is the exact same process as micro evolution. One is just an accumulation of the other. After a million years of microevolution the two animals will be different. Your video makes the same mistakes that have been refuted. It doesn't harm evolution. I can refute your other points if you want me to. Evolution doesn't equal atheism. History is very murky, and even scholars doubt the Bibles accuracy. I doubt Jesus planned to die on the cross.
I see what you're saying, but just because a process can get you a few feet, doesn't mean it can go hundreds of miles. While micro and macro are the same process, the question is, "How much progress can the process make?" A definite answer to this question really hasn't been found yet, but people say it can go very far, when the evidence for this isn't very convincing.
The point is, that given enough time a few feet will ADD up to hundreds of miles. Like 1+1=2, 1+20000=20001 which equals macroevolution. Macro evolution is just microevolution working on ALL parts of the body for large amounts of time.
One thing you need to realize about Jesus' story is that the aposltes were with Jesus constantly for three years. They would've known wether or not He was the Son of God. Almost all of them went out and risked their lives over and over again to spread the gospel, eventually being martyred, and without any means of getting worldly gain out of it. You really can't have a better testimony.
You can when you realise that this was a highly superstitious time where man was extremely ignorant of the natural world. Look how many followers the Siberian ex- traffic cop who now professes to be the son of god has or how many people have chosen to end their lives following cults etc. This is today when weve a much broader understanding of the universe, not 2000yrs ago! 12 guys following a glib talkers no testimony at all & you need to take a science class, this videos shocking.
I see what youre saying but there are some big differences between modern cults and 1st century Christianity. What keeps cults together is lack of social contact. That is, people within the cult have almost all of their social networks in the cult as well, and have little contact with the outside world. This is contrasted with the apostles who separated from each other, and went out into the world preaching in pagan areas. They were severed from their social networks rather than trapped by them.
ok, where do we start? well, even though evolution is just a "theory" it is a theory that is backed up with imperial evidence such as our knowledge of DNA, transitional fossils(don't even try to claim those don't exist), and just the use of plain and simple logic. Evolution is the non-random selection of random variation.
and as for proof of creation...
some book
can you please name some "obstacles" that fly prevent evolution a large scale from happening also?
As I said in this video, a theory is an eductated guess used to tie together observed facts. Microevolution, and even speciation have been observed, but macroevolution is based on countless assumptions, and unlike the theroies that you have listed, macroevolution hasn't yeilded any practical applications.
"macroevolution hasn't yeilded any practical applications."
I guess the fact that the evolution of viruses like HIV that infect humans and apes sometimes mirrors the evolutionary relationship between the organisms they infect doesn't count as a practical application. (Technically, chimps and humans are in the same "family," so ordinarily that wouldn't be called macro, but relationship between humans and other living organisms is always considered macro due to creationist pride.)
But the similarities between organisms are correlated with geography, not just climate. Creation would lead us to believe that each genus would be suited to its environment, so there would be no reason for similarities between creatures in neighboring but dissimilar environments and every reason for similarities between creatures in similar but distant environments. I remember Darwin said something about cave-dwelling animals being similar to nearby surface-dwellers. See chap. 12 of OoS.
I have to admit im awed that you could seriously say there there is no such thing as the theory of gravity, and that it is only the law of gravity. This alone speaks volumes about your ignorance on the subject of science, and your inability to do even the most basic of research.
Yes, there is a law of gravity. There is also a theory of gravity. One is just a formula explaining the strength of gravitation between two objects based on their mass. The other is a collection of many explinations
I suppose you could consider gravity to be a theory when you think about it broadly, but sticking a name on something doesn't change what it is. The point is that yes, saying evolution is false because its a theory is a fallacy.
However, while microevolution and even speciation have been observed, macroevolution doesn't really have as much evidence as people say it does, and unlike other theories, it hasn't yielded any practical uses.
You suppose it could be considered a theory? There is no "supposing" about it. You clearly do not understand what a scientific theory is, nor what makes it a theory.
No practical uses? Is that really a criticism of any merit? Who cares if it lacked "practical" uses. Finding dinosaur fossils has no practical use either. What is wrong with knowledge?
what about just knowledge in general? can't you ever just learn for the sake of learning? i've found that the more knowledge you have about something, the more you can appreciate it, don't you agree?
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the "Theory" of Evolution is not really a "theory"-mere fact that YOU have to except or you would be considered subjectively Christian... Which, as it appears to me, you would absolutely despise...
Hi, I am a fully devoted Christian, and I believe in Evolution... Why would an all powerful God create creatures who could not adapt to their surroundings? Gotcha! We all know He would never do such a thing... therefore Evolution is true...
One thing that was very painful in my eyes (to read) was your claim that the theory of evolution is an ''educated guess''. That proves your total ignorance.
Another thing is, it seems you understand (accept) micro evolution but not macro evolution. It's like understanding that 1 +1 = 2 but not 1000000 +1000000 = 2000000.
@ggcage (continuation of my other comment) ...Thus making a single omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent creator mechanically impossible, in reference to science. A "god" needed something beyond himself occurring at the same of his existence prior to the "creation" in order to be inspired to create something, unless he was, and is, a concurrent combustion of anything and everything you could possibly imagine. We rely on outer sources to be driven to make art and things that mimic life.
ponderbot34 1 month ago
@ponderbot34
Part I
"All consciousness need outside reference to be inspired to make something"
That may be true for us, but not for God. God is transcendent. Philosophically speaking, there's not that much difference between Zeus and Superman. Both are morally imperfect beings that are bound by (not all but some of) the laws of physics. God on the other hand is outside the universe, and outside of any limitation.
ggcage 1 month ago
@ponderbot34
Part II
Because He is outside of space and time, He does not get inspired and then do something. He knows everything that He will ever know right now and throughout eternity. If God went from not knowing something to knowing something in a given period of time, then that would mean that He is bound by time. If God was bound by time, then He would not be God. He would be god but not God, because God is transcendent of time, space, and the universe we live in.
ggcage 1 month ago
@ponderbot34
Part III
Kepler's idea of God is probably a lot closer than the idea of "an old man in the sky". However, since it's not derived from the Bible, I would be very nervous about accepting it as true. However, out of curiosity let me ask you this: what would you consider to be convincing proof of the Bible, or any particular holy book / religion? What would cause you to convert?
ggcage 1 month ago
Comment removed
ponderbot34 1 month ago
Comment removed
ponderbot34 1 month ago
Comment removed
ponderbot34 1 month ago
@ggcage Your right about me observing the effects of you, however, I can make an educated guess as to what kind of person you are that would conform to these effects, being your script. And that can be evaluated using science and math. The one reason that I am most skeptical about a "god", is the following. Many consider human's creativity as an example of "godliness", and evidence for a divine creator. All consciousness need outside reference to be inspired to make something.
ponderbot34 1 month ago
You do seem to have a scientific background, however, I'd like to inform you that the concept of "sin" is false to begin with.You would immediately assume that I'm a believer of forgiveness, but I don't believe in forgiveness any more than I believe in condemnation. You might say: "Well how do you not call a serial killer a sinner?!". Everyone is a victim of subculture, as Fresco would say. In other words, you and I are a reflection of our environment. You might say:"But how do we make choices?"
ponderbot34 2 months ago
@ponderbot34
Part II
We’ve all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Our environment is no excuse. People in good environments are sinful too. They are not good. They are sheltered. They dont show it as much b/c they aren’t tempted as much, but they still have a fallen sinful nature. We may be good by worldly standards but no one is good by God’s perfect standard. The world’s standards are always changing but God’s are eternal and holy, and only His matters in the eternal scheme of things
ggcage 2 months ago
@ponderbot34
Part III
We have all rebelled against an infinite God and deserve an infinite punishment. Jesus took on that infinite punishment while He was on the cross. The agony of being crucified was just the very tip of the iceberg. He took on the full, infinite wrath of God, and He did it willingly, despite the immense temptation not to. Jesus died for you. It’s the greatest gift ever given and it would be a great tragedy if it were wasted.
ggcage 2 months ago
@ponderbot34
Part 1
Our environment does have a big affect on us. It does make it more understandable why we sin, but it is not an excuse. Adam and Eve lived in a perfect environment, and they sinned, and we would do the same. We have a sinful and fallen nature. Jesus lived in a very bad environment. He was tempted while fasting for 40 days. But He never sinned. He even willingly suffered hell for us while He was on the cross. But He never broke down and did anything against God’s will.
ggcage 2 months ago
@ponderbot34
Part 2
We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Our environment is no excuse. People in good environments are sinful too. They may not show it is much, but they still have a fallen sinful nature. We may be good by worldly standards but no one is good by God’s perfect standard. The world’s standards are constantly changing but God’s are eternal and holy, and only His matters in the eternal scheme of things.
ggcage 2 months ago
@ponderbot34
Part 3
Regardless of what we do, we all have an evil nature. Our nature is what makes us unfit for God. Our deeds only reflect our nature. Only God, through Christ can change our nature. Weve all rebelled against an infinite God and deserve an infinite punishment. Jesus took on that infinite punishment while He was crucified. We all need Jesus to redeem us. We cant save ourselves. Jesus died for you. It’s the greatest gift ever given and it would be a great tragedy if it were wasted
ggcage 2 months ago
@ggcage I thank you for spending all that time and effort on my comment, and I sincerely admire your tenacity. I appreciate your insights, however, I must ask you this: Were you raised Christian throughout your childhood? (If this is too personal I don't expect you to answer). But nevertheless, I am still not convinced.
ponderbot34 2 months ago
@ponderbot34
Part I
Yes, I was raised in a Christian household. However, I went through a long phase of intense doubting, but emerged with even stronger faith. Doubt isnt the same as unbelief. In the end doubt makes our faith stronger, if we study and pray about our doubts.
ggcage 2 months ago
@ponderbot34
Part II
If you are doubting your faith, I'd like to give you encouragement and say that the resurrection is what Christianity hangs on and there's plenty of evidence for that. If you're not a Christian, let me ask you this. What would you consider to be convincing proof of the resurrection? What would cause you to convert?
ggcage 2 months ago
@ggcage I was once a Christian, I went to Sunday school, I even went to multiple churches. I didn't abandon my faith because I thought they were "stupid" or "against science". Deep down, everybody is a scientist. But not all scientists are correct. Not because they have something mentally wrong with them, but because many of us adopt our elder's customs. All creationist scientists that I have encountered admitted to being raised Christian, and thus I noticed a distinct pattern.
ponderbot34 2 months ago
@ponderbot34
Part I
Well I'm sorry to hear that, but evolution is not a reason to abandon your faith. If you don't mind my asking, why exactly did you leave your faith?
If you left your faith b/c of evolution, then you should come back. If Jesus really did come back from the dead 2000 years ago, then Christianity is true whether or not we evolved. The resurrection is what Christianity stands or falls on. If you're doubting your faith, that is what you need to focus on.
ggcage 2 months ago
@ponderbot34
Part II
If you need historical evidence of the resurrection, look up William Lane Craig. He has a website called "ReasonableFaith(dot)org" and a YouTube channel called "DrCraigVideos". He has some very good material on the resurrection.
watch?v=JYdzUYyIKMM
watch?v=70g5wU5wJf0
watch?v=JONNGtDtbU8
ggcage 2 months ago
@ponderbot34
Part III
I highly recommend you look at those, but he has some other really good material too. The point is that evolution does not refute Christianity, even if it is true. Please don't let some scientific findings distract you from the mos precious gift of eternal salvation through Jesus.
ggcage 2 months ago
@ggcage Trust me. Had I lived in the time of Jesus I would have considered him one of my biggest inspirations. But I'd like you to realize that nothing can go beyond the realm of science. Just because some force or phenomena overpowers you and seems too confusing to be understood at the deepest level of existence, doesn't mean it can't be decoded using empirical experimentation and observation. Science is a method of extracting facts, not a belief system. I promise I'll look at those for you.
ponderbot34 2 months ago
@ponderbot34
Part I
"nothing can go beyond the realm of science"
Did you use science to prove that? Did you use empirical methods to search for nonempirical entities and then conclude that there were none when you found none? The transcendent must exist in order for the empirical to exist. (See Transcendental Argument). If God exists then He wouldn't be detectable by empirical means b/c He is outside of the universe.
ggcage 2 months ago
@ponderbot34
Part II
Not everything can be empirically observed. Can you observe the number 5? Not the symbol 5 written down, or 5 things but the actual number 5. No. Why? Because the number 5 transcends the universe. The number 5, like all math, is everywhere, yet you can never actually observe the number 5. If the number 5 can empirical observation, why can't God?
ggcage 2 months ago
@ggcage Your response reminds me of the golden ratio, 1;1.61803... also dubbed "God's fingerprint". I'm in the middle of reading The Golden Ratio by physicist Mario Livio. Livio is not an atheist, nor is he against faith but he has some great books. I'll have you know, although less obvious, mathematics is a branch of the sciences. It is the numeric, measuring, and calculative realm of science.
ponderbot34 1 month ago
@ponderbot34 In the mathematical world we can't see with our own eyes what "5" looks like but we can determine its existence because we recognize its value, being five portions of whatever it may be. The numeral "5" is man made to represent the value of five. We can't observe "5" visually, but we realize its characteristics by performing operations of "5" with other numbers and we detect its "behavior". The word "five" is linguistic. The same way we don't know God's name so we call him "God".
ponderbot34 1 month ago
@ponderbot34 Third, I feel that it would be too quick to jump to conclusions by saying "God" is a male, I would feel the same if "God" was traditionally considered female. I'm not calling you sexist, but anyways, if "God" created us in his own image, then "God" is far from perfect because our bodily structure is imperfect. Eve coming from Adam's rib is just a story. That scripture is the way it is because the authors lived in a time when females were considered secondary and inferior.
ponderbot34 1 month ago
@ponderbot34 Anyways, back to what we are discussing, I can't see you, but I know you exist because you are communicating with me through binary operations in the electromagnetic spectrum. If I wanted someone to prove "God's" existence to me, I most definitely would not expect them to summon "God" before my eyes. A better way is to have "God" communicate with me, just like you are communicating with me.
ponderbot34 1 month ago
@ponderbot34 I can analyze small bits of information about your personality by witnessing your messages. I don't have to see, hear, smell, etc... you in order to observe you and confirm your existence. No one that I have witnessed nor during my previous faith in "God" have I witnessed any linguistic or at least codified communication.
ponderbot34 1 month ago
@ponderbot34
Part I
My point was that science isn't everything. The laws of mathematics are not governed by physics. Rather, the laws of physics are governed by mathematics. The laws themselves are not physical entities, and are not governed by science. Rather science is governed by them. You cannot observe these laws. You can observe their effects, but the laws themselves are beyond empirical observation.
ggcage 1 month ago
@ponderbot34
Part II
There are some things that are beyond empirical observation. It's not far out to think that there is a God that is outside of empirical observation. In fact, the Transcendental Argument necessitates it.
ggcage 1 month ago
@ponderbot34
Part IV
An eternal mind is necessary for the existence of our highly ordered universe, and the Transcendental Argument explains why. Another effect from God that we can observe is the Bible, which is loaded with prophecy. There are a couple of links in the description that show hundreds of true prophecies. Those videos I gave you earlier show the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, which was a very profound miracle, and demonstrates the existence of the Christian God
ggcage 1 month ago
@ggcage In my opinion, the one person that had the most believable model for a "god" figure was Johannes Kepler. He proposed that God is a simultaneous collection of all possible geometric figures and mathematical algorithms. Hence the golden ratio encompassing the proportions of everything in nature, although not everything is perfectly in proportion to that sequence. The way you are explaining "god" to me is very much similar to Kepler's God Model.
ponderbot34 1 month ago
@ponderbot34
Part III
I'm not saying "oh, we can't explain this so God did it". I'm saying that because we can explain it. Because there are physical, natural, mathematical, moral and logical laws that govern the universe, and because those laws are so orderly, to allow complex life to exist, they must originate from a mind that is orderly and transcendent. Science tells us what the laws of the universe are. Religion tells us why these laws exist.
ggcage 2 months ago
Its funny how all these creationist vids always end with the eternal pain and suffering threat.
And how they never seem to have ratings on.
Thou must repent to the great fly'ing spagetti monster or burn in spagetti sause for all eternaty!!
mikstar890 1 year ago
Your example of the Toyota and Ford car would actually mean something, if ford and toyota created the internal combustion engine car from scratch (which they obviously did not). Instead they improved on previous internal combustion engine cars(evolution). Your example actually proves evolution more then it disproves it.
You can say naturalistic evolution needs abiogenisis, but not all forms evolution need it.
godlynessdog 1 year ago
@godlynessdog I see, but the point still remains that organisms made by the same Creator for basically the same environment will have similar designs. The similarities of earth's creatures doesn't necessitate evolution.
Also, can you name a practical application of macroevolution that is useful in the real world?
ggcage 1 year ago
@ggcage One of the most important examples of Macro Evolution was the jump from water to land. Macro evolution is practicle, because it helped organisms spread across the world. When there is a niche open, macro evolution will fill it. In the case of water to land, land was the whole niche that needed filling. Where there is space and water, there will be life.
godlynessdog 1 year ago
@godlynessdog That's not exactly what I meant. I was asking for a practicle application in the study of Macroevolution, like in medicine or agriculture. For example, understanding Microevolution has given us a better understanding of how viruses mutate. However, Macroevolution has yet to yield practical knowledge that can solve problems today.
ggcage 1 year ago
@ggcage
there really isn't any difference between microevolution and macroevolution..this is a misconception that u have learned from faulty sources..macroevolution is the result of microevolution over time..many gradual small changes over a long period of time inevitably= macroevolution..think of a baby boy becoming an elderly man..very small changes every day accumulate until after many years what once was a baby boy, is now an elderly man.
itzahazylife 10 months ago
@itzahazylife Part 1
I realize that the line between microevolution and macroevolution can be quite blurred, but when I say that macroevolution is impossible, what I mean is that there are limits to what evolution is capable of. Evolution has been observed to create small, noticeable changes. This does not necessarily mean that it can create huge changes. That is a big assumption that lacks evidence.
ggcage 10 months ago
@itzahazylife Part 2
Are there any organisms on the earth today that are as simple or nearly as simple as the first life forms? If not, then why not? Land animals evolved from fish, but there are still fish. Eukaryotes evolved from Prokaryotes, but there are still Prokaryotes. So if complex bacteria evolved from simple bacteria, wouldn't it make sense that there are still simple bacteria?
ggcage 10 months ago
@itzahazylife Part 3
Science deals with things that are in this world. Religion deals with things that are out of this world. Perhaps I should explain it in a future video, but the theory of evolution does not contradict the Bible. Science cannot solve all of our problems. The 20th century was the most scientifically advanced century, but it also had the most warfare, genocide, ect. To try to replace God with science is very foolish.
ggcage 10 months ago
@ggcage
lol..religion deals with things that are out of this world? what is out of this world?..where is the evidence that there even is a such thing as out of this world?
evolution does contradict the story of adam and eve..also, the story of creation where god created animals separately from humans is incompatible with evolution.
and of course science can't solve all of our problems..science is a process of investigating the natural world, not instilling happiness, sense of purpose, etc..
itzahazylife 10 months ago
@itzahazylife By 'out of this world' I mean things that are not governed by the laws of the physical universe, such as God, human souls, ect. I would go over the evidence for such things here, but I don't have the space. If you're interested, there's a video I have on it called "Religion: Fact or False?"
Let me ask you this, if science cannot instill happiness, or give a sense of purpose, then what does?
ggcage 10 months ago
@ggcage
evidence of anything out of this world, would be found within this world, further indicating that it's still not evidence of anything existing outside of this world..u can make a case by saying there is more to this world than we know, but u can't ever find evidence of something outside of this world, from within this world.
itzahazylife 10 months ago
@itzahazylife But there is evidence of things outside the physical universe. For example, prophesy. The Bible is loaded with prophesy. People say that Biblical prophesy is vague, but there is quite a bit of specific prophesy. The probability of these prophecies coming true is unfathomably low if there were no higher power behind them. If you're interested, there are a couple of links in my channel description on Biblical prophesy.
ggcage 10 months ago
@ggcage
and science can give us a sense of purpose..the cycle of life and death. life provides thru death..trees die to give lumber, animals and plants die for food. human beings die for food to bacteria and wild animals..
there's no need for god to have a purpose..life itself can be enough of a purpose..the purpose to life can be to live. and while alive, try to enjoy yourself as much as possible before u die.
itzahazylife 10 months ago
@ggcage
"the problem with abiogenesis is that even the simplest living organism is highly complex and has millions of parts"
yes, the simplest CURRENTLY existing organisms!...even the simplest currently existing organism is no where near as primitive as the earliest single celled organisms that first developed on earth.
itzahazylife 10 months ago
@ggcage
"steps that would need to occur for like to form have been done in the labs, but only after carefully controlling the experiments"
yes, they did carefully control the experiments..they made sure that the conditions of the experiments mimicked the conditions of the pre biotic earth! lol!!
itzahazylife 10 months ago
@ggcage
a theory in science is NOT an educated guess...it is the greatest possible explanation for a natural mystery. it is built by facts..it is an explanation that best fits with observed facts and evidence.
itzahazylife 10 months ago
@ggcage
u claim speciation has been observed, but macroevolution is built off of assumptions, lol...speciation is an example of a macroevolutionary event. when one species becomes another species, it usually means that many small changes to one species accumulated over time, until a new species resulted..speciation essentially IS macroevolution.
itzahazylife 10 months ago
@ggcage
u then go on about vestigial structures having uses..what u don't realize is that when a vestigial structure adopts a use, it's adopting a SECONDARY use..take wings on a flightless bird for example..this is an obvious vestigial structure..even though the bird may use the wings for other things, it's primary function was for flight, of which the wings are no longer used for.
itzahazylife 10 months ago
@ggcage
of course evolution and abiogenesis are connected..everything in the universe is connected..what most people mean when they say abioegenesis and evolution have nothing to do with each other, is that abiogenesis being true or not has no bearing on evolution being true or not..basically, it doesn't matter how life originated for evolution to be true. life could have came from god, aliens, or whatever, but that wouldn't change that fact that life evolves. get it?
itzahazylife 10 months ago
@ggcage
"the idea that an organism would arise without any design highly unlikely. (on the order of 1 in 10^5000, and no, i did not just make that number up)"
i know, u got it from other creationists..but, it's a faulty calculation. they calculate the probability of the formation of a MODERN protein, or even a complete bacterium with all MODERN proteins, by random events. and like i said before, the first life was very simple, and abiogenesis was driven by chemistry, which is NOT random.
itzahazylife 10 months ago
@ggcage
"yes science is great at solving all kinds of worldly problems, but it is important that we don't let ourselves become obsessed science to the point that we start forsaking the things that truly matter"
that can be translated as this: we can trust and respect science when it is creating modern medicine, computers, and great technology, but once it starts providing evidence and facts that directly conflict with our religion, we must start ignoring it.
itzahazylife 10 months ago
Evolution doesn't have any flaws. I don't know what your definition of a hole is, but evolution doesn't have any of what I consider holes.
You say evolution doesn't yeild any use in the practical world. This is false because evolution has furthered the medical, agricultural, and biotechnology feilds so much, and is the basis of all of biology.
Actually, you could say toyota and ford have a common ancestor. In 1807 Isaac de Rivaz of switzerland created the first internal combustion engine.
godlynessdog 1 year ago
I have a better example of the relation between microevolution and macroevolution: Microevolution would be the difference between you now and you 6 months later. Macroevolution would be the difference between you now and you 20 years later.
You're right on what a theory is, but evolution isn't a theory. It's a scientific theory. Look up the difference.
Gravity is a law, but there is also gravitational theory. The law of gravity says what gravity is. Gravitational theory explains how and why.
godlynessdog 1 year ago
First premise is wrong. ''evolution is broad'' ''covers a wide range''
Evolution is origin of species, how life on earth changed.
''Micro evolution'', variation in species, is needed for evolution to work by natural selection.
It is not that hard people.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregr close but not close enough! evolution works by genes spontaneously mutate, causing changes in individual organisms. If those changes allow the organism to bear more offspring than others of its species and the mutations happen in genes which are passed on, then more and more organisms will start to bear those genes.natural selection help by weeding out the bad mutations!
franktastikart 1 year ago
evolution work on the big scale as well as the small. if you change your DNA (small scale) you change who and what you are (big scale)! so you see you need to go to school! and stop posting videos showing how dumb you are!
franktastikart 1 year ago
So glad you accept m. Evolution.
gregrutz 1 year ago
THE FACT THAT YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT A THEORY IS SHOWS THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN YOUR VIDEO WORTH WATCHING! IT ONLY SHOWS SIGNS OF A PERSON WITHOUT A EDUCATION!
franktastikart 1 year ago
it is not the laws of gravity. it is the theory of gravity that work by certain laws! this is what you are misunderstanding about it! it is to these certain laws that is being referred to when some one says the laws of gravity! in other wards the theory is made up of part that or called law! and it is those parts or laws that they are referring to! not the hole theory just one of it's laws!
franktastikart 1 year ago
Comment removed
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz man are you ever dumb!!! this is something you should have learned in junior high! IT IS THE THEORY OF GRAVITY! the theory is not a law!! when Isaac Newton first came up with it he said that gravity work and follow certain law! like what go's up must come down. the theory is made up of all these laws. but it is just a theory not a law! in fact Isaac Newton was wrong on some of his theory. it was Albert Einstein who had refined it to what we know now! and is still being refined!
franktastikart 1 year ago
@franktastikart It called the Theory of Relitivity, dummy. It replaced Newton's theory of gravity. My point was, Laws are math.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz see this is how dumb you are! first you say it's a law now you say it is a theory! and no the Theory of relativity did not replaced Newton's theory! it helped refined it not replace it! the theory of relativity is not all abut gravity relativity solves for the cosmological and astrophysical realm. limited to only making minor corrections to predictions of Newtonian gravitation theory.
franktastikart 1 year ago
@franktastikart I said a theory explains facts. Laws are found in math. Einstien's math replaced Newton's math. Newton's math still works good enough to fly to the moon, but it was replace, not just minor. Everything had to change.
''Gravitaional Field'' was replaced with 'warped space-time'
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz You are right. Evolution is never going to be a law, no matter how much evidence proves it. For something to be a law it basically has to be reprentable by a mathematic equation, and with a topic as complicated as evolution; That's never going to happen.
godlynessdog 1 year ago
Please learn what a theory is in science before you make ignorant propaganda videos on YouTube.
tomwantshelp 1 year ago
Your analogies are misguided, tremendously. Cells have a number of working parts that change the type of "work" being done based on the environment they're exposed to. They either adapt or perish. To say that it would be nearly impossible to have a random cell evolve into what we see today, shows an enormous ignorance of the cosmos and chemistry. The quote at 6:35 implies that the "worldly problems" don't truly matter. I think they matter...unless you know of a colony on another planet...
ksalaman 1 year ago
When I said "worldly" I wasn't refering specifically to Earth. I was refering to the problems that are material, temporary and not of a spiritual nature. In the eternal scheme of things, these things don't really matter. For example, modern medicine is wonderful, but it only delays the inevitable. The thing is that each person has sinned, and risks the wrath of God, and Jesus is the only one who can save us from that.
ggcage 1 year ago
@ggcage The inevitable that you're refering to is death, correct? It's not a mystery that life has an end, but I don't understand how the things that are on this planet aren't "eternal"? The dirt was here before you or I, and before our ancestors. Before the dirt was here before the dinosaurs as well. We have archaeological, biological, and historical facts to prove that. Now, what I have a problem with is the fact that you claim to know what happens when we die, how do you know this?
ksalaman 1 year ago
Part I
Dirt is not eternal. It may have been around longer than we have, and it may be here long after we're gone, but it doesn't last forever. There will come a day when there is no longer such a thing as planet Earth.
ggcage 1 year ago
Part II
"What happens when we die" can be known because of God's revelation in His word. The Bible tells us that there is a life after this one, where we must account for our sins against an eternal God, and the only way we can avoid this eternal punishment against an eternal God is by accepting His the payment that He has made for our sin on the cross. If God were to just forgive sin without any sacrifice He'd be supporting sin.
ggcage 1 year ago
Part III
The cross really is amazing in that it shows just how much God loves us, and how seriously He takes sin.
But how can we know that the Bible is the word of God? I could go on for quite a while about this, but the Bible has things that no other holy book has. For one thing it has prophecy.
ggcage 1 year ago
Part IV
These prophecies have been shown to be written beforehand and accurately predict events no person could've known. If you're interested, there is a link in my channel description to 300 prophecies written about Jesus before He was born.
ggcage 1 year ago
@ggcage Prophecies to Identify the Messiah,Matthew 1:23 says that Jesus (the messiah) would be called Immanuel, which means "God with us." Yet no one, not even his parents, call him Immanuel at any point in the bible.
franktastikart 1 year ago
@ggcage The Messiah must be a physical descendant of David (Romans 1:3 & Acts 2:30). Yet, how could Jesus meet this requirement since his genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 show he descended from David through Joseph, who was not his natural father because of the Virgin Birth. Hence, this prophecy could not have been fulfilled
franktastikart 1 year ago
@ggcage The gospels (especially Matthew 21:4 and John 12:14-15) claim that Jesus fulfills the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9. But the next few verses (Zechariah 9:10-13) show that the person referred to in this verse is a military king that would rule "from sea to sea". Since Jesus had neither an army nor a kingdom, he could not have fulfilled this prophecy.
franktastikart 1 year ago
@ggcage Matthew (Matthew 2:17-18) quotes Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:15), claiming that it was a prophecy of King Herod’s alleged slaughter of the children in and around Bethlehem after the birth of Jesus. But this passage refers to the Babylonian captivity, as is clear by reading the next two verses (Jeremiah 31:16-17), and, thus, has nothing to do with Herod’s massacre.
franktastikart 1 year ago
@ggcage ohn 19:33 says that during Jesus’ crucifixion, the soldiers didn’t break his legs because he was already dead. Verse John 19:36 claims that this fulfilled a prophecy: "Not a bone of him shall be broken." But there is no such prophecy. It is sometimes said that the prophecy appears in Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12 & Psalm 34:20. This is not correct.
franktastikart 1 year ago
@ggcage Exodus 12:46 & Numbers 9:12 are not prophecies, they are commandments. The Israelites are told not to break the bones of the Passover lamb, and this is all it is about. And Psalm 34:20 seems to refer to righteous people in general (see verse Psalm 34:19, where a plural is used), not to make a prophecy about a specific person
franktastikart 1 year ago
@ggcage "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt." Hosea 11:1. Matthew (Matthew 2:15) claims that the flight of Jesus’ family to Egypt is a fulfillment of this verse. But Hosea 11:1 is not a prophecy at all. It is a reference to the Hebrew exodus from Egypt and has nothing to do with Jesus. Matthew tries to hide this fact by quoting only the last part of the verse ("Out of Egypt I have called my son").
franktastikart 1 year ago
@ggcage "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." Micah 5:2 The gospel of Matthew (Matthew 2:5-6) claims that Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem fulfils this prophecy. But this is unlikely for two reasons.
franktastikart 1 year ago
@ggcage A) "Bethlehem Ephratah" in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb’s second wife, Ephrathah (1 Chronicles 2:18, 2:50-52 & 4:4)
franktastikart 1 year ago
@ggcage B) The prophecy (if that is what it is) does not refer to the Messiah, but rather to a military leader, as can be seen from Micah 5:6. This leader is supposed to defeat the Assyrians, which, of course, Jesus never did. It should also be noted that Matthew altered the text of Micah 5:2
franktastikart 1 year ago
@ggcage by saying: "And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah" rather than "Bethlehem Ephratah" as is said in Micah 5:2. He did this, intentionally no doubt, to make this verse appear to refer to the town of Bethlehem rather than the family clan.
franktastikart 1 year ago
@franktastikart Part I
I can assure you that there are answers to all these objections, but it would not be efficient to post them here. If you are truly interested, I would recommend two websites, "gotquestions(dot)org" and "tektonics(dot)org" where you can find these answers.
ggcage 1 year ago
Part II
I don't know exactly what happened to you. I was not there, and I am certainly glad you're still alive. However, I have never used NDEs as a means of defending the faith. I'm not saying they don't happen, but the brain has a way of doing strange things when it doesn't have enough oxygen.
Death is sobering. There is no doubt about that. But thanks to Christ, it has lost its sting. It is a most precious gift, and it would be a great tragedy if it were wasted.
ggcage 1 year ago
@franktastikartPart III
To say that Christianity (or religion in general) is merely a crutch is inaccurate. If people made God up, so that they could feel better, why did the make Him holy? Why did they not make it so that He would approve of everything they desired? Why did they make up a place like hell? Why would they make up a religion where people were helpless wretched sinners?
I still do not see exactly where I have lied. Could you clarify this?
ggcage 1 year ago
Comment removed
franktastikart 1 year ago
Every evolutionists should build a fully functional humanoid robot, so that they can prove to themselves whether Darwinism can be true.
nvsvictor 1 year ago
@nvsvictor
One problem; robots don't reproduce therefore they cannot evolve. If something cannot reproduce then it can't evolve. That's why examples of paintings, writing in the sand, or a building, are absolutely abysmal attempts to debunk evolution. Take out that reproductive ability and you take out evolution itself.
MysteriousAya 1 year ago
@MysteriousAya
Hahaha. Perfect, so make a robot that reproduces!
Have a fun nightmare! :)
nvsvictor 1 year ago
@nvsvictor
And how do you propose we do this? I'm willing to run the idea by someone, but need a few recommendations first.
MysteriousAya 1 year ago
@MysteriousAya
Good question. Your best bet is to find a way to build tiny robots (like cells) that can take resources from the environment and build more robots, which thus can build a giant robot our size. You can use utmost intelligence to compensate for not having millions of years of evolution (where utterly no intelligence was used). For the moment, please be kind to your other fellow dissenters, so long they have good arguments.
nvsvictor 1 year ago
Same old tired arguments, plus "a word of the sponsors" in the end.
Nice lack of citations, too.
WeAreTheRobots 1 year ago
4:24
If the way that number was obtained is anything like the way you got the number in your old evolution video that was taken down, it was based on the faulty assumption that only ONE sequence works, and falls apart if one out of every 10^100 sequences works
The refutation of this claim for proteins parallels the refutation for DNA.
Read "New Proteins Without God's Help" by Dr. William M. Thwaites. If you google it, you'll see that they have it on the NCSE's website.
tifforo1 1 year ago
Perhaps so, but life forming from nonlife is still astronomically unlikely. It should be realized that this is all happening inside a living organism. It only proves microevolution. It is no different than bacteria resisting antibiotics. The nylon eating bacteria looses efficiency when it comes to digesting other materials, just like antibiotic resistant bacteria have trouble surviving outside the hospital. They are only becoming more specialized. The useful genetic information does not increase
ggcage 1 year ago
Oh my god your stupid. Sorry to be rude, but you must understnad how stupid this sounds "must of got the southpole by other means" ok, did someone actually say metaphor, or did you just make that up just to say that?
Did it ever occur to you that those holes and gaps are in your OWN knowledge? Talk about being blind..
oh, and Get outta here, troll
grendelee 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
How exactly is sin the most deadly disease there is?
Sin. It's worse than Ebola.
(According to ggcage...)
MilitantScience 2 years ago 5
I see what you're saying but there are two things that must be considered. First of all, the consequences of sin are much greater than that of Ebola. Secondly what is the cause of Ebola? A virus, yes, but what's the underlying cause? Why are there viruses that are harmful to humans? It goes back to sin. Sin has separated nature from God and caused it to go out of sync, giving rise to diseases like Ebola.
ggcage 2 years ago
Nice music though, I also like Mozart!
MilitantScience 2 years ago
6:40 And there it is! The cheap pseudo scientific lab coat (or veil) slips off, and the greasy bronze-age mythical nonsense is revealed for the world to see! Perhaps you managed to fool a couple of people for a few seconds with that unlettered attempt at scientific distortion and misinformation? Or perhaps not! Idiot.
MilitantScience 2 years ago
There is a huge false dichotomy between religion and science. I hope to make a video on this sometime soon, but I honestly don't know when I'll get to. Anyways, the thing is that science is the study of creation where religion is how we can get closer to the creator. True science doesn't conflict religion and true religion doesn't conflict science.
ggcage 2 years ago
Back behind your pew, nimrod.
MilitantScience 2 years ago
The only flaws i see are in this video. Constant misinformation and fallacies. But hey its entertaining and funny to watch.
SidewaysGts 2 years ago
good job gg! think you might could make a video with chopin's music sometime? i'd love to see you do a video about the big bang and creation it's mentioned all in Isaiah! good day!
kristophershaun 2 years ago
so what is macroevolution according to you?
Inmylifealive 2 years ago
The line between macro and micro evolution is quite blurry. There is no clear definition. However, I would say that if you have one type of organism going to another type, its macroevolution. For instance, the speciation of fruit flies would not be macroevolution, because they are all still flies. Macroevolution would be a fly evolving into some other kind of insect.
ggcage 2 years ago
From the National Academy of Sciences:
Creationists sometimes argue that the idea of evolution must remain hypothetical because "no one has ever seen evolution occur." This kind of statement also reveals that some creationists misunderstand an important characteristic of scientific reasoning. Scientific conclusions are not limited to direct observation but often depend on inferences that are made by applying reason to observations.
tifforo1 2 years ago
(continued)
Even with the launch of Earth-orbiting spacecraft, scientists could not directly see the Earth going around the Sun. But they inferred from a wealth of independent measurements that the Sun is at the center of the solar system. Until the recent development of extremely powerful microscopes, scientists could not observe atoms, but the behavior of physical objects left no doubt about the atomic nature of matter.
tifforo1 2 years ago
(continued)
Scientists hypothesized the existence of viruses for many years before microscopes became powerful enough to see them.
Thus, for many areas of science, scientists have not directly observed the objects (such as genes and atoms) or the phenomena (such as the Earth going around the Sun) that are now well-established facts. Instead, they have confirmed them indirectly by observational and experimental evidence. Evolution is no different.
tifforo1 2 years ago
While direct observation isn't necessarily a requirement in science, it does help. But anyways, one thing that should be noted is that knowing about viruses and atoms would've yielded practical applications, and they did. Evolution (or at least macro) has not. Also, good theories are built on as few assumptions as possible. However, there are many, many assumptions in Evolution.
ggcage 2 years ago
Practical applications related to evolution:
scientists trying to understand grain crops look at the wild grasses from which the plants humans started using diverged circa 12 million years ago.
The phylogenetic trees used to trace the "micro-evolution" of disease-causing bacteria, and the techniques used to determine the relationships, are the same as the techniques used to describe "macro-evolution."
We can understand diseases better by seeing how they affect our relatives (other mammals)
tifforo1 2 years ago
Check out CA215 on TalkOrigins for more practical applications of evolution.
Having worked as an intern in a biology lab, I can attest to the general truth of what they are conveying.
You should consider not only the practical applications of evolution but also the practical applications of things that were discovered because of an understanding of evolution.
"phylogenetic analysis...can also trace the history of multiple copies of a manuscript and the history of languages (Dunn et al. 2005). "
tifforo1 2 years ago
One thing that should be realized is that people have realized for centuries that certain organisms were similar to each other. Monkeys and other animals were known to be similar to humans (and hence tested) long before evolution was thought of.
The theory has led to several algorithims. But it should be noticed that these applications are mathematical, not biological, and don't require macroevolution to be true at all in order for them to be useful.
ggcage 2 years ago
So in your mind, ggcage, would it be reasonable to judge the theory of continental drift based on whether it yields practical applications?
tifforo1 2 years ago
You think that, collectively, the smartest brains on this planet are developing technologies and medicines that augment our lives tremendously. But are then turning round and saying "lets push this evolution lie, that'll be a laugh". This is what makes me laugh, and makes me absolutely and utterly baffled and enraged at the sheer, raw stupidity of religious folk. It is absolute and utter stupidity of the highest degree, I want to pick you up and shake you.
deejayedwards 2 years ago
Oh and yes you do need "food and supplies" to step out of your bed. We need energy for every single step and breath we take, but this is on a small scale and the energy needed to step out of bed will be sufficient to come from the "food and supplies" you consumed last night. You mention it yourself, it's the same science that provides medicine... but you're missing it, THIS IS THE SAME SCIENCE THAT HAS ACCEPTED EVOLUTION AS THEORY. Do you not get it?
deejayedwards 2 years ago
You know nothing of evolution so you should not be spouting nonsense on it please. Even your analogy is shite, we cant walk to the south pole because there is an ocean in the way which makes this an unfair and unequal analogy. Instead lets say micro-evolution = stepping out of your bed. And macro-evolution = walking to the Bearing straight. There, the first involves one step. The other involves the same small step, but 100s of thousands of times over.
deejayedwards 2 years ago
The reason I used the South Pole analogy with micro vs macro evolution is because there is a barrier, and evolutionists assume that there are no barriers between lifeforms. Also, I never mentioned anything about an evolution conspiracy. While science is great for making our lives better, it can't save our souls, only Jesus can, and one of the things that makes me doubt macroevolution is that it has not yielded any practical applications in the real world.
ggcage 2 years ago
Comment removed
Inmylifealive 2 years ago
Why is it more logical to assume that there are no barriers as opposed to assuming there are barriers?
A soul is the nonphysical part of a person that has free will, is conscious, and isnt destroyed upon death
Jesus Christ is the Son of God who came to Earth and died to pay for the sins of humanity so that they may repent of their sins, avoid the eternal consequences of them, and have everlasting life with God Almighty. It is the greatest gift ever given and it would be a tragedy if wasted
ggcage 2 years ago
Again you are missing the point, WE DON'T ASSUME IT! we have proven that there are no barriers. That is the difference!!! :P
oke... so we got a nonphysical part of us...? Never heared of it... Maybe you can send me a scientific journal about it...? So i can read it for myself...
OMG now you got me cracking up!! HAHAHA the greatest gift?! I can right now think of a million better gifts.
And again a question, witch scientific journal are you referring to when you talk about this god thingy?
Inmylifealive 2 years ago
@ggcage
We also have tons of fossils and genetic evidence pointing to mocroevolution and common ancestry. By the way, why can't you believe in God and evolution. Many people do that. Especially scientists that are exposed to the real evidence.
123Atheist 2 years ago
@ggcage
Also, I'm no expert on Jesus' life, so don't take this too seriously. Many scholars think that Jesus wasn't refering to himself as the Son of God. After the Crucification, the apostles figured that Jesus was talking in the third person. This probably won't make sense to you but if you're interested i'll elaborate.
123Atheist 2 years ago
What if the muslims are right? What am I suppose to look at that is going to logicaly convince me that your right about Jesus and the Muslims are wrong? Or them about you? What does one look at when making up their minds? Whats the criteria? I know. You know Jesus. Christians say things like "I have a personal relationship with Jesus, I know hes real". Then a Muslim will say "I have felt the touch of Allah, I know he exists". Religious people are credulous. Someone has to be in this situation.
AgnosticFonts00 2 years ago
I see what you're saying, but one thing you need to realize is that the Bible has one thing that no other holy book has, and that is prophecy. Also the Bible has wisdom. Jesus said "Love thy enemies" which completely goes against human thinking, yet its the only way we can truly move on after we've been hurt, which makes me think its from God.
Anyways, if you're interested in the prophecy, there's a vid of mine called "The Bible: Fact or False" and a couple of links in the chanel description
ggcage 2 years ago
Not true, Islam claims the Quaran has prophecy to. Its all over youtube. Type in Muslim prophecy and you will see> Every religion or faith had some kind of prophecy in it even the Greeks and Romans did, it's nothing new. Ofcourse Jesus has a philosophy that is new and different but this can not be shown as proof one is true and the other is wrong based on you feel its a better philosophy. Its subjective to the culture which one is accepted and which one is not. Have a good day.
AgnosticFonts00 2 years ago
I see. I have seen a good bit of it though, but the Bible's prophecy really has a lot more weight than any other. I hope to make a video about it soon, but it will most likely be quite a while before that happens, because I'm currently tied up with other projects.
ggcage 2 years ago
Macro and micro evolution ARE the same thing. The South Pole arguement was a fallacy because it's only talking about distance not geographical barriers. You make the same mistakes that everyone else does, therefore your video is useless. Sorry.
123Atheist 2 years ago
It isn't a fallacy. Just as there are geographical barriers, there could very easily be biological barriers. People assume that there are none, and don't back up the claim. They assume that just because microevolution is true, macroevolution is also true. The thing is that people have jumped to conclusions to satisfy their worldview. They've done it really to avoid Christ. My quetion is, why would you want to aviod someone who was willing to die on a cross for you.
ggcage 2 years ago
No,no,no. Micro evolution is the exact same process as micro evolution. One is just an accumulation of the other. After a million years of microevolution the two animals will be different. Your video makes the same mistakes that have been refuted. It doesn't harm evolution. I can refute your other points if you want me to. Evolution doesn't equal atheism. History is very murky, and even scholars doubt the Bibles accuracy. I doubt Jesus planned to die on the cross.
123Atheist 2 years ago
Part I
I see what you're saying, but just because a process can get you a few feet, doesn't mean it can go hundreds of miles. While micro and macro are the same process, the question is, "How much progress can the process make?" A definite answer to this question really hasn't been found yet, but people say it can go very far, when the evidence for this isn't very convincing.
ggcage 2 years ago
@ggcage
The point is, that given enough time a few feet will ADD up to hundreds of miles. Like 1+1=2, 1+20000=20001 which equals macroevolution. Macro evolution is just microevolution working on ALL parts of the body for large amounts of time.
123Atheist 2 years ago
Part II
One thing you need to realize about Jesus' story is that the aposltes were with Jesus constantly for three years. They would've known wether or not He was the Son of God. Almost all of them went out and risked their lives over and over again to spread the gospel, eventually being martyred, and without any means of getting worldly gain out of it. You really can't have a better testimony.
ggcage 2 years ago
@ggcage
You can when you realise that this was a highly superstitious time where man was extremely ignorant of the natural world. Look how many followers the Siberian ex- traffic cop who now professes to be the son of god has or how many people have chosen to end their lives following cults etc. This is today when weve a much broader understanding of the universe, not 2000yrs ago! 12 guys following a glib talkers no testimony at all & you need to take a science class, this videos shocking.
ReptilianFreemason 1 year ago
I see what youre saying but there are some big differences between modern cults and 1st century Christianity. What keeps cults together is lack of social contact. That is, people within the cult have almost all of their social networks in the cult as well, and have little contact with the outside world. This is contrasted with the apostles who separated from each other, and went out into the world preaching in pagan areas. They were severed from their social networks rather than trapped by them.
ggcage 1 year ago
"They've done it really to avoid Christ. "
If reality proves your imaginary god as false, then its false!
I noticed you didnt have any excuses for why your god loves to fake the evidence for evolution!
gorilla199uncensored 2 years ago
ok, where do we start? well, even though evolution is just a "theory" it is a theory that is backed up with imperial evidence such as our knowledge of DNA, transitional fossils(don't even try to claim those don't exist), and just the use of plain and simple logic. Evolution is the non-random selection of random variation.
and as for proof of creation...
some book
can you please name some "obstacles" that fly prevent evolution a large scale from happening also?
PrinceOfDoubt 2 years ago 2
*empirical
PrinceOfDoubt 2 years ago
If "theory" refers to something that we aren't very sure about, what about:
The germ theory of disease?
The atomic theory of matter?
The special theory of relativity?
tifforo1 2 years ago
As I said in this video, a theory is an eductated guess used to tie together observed facts. Microevolution, and even speciation have been observed, but macroevolution is based on countless assumptions, and unlike the theroies that you have listed, macroevolution hasn't yeilded any practical applications.
ggcage 2 years ago
"macroevolution hasn't yeilded any practical applications."
I guess the fact that the evolution of viruses like HIV that infect humans and apes sometimes mirrors the evolutionary relationship between the organisms they infect doesn't count as a practical application. (Technically, chimps and humans are in the same "family," so ordinarily that wouldn't be called macro, but relationship between humans and other living organisms is always considered macro due to creationist pride.)
tifforo1 2 years ago
Just because two organisms are extremly similar, doesn't mean one evolved from the other. see 2:23
ggcage 2 years ago
But the similarities between organisms are correlated with geography, not just climate. Creation would lead us to believe that each genus would be suited to its environment, so there would be no reason for similarities between creatures in neighboring but dissimilar environments and every reason for similarities between creatures in similar but distant environments. I remember Darwin said something about cave-dwelling animals being similar to nearby surface-dwellers. See chap. 12 of OoS.
tifforo1 2 years ago
I have to admit im awed that you could seriously say there there is no such thing as the theory of gravity, and that it is only the law of gravity. This alone speaks volumes about your ignorance on the subject of science, and your inability to do even the most basic of research.
Yes, there is a law of gravity. There is also a theory of gravity. One is just a formula explaining the strength of gravitation between two objects based on their mass. The other is a collection of many explinations
SidewaysGts 2 years ago
I suppose you could consider gravity to be a theory when you think about it broadly, but sticking a name on something doesn't change what it is. The point is that yes, saying evolution is false because its a theory is a fallacy.
However, while microevolution and even speciation have been observed, macroevolution doesn't really have as much evidence as people say it does, and unlike other theories, it hasn't yielded any practical uses.
ggcage 2 years ago
You suppose it could be considered a theory? There is no "supposing" about it. You clearly do not understand what a scientific theory is, nor what makes it a theory.
No practical uses? Is that really a criticism of any merit? Who cares if it lacked "practical" uses. Finding dinosaur fossils has no practical use either. What is wrong with knowledge?
SidewaysGts 2 years ago
A theory is an educated guess that is used to tie together observations.
Is this correct? If it isn't than what exactly is your definition of a theory?
Also, the reason I see practical uses as having merit is that the more practical applications a theory has, the more likely that it is true.
ggcage 2 years ago
what about just knowledge in general? can't you ever just learn for the sake of learning? i've found that the more knowledge you have about something, the more you can appreciate it, don't you agree?
PrinceOfDoubt 2 years ago 2
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the "Theory" of Evolution is not really a "theory"-mere fact that YOU have to except or you would be considered subjectively Christian... Which, as it appears to me, you would absolutely despise...
neria6 2 years ago
accept you mean, not except
ExplosivePus 2 years ago
Hi, I am a fully devoted Christian, and I believe in Evolution... Why would an all powerful God create creatures who could not adapt to their surroundings? Gotcha! We all know He would never do such a thing... therefore Evolution is true...
neria6 2 years ago
yer right your a christian yo utool. not falling for that one
ExplosivePus 2 years ago
One thing that was very painful in my eyes (to read) was your claim that the theory of evolution is an ''educated guess''. That proves your total ignorance.
Another thing is, it seems you understand (accept) micro evolution but not macro evolution. It's like understanding that 1 +1 = 2 but not 1000000 +1000000 = 2000000.
It's pathetic.
DoriRomantic 2 years ago 2