I don't even need to watch this video to know that Adam&Eve won. Because unlike Darwin, they actually existed. Darwin is JUST A THEORY! I don't understand how people could be so dumb! Atheists can't even explain how God exists! They want proof? I could prove God in 2 words- the dna particle. If evolution was real, then how do you explain intelligent design? People need to start thinking with there eyes, not there big books. Only the bible.
I hope I could change your stubborn minds. God Bless!
@RapidBeastFire No, we share a common ancestry with modern apes. We didn't descend from them. You obviously isn't familiar with the theory. All individual do not evolve. A species adapt and evolve, so no not all single monkeys would have evolve.
@arianaafghan muslims may not believe in original sin but they do believe dat adam was d first prophet of god,evolution killed ur first prophet and d first revelation means ur first prophet never existed,if thr was no first prophet forget about d last one,means he was a fake proving quran to b a fraud nuthing else,thank u darwin from emancipating us from religious bullshit
Darwin's 'On the Origin of species' etc can be read free at Project Gutenberg org. For more on science & nature try books by top scientists Richard Dawkins, ' Unweaving the rainbow ' & ' The greatest show on earth ' & PZ Meyers , Victor Stenger, website Talkorigins, Try John C. Lennox V Peter Atikins debate on youtube. Also on Youtube BonoboBill, evidence of common ancestry: human chromosome 2. Also Ken Miller on Pariskillton. Also try reading about endogenous retrovirus & provirus.
Even the demons fear God. Atheist know of his exisistence but rejects instructions. nobody wants to be told what to do, but if all were atheist could cilvilization exist could you have a (up) without a (down). The evidence is only visable through Faith and Experience.
Most people who belive in Darwinism only belive because Our GOD who is Evolution gave us all the freedom to do, belive, create what so ever we feel with consequences in the End. The BIBLE is the only book that does'nt get old. The only book in the world with (a Begining, a Now, and a End to life.) Adam the first man. Made from dirt . Eve the first woman. Made from Adams spare rib by God. She come from the wound of a man {Woman}. Note> the color of dirt is brown and Edens location was Africa.
@TheCuttymane And yet, you have not a shred of proof for these assertions other than your useless "Holy" book. Which, by the way, contains more inconsistencies and lies than Bill Clinton's address to Congress after being accused of sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.
Darwinism VS Humankind. This video is hilarious. How in the world could a group of /smart/ people, be so ignorant. Stop challenging bed times stories, and dig in to some real research. Look up the word "Adam" in Hebrew. Now look in your Bibles. Wow. On the 6th time period, many men & women existed. Wow. Later, in/after the 7th time period, The Man and The Woman, were created. Don't let them train you as /monkeys/. Think for yourselves. Can God exist in evolution. Can man make serious errors.
wow, this poor lady is so decieved. If we really evolved from monkeys, then why should man even bother to be kind to one another. she must have been brainwashed or tortured by some Man made religion. ( there are so many people that use the Holy Bible to put fear and doubt unfortunately, and not teach what God's intentions really are.) There are no absolutes in evolution. Evolution is only a theory. God created all the creatures. This is not about religion or fear. it's about His love for us.
@1falconeye2 When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use. It all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.
@1falconeye2 (Continued..) In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess. It's a well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.
(Continued 2...)Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.
There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them.
@1falconeye2 (Continued 3...) An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.
@1falconeye2 (Cont 4...) Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.
Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations) happens, just like gravity does.
@1falconeye2 (Cont 5...) The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.
Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, remember that they're using the non-scientific meaning of the word. If that person is some figure of authority, they should know better.
There is a Wiki Article on Hoyles Fallacy . YouTube won't let me post the URL. It explains the statistics and why Hoyle may have got his calculations wrong but again it doesn't matter because DNA proves without doubt that there is no historical Adam & Eve and that is the bit that matters.
Really the only thing that matters is is there a historical Adam & Eve? DNA says NO.
If Sir Fred Hoyle wants to believe in 'A super Intellect 'that's OK by me. DNA is known to be excellent at identification. Every court relies on it . On the face of it there is no historical Adam & Eve at the moment so they must be a myth and myths don't send you to hell. They can kill you though! What Darwin needed was DNA. It would have amazed him.
@Euphobia2 Even if evolution by natural selection is true (New scientist Jan 2010 says unlikely) how is that incompatible with creation? Evolution like gravity is just a mechanism that follows certain laws. It says nothing of why those mechanisms or laws exist. There is no logical neccessity for those laws to exist or follow the rules of absurdly complex, abstract maths. All mechanisms need a cause. Laws may tell me how a ball will move after I hit it but not why them or me as the agent exist.
Hitchens asked why did God wait 100,000yrs before religion started in earnest. Human history exploded about 5000 years ago with the emergence of the bablyonians & other cultures. This could well be the very time when Genesis describes God having "breathed a Spirit into the nostrils of man" I could easily argue that such a concept is total compatible with man having suddenly grown (evolved) in wisdom and knowledge. and BTW evolution has nothing to do with the emergence of the 1st replicating cell
@Euphobia2 "On the face of it there is no historical Adam & Eve at the moment so they must be a myth"
There is absolutely no evidence nor do any scientist have any idea how life came from non life. I guess on your logic it must all be a myth?
Sir Fred Hoyle was an agnostic cosmologist. His point was to suggest there is no natural explanation for why our finite universe is rationally intelligible or obeys abstract laws when there is no logical necessity to do so. I can think of one!
@Euphobia2 "Now that's not very nice!" Whats true is true,What can I say? Her age has nothing to do with it. "do in answer to the 'Adam & Eve' problem I feel sorry for you." Problem? What problem? I already know that the evidence for evolution is absent. " Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax EVER. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact." Dr. T. N. Tahmisian Evolutionist.
misquote? mechanism & agency r different categories. Yes game over. “Reason tells me of the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” Charles Darwin,
A scientific theory to be valid must be observable, testable, falsifiable, repeatable, and make accurate predictions. Please show ME the evidence where MACRO evolution has provided any such data. We still have a missing link when Darwin insist there should be 1000s of failed attempts. What laws of science does random mutations follow to create more complex species when the opposite is predicted (2nd Law of thermodynamics) Please show me the evidence! What does Cambrian explosion tell us?
@dashan091 Your use of the second law of thermodynamics shows you really do not know what you are talking about. That is valid for only closed systems. In open systems (like the world) things self-organize all the time. Look at crystals for example. We have filled in all the major missing links since Darwin's time (though of course now there are gaps between those new finds and the old ones, just smaller gaps). We have observed "macro" evolution in the lab hundreds of times (fruit flies eg.).
@10Responder01 WHAT! Francis Crick, the Nobel Laureate well known as the co-discoverer of the DNA double-helix, has stated in his book Life Itself: An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” Your fruitfly claim is absurd. It fulfils none of the claims of random mutation
PCWDavies: "the living cell is best thought of as a supercomputer — an information processing and replicating system of astonishing complexity. Davies ends his paper by asking: "How did nature fabricate the world's first digital information processor — the original living cell — from the blind chaos of blundering molecules? How did molecular hardware get to write its own software?" Bill Gatesof Microsoft, "DNA is like a software program, only much more complex than anything we've ever devised."
@Gericho49 The first part of your response shows you do not even understand what we are talking about. We were discussing evolution, which is a completely separate matter from the origin of life. Also, you do not even seem to understand what evolution is. You say, "Your fruitfly [sic] claim is absurd. It fulfils [sic] none of the claims of random mutation." What does that have to do with speciation? You really truly do not seem to understand what you are arguing about.
@10Responder01 "Your use of the second law of thermodynamics shows you really do not know what you are talking about" How so? The 2nd law says complex molecules including living things breakdown or bio-degrade. Evolutionary biologists Richard Lenski searched for signs of evolution in bacteria for 20 years, tracking 40,000 generations(20min lifecycles). In the end, the species that they started with was hobbled by accumulated mutations, and the only changes that had occurred were degenerative.
Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids
@Prodigalfather1 "...there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another..." This is completely untrue. There are dozens of cases that are easily identified in the literature, and probably many dozens more than that. Biologists don't publish papers saying, "OMG, I just saw speciation!" these days for mush the same reason they don't publish excited studies about things falling to the ground when dropped: It is common an well-known to occur.
@Prodigalfather1 Creationists always seem to miss the part of the Second Law of Thermodynamics that says, "In a closed system." The Earth, not being a closed system particularly due to all the energy coming from the sun, is not held to the requirement for increased entropy. Thus, you get things like crystals forming, or evolution happening. As far as Lenski, you seem to have taken the exact opposite conclusion that he did. He found 10-20 significantly positive mutations. Look it up on wikipedia.
@10Responder01 "Creationists always seem to miss the part of the Second Law of Thermodynamics that says, "In a closed system." YOU totally missed the point The 2nd Law is about complex things both organic & inorganic tending to less complex things-infinite entropy. The is no computer program that gets better thru loss of data. BTW, the statistical analysis in Lenski's 2008 paper has been criticized for several serious flaws He desperately wanted to prove evolution after 20yrs so he fudged it!
If not a creator God what accounts for a finite rationally intelligent universe & all the IMMATERIAL laws that define it? I am yet to have any atheists accept this challenge despite making it dozens of times. DO u really believe on blind faith that the Laws of science created themselves & then the universe out of nothing" a la(Hawking). Or have u never considered the absurdity of a worldview that demands mindless matter & energy are the source of all reality known as "materialistic reductionism"
@Gericho49 The problem with critiquing atheism based on everything coming from nothing is that you fail to realize that your own view makes exactly the same assumption, you just add a magic fairy in between the nothing and the world. It makes no sense to say that it is impossible for the universe to come from nothing and then state that it came from a magical godhead who came from... nothing.
@Gericho49 That is like five major errors in a single post, I might need two here to debunk them all. You obviously have no background in either physics or chemistry. The Second law is about entropy, which has some relation to concepts of "order", though it doesn't always work as you would think. Complexity does not factor in. Even then, things become more "complex" on their own all the time such as crystals self-arranging in complex shapes or debris in space coalescing into plants.
@Gericho49 It was one of your creationists who brought up Lenski, saying that he found results showing the exact opposite of what he actually found. Perhaps you could illuminate us on his flaws as his work is quite respected. Also, though computer programs rarely get better through loss of data, they get better through mutation of data all the time. Look up genetic algorithms. They depend upon random mutation to optimize results.
@10Responder01 Also, though computer programs rarely get better through loss of data, they get better through mutation of data all the time. Look up genetic algorithms" The latter r applied by an intelligent agent to look at different models. If u think that process has a naturalistic origin u r a bigger fool than u appear
"Computer programs get better through mutation of data all the time" Look up "mutation" = replication error. My computer reports some of them & they dont improve anything..
@Prodigalfather1 The mutations are random, or as random as a computer can make them, in a process that simulates genetic mutation. Of course the mutations are not naturalistic. Computer code is a great deal more robust in replication than genetic code. Thus, a facility for mutation is introduced and the resulting mutants are allowed to compete for fitness (generally through the minimization of some target function).
There is plenty of evidence that supports evolution and none that supports creationism except the bible. The bible or Abrahamic text is a historical text. It tells the history of the world as seen from 2500 years ago. Thing have changed a bit since then and we know from scientific research that what it says is a historical fact isn't.
So the believers have changed course into the realms of myth, except the creationist who are trying to prove evolution incorrect, they haven't done so yet.
@JanetteHeffernan You are arguing like a child too lol... So it's crazy, you think religion was created by a story from man right? so therefore it's a myth?
@JanetteHeffernan "There is plenty of evidence that supports evolution and none that supports creationism except the bible".Really? Give examples or stop making unsubstantiated assertions. The Bible is not A book its a library of books written in all the genres NOT just historical. Before u get to evolution u have to account for the 1st 10billion years, a finite rationally intelligible universe, defined by universal immaterial immutable laws and finely tuned, independent physical constants.
What is so laughable about the atheists’ arrogant position is that they 'don’t believe in nothing', they believe anything. A theist need but one universe to justify Design the atheist must fantasize about an infinite number. Hawking doesn’t believe in an actual designer so he actually thinks that “the Laws of science created themselves & a finite, rationally intelligent universe out of nothing.” Do u really have that much faith in mindless matter & energy to be an atheist?
@Gericho49 Oh please! What are you talking about! The Modern Scientific Theory of Evolution is a fact!
Adam & Eve are not historical persons. That is absolutely certain, If you can prove otherwise prove it. I shall be the first to congratulate you and I feel sure every believer in 'Adam & Eve' will too.
@JanetteHeffernan You addressed none of the challenges re the origin of design, a finite rationally intelligible universe, abstract scientific laws. All u could come back with, was a red herring about Adam Eve not being real persons. If Adam & eve werent the 1st humans what were? Even evolution would hold to a 1st for every new species. BTW the 1st living cell came 12billion yrs after the BB which therefore had nothing to do with Darwinian evolution.
@JanetteHeffernan u jest! Alex Vilenkin, Russian cosmologist "With the proof now in place, current cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: we have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." Paul Davies physicist, cosmologist and astro-biologist : “The impression of design and fine-tuning in the universe is over-whelming." Sir Fred Hoyle: English astronomer, "there is reason to believe a Super Intelligect has monkeyed with physics."
@Gericho49 I googled the remark by Sir Fred Hoyle to find the reference and guess what the ref came up as your comment!!! Could you give the exact ref for this comment please! or I fear your reputation may take a bit of a credibility knock.
@Euphobia2 I found "About 110,000 results (0.13 seconds) " did u? It is a well known ploy of many atheists to fudge and just make it up as they go along. We theists values honesty & integrity as Christian values. Your insinuation is quite insulting but typical of the bigotry & bias portrayed by those who hold a godless worldview. And Dawkins is a classic example with his loose definition of truth & dodgy sources. Just watch his debate with John Lennox.
Hoyle: A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing-747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? "it has worked out that a yeast cell and a 777 airplane have the same number of parts& the same level of complexity" Hoyle uses the Boeing-747 argument to prove the impossibility of the natural origin of life.
Sir Fred was actually an agnostic who pointed out there could not be a naturalistic explanation for the existence of life & a rationally intelligible universe."A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.".....it seemed better to suppose that the origin of life was a deliberate intellectual act." And for the atheist, it's mindless matter!!
Life is not inanimate it evolves slowly over billions of years." No it has to start that from inorganic molecules unless ur a Dawkins fan who believes in directed Panspermia- Life cant evolve from non-life on earth but presto just kick the idea into space where some alien evolved naturally. The aliens then came to earth & seeded it with life. Michael Denton :"Nothing illustrates just how intractable a problem the origin of life has become than the fact that some seriously toy with panspermia.
@Prodigalfather1 A junk yard is full of inanimate things give or take the odd rat. It cannot evolve although of course there is always the chance if you waited long enough Life is not inanimate it evolves slowly over billions of years. Hoyle ought to know better! Please sent me your Google ref. I'l try again
@Euphobia2 "Please sent me your Google ref. I'l try again" WHY? I found it several times. If I can find it without too much hunting anyone can. Hint: wikipaedia is not known to give many Christian quotes. When I have tried to add something the next day its gone. e.g Dr Hugh Ross is a physicist, author & christian who details how modern science confirms many of the Bibical creation events. Wiki "sceptics" falsely list him as a 6 day "creationist".when he in fact is a renown scientist
@Prodigalfather1 No I had no luck at all with that quote either and I put the lot in. I have seen that argument though. Maybe I am not having a good day.
@Prodigalfather1 Well I just tried again and I got 2. What did you Google? I googled "Sir Fred Hoyle: English astronomer, "there is reason to believe a Super Intelligect has monkeyed with physics." and I got two! I don't go in for 'mine quoting'. I am happy to change my position if there is enough evidence. "Maybe the spelling mistake
made a difference. 'Intelligect'. I am not being funny sometime YouTube uploader gets letters in wrong order. I'll try putting the correct spelling.
@Euphobia2@Euphobia2 I found it on Wikpedia _Hoyle.I had seen it before . I see Sir Fred thinks life evolved in space that knocks a God the Father created Adam & Eve for six. Yes I am beginning o like Sir Fred Hoyle!
@Euphobia2 Michael Denton declares in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis: Nothing illustrates more clearly just how intractable a problem the origin of life has become than the fact that some biologists can seriously toy with the idea of panspermia. In short, it is important for the reader to understand that atheistic conclusions do not result from scientific research. Multiuniverse is another such example attempting to explain away design & fine-tuning based on zero evidence or data.
I agree with each of you to some extent. Is there evidence that can be used to support evolution? Certainly! It's just that the evidence can also be used to support creation. It's impossible to deny that both evolutionists and creationists begin with a bias. This bias acts like a lens that we see through when interpreting the evidence. There is also evidence, though, that opposes evolution, leaving creation as the alternative logical viewpoint. Thoughts?
@JesusIsMyLife101 Before u get to evolution u have to get to DNA & protiens, both depending on each other. From there we must make a gigantic leap of faith to arrive at the first relicating cell "an information processing and replicating system of astonishing complexity. (PCWDavies). Biologists cant even regrow cells from separated cell components in ideal growth media such is their complexity. Maybe u accept on faith the "Laws of Science created themselves out of nothing" (a la Hawking)
@JesusIsMyLife101 Actually it's not evolution or creation. Evolution is just a mechanism like gravity which explains planetary motion. Ignorant skeptics (Hawking) might smugly claim that "God's not needed to explain how planets move, now we have gravity".But all mechanisms are just processes or effects which in turn all need a cause. Scientific laws dont create themselves unless u have unlimited faith in Naturalism that matter & energy is the source of all reality. And yet some here obviously do
@JesusIsMyLife101 u need to differentiate between adaptation & evolution & then "macro" Vs "micro" E.. Evolution may well be an accurate description of a process the mechanism of how complex life emerged but what is in contention is what caused it: was it from blind forces, mindless matter, a cosmic accident, genetic mutations, or "natural selection" New Scientist Jan 2010 says the latter is looking least likel. Read it. All mechanisms/effects need a cause or agency.
@twor4u I am not sure of whom you are calling a 'Crack Head'. Is it Darwin or another commenter? I feel sure you are not referring to Darwin. You are not that silly. Then again if you are...... well?
Please do not 'Shout'. Uppercase is the equivalent of YouTube 'shouting'. Thank you and thank you for your comment. I appreciate it.
Evolution is an unproven theory. A Theory that is impossible to prove. Yet you try and pass it as facts without any. You have ideas and science that are not based on Facts and do nothing to further your Theory. Ever learning, ever striving, ever pushing to achieve the Holy Grail, for science to just slip through the mind of theory and reason to sink in with its undeniable truths and the facts of cold, hard science. Sad and sickening. Like beating a dead dog trying to get life from its decay
@BashineVarriale Your comment tells me you have no idea what a scientific theory is by definition. There are as many facts to back up evolution as there are to back up the heliocentric solar system theory. You really should learn what science actually is before you say incredibly ignorant things about it.
@dodgermutt Actually it's not evolution OR creation. Evolution is just a mechanism like gravity which explains planetary motion. Ignorant skeptics (Hawking) might smugly claim that "God's not needed to explain how planets move, now we have gravity".But all mechanisms are just processes or effects which in turn all need a cause. Scientific laws dont create themselves unless u have unlimited faith in Naturalism- that matter & energy is the source of all reality. And yet some here obviously do
Paul Davies physicist, cosmologist and astro-biologist : “The impression of design and fine-tuning in the universe is over-whelming" “It may seem bizarre, but in my opinion science offers a surer path to God than religion.” “It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask WHY and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. –Arthur L. Schawlow, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics
@Gericho49 You are correct the more we learn the less "god" has to do. It becomes less and less necessary for there to be a god as we understand how things happen and why they happen the way they do. When man could not understand thunder and lightning we used gods to explain it. When we didn't understand germs and viruses we used demons to explain it. Would you not think it was silly if someone told you Thor was responsible for thunder? Even Jesus thought normal sickness was demon possession.
@dodgermutt "You are correct the more we learn the less "god" has to do"
PARDON?? I suggest u re-read his citations from eminent scientists who say that blind forces & mindless matter are hardly likely suspects when we look at the rational intelligibility of the universe & the immaterial laws & maths that define it. Sir Fred Hoyle: English astronomer and mathematician "there is reason to believe a Super Intellect has monkeyed with physicsas well as chemistry & biology"
Hilbert, one of the greatest mathemeticians of the 20th century said, “The infinite [as in infinite past time] is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite…is solely that of an idea…” In 2003, physicists Vilenkin, Borde, and Guth corroborated to formulate a proof that demonstrates that infinite past time is not feasible.
Matter& energy are NOT eternal in past. Game over!
Christians do seem to forget all too often that Darwin WAS a Christian too!! At least before he completed the Origins of Species. haha. Only Darwin could not close his eyes to evidence. Come on Christians, he was one of you!!! How evil could a Christian be right? Praise Darwin cause he was a very observative bastard!
Not to mention he (Darwin) was a good person. Read "The Voyage of the Beagle" if you (anyone who thinks that Darwin was a bad person) do not believe me. These are Darwin's own words, not on his scientific theories, but on his voyage, his journey around the world. If you can read that and still say that he was evil or whatever, then you and I have very different views on reality and temporal context.
"Life is a hideous thing, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous. Science, already oppressive with its shocking revelations, will perhaps be the ultimate exterminator of our human species -- if separate species we be -- for its reserve of unguessed horrors could never be borne by mortal brains if loosed upon the world."
@Cainus44 Life 'Hideous'? Not for me! If I ask myself what has science given me? The answer is EVERYTHING! In contrast the biblical religions offer only a world of suffering for mankind to atone for The Sin of Eve! I do not think it will be the scientists who push the trigger and destroy the world, rather a politician or a religious maniac intent on paradise. I am not related to this couple. My DNA is not theirs. I shall enjoy the what science has given me and then return to star dust.
@Euphobia1 Ha, that garnered quite a reaction. You missed the point though, as it both refutes and defends both sides of the argument. Literary comprehension instead of immediately jumping to conclusions is what militant fundies and atheists need more than anything.
@Cainus44 Thanks for the comment. Can't quite get your meaning! The literal bible text is quite clear. However today it is fashionable and necessary to defend Genesis by saying that it is an allegory/metaphor/figurative and not meant to be taken literally. Is this what you mean? Took me 28 years to see the bible was fiction and a few more to discover why! Now I know. I by the way am a non believer in the bible. There may be some other God but I do know it is not this one as I can prove it!
@Euphobia1 I doubt you can prove it without several glaring flaws in your argument. People far more intelligent than yourself have tried failed for the last hundred years, and claiming you can disprove the Christian god simply makes you look arrogant.
Also, you don't seem to get Darwinism or Darwin himself either, otherwise you wouldn't have said what you did in your video.
@Cainus44 Bet you I can! But not in 500 character chunks. The literal argument is proved absolutely the other version takes longer. I do 'get Darwin'. When he was around it could not be proved but thanks to DNA it can now. Yes maybe I am arrogant but so are Christians when they insist I believe in a God with no evidence to prove it and then get cross when challenged. Telling anyone they are arrogant is a way of putting them down. The video was checked for scientific errors by Potholer54.
@Euphobia1 Your video implied Darwin was trying to disprove the bible. He wasn't. Darwin was a pretty good Christian. He wasn't trying to prove or disprove anything, he just wanted to find out a little bit more on how life works.
And I don't care if I'm putting you down or not, you're arrogant. You, some random youtube author, is claiming to be able to disprove Christianity, something which actual geniuses have failed at. You're arrogant.
@Cainus44 Darwin knew what he was doing. He didn't want to do it but he had too! Evolution simply proves the biblical Adam & Eve don't exist. Darwin knew what that meant. Creationists and fundamentalists do too. I can't help it if the bible is incorrect. I didn't write it! And yes The Modern Scientific Theory of Evolution does prove that A&E don't exist. That's not my fault!
@Euphobia1 And no, Darwin had no intentions of bringing down a church or shattering beliefs. You really don't know much about the man if you think he did, and are merely projecting your wishes on his memory.
@Cainus44 Don't be so silly. If you knew as much about Darwin as I do you would have more respect for this remarkable man. He knew what he was doing and hated doing it. He knew it would give his wife pain. He knew too that in the future what would happen. His dissection of the barnacle is riveting. It was the barnacle that demonstrated how species change. You should read it!
Today many Christians and Jews get around the fact by stating firmly that nobody today reads Genesis in a literal fashion. They do! Creationists and fundamentalist Jews do!. Th Vatican & Islam just insist against all odds that Adam & Eve are real and the fall is a real event so the fact that Genesis can be read metaphorically/figuratively/ allegorically or as an analogy sounds reasonable if said quickly but if one starts to dissect A&E this argument it falls apart on every level
@Euphobia1 The Vatican insists Adam and Eve were real? You DO realize they endorsed evolution several years back, right? The only Christians who still believe in creationism are non-Catholics.
Yes, Genesis is full of metaphors and is figurative. The Catholic church has said that about the entire Old Testament. You're not stating anything new.
@Cainus44 The RC Catechism states that Adam & Eve are real and the event is Real! To understand the Vatican you must understand Papal Infallibility. See Darwin vs The Pope or read the Wiki page on the subject. Not being an RC you would fail to understand that even if something is in error if it is in Scared Scripture it is correct. That's how the Pope gets away with it. You can believe in Evolution and A&E. Simple. The Pope has not made belief in evolution an ex cathedra but belief in A&E is!
@Euphobia1 I'm a former Roman Catholic and I still keep up with the church's activities, and hold no malice towards them. One thing I happen to know is that the church has endorsed evolution. John Paul II, the previous pope, was very outspoken about this. In fact, he outright said, and made it Catholic, that Darwin's science of evolution was completely and wholly factual. Benedict XVI, the current pope, while a bit more vague, outright said creationism is false.
@Euphobia1 The Pope may have endorsed theistic evolution but it is still forbidden to believe in the Modern Scientific Theory of Evolution. See Catholic FAQ. You seem a bit hazy on Papal Infallibility. The Pope is only 'Infallible' when defining doctrine. This is done in an ex cathedra statement, like Bodily Assumption Of Mary into heaven Nov 1952 otherwise the Pope is speaking as Herr Ratzinger! Once defined dogma stands even in error. A&E fall into this category.
@Euphobia1 No, you don't seem to understand that Pope John Paul II said that evolution, as science has stated it, is correct. He's declared that, and it was Catholic law during his reign, and still technically is, since Benedict XVI hasn't revoked it.
@Cainus44 No Cainus! You are wrong! Here is the present Official position of the RC Church.
Catholic Answers - Adam & Eve. This official article has Nihil Obstat/imprematur
This is only attached to articles that are considered Kosher. The Pope as made no formal official position. This is as near as it gets. The Vatican is weaving its smoke and mirrors. It says one thing while meaning another! Wake up!
Only articles with this seal are to be trusted all else is wishful thinking.
@Euphobia1 Except Benefict XVI HAS said that Creationism is false. I don't particularly care what some worthless American website on the subject says, you can even youtube the Papal addresses.
While there is a schism in the Catholic church over this, both the current and previous popes have denied creationism, and the previous has claimed scientific evolution to be true.
You're in denial for thinking otherwise, and refuse to believe there are Catholics outside of New Zealand who think different
@Cainus44 We all agree on Creationism! The Popes are right about Evolution, they tolerate Theistic Evolution that unscientifically says God did it but as you can see from the Papal USA site with Imprimatur not as yet The Modern Scientific Theory of Evolution. When the Pope ex cathedras that it will truly be the end of the Roman Catholisim. At the moment all Popes are speaking for themselves as ordinary Homo Sapiens. The Catechism still insists A&E are real, this is the conflict. Can't have both
@Cainus44 A&E have to be real homo sapiens and Sin. The Vatican knows they didn't and yet insists they did. They collect vast sums of money to perpetuate this myth besides interfering in people's private lives. They know they are in error and yet force their members to believe! Is this right? You cannot in any reasonable world believe that black is white or 2+2=5. In the Western World this would be called a scam! I am not saying that it is done on purpose but it is done. You a should know this!
@Euphobia1 The Vatican only found out about this when Darwin did, and still had no reason to believe it until it was proven years later. They don't collect "vast sums of money to perpetuate this myth" anymore. What money they do collect is the result of donation, not demand, and the majority of the donation money goes right to charity. Say what you will, the Catholic church is the only religion out there that's building schools, farms, and water plants in the third world, out of their pockets
@Cainus44 Obviously I cannot do this in 500 characters as I have to address each figure of speech separately. This topic is on my list of future videos along with 2+2=4 but tonight I shall give it a try with an analogy.
Christians & Scientists love analogies when they have no evidence so an analogy is a good place to start. Maybe you would care to fill in your analogy of Adam & Eve to begin and I shall offer you mine. Naturally the analogy will have to be based on fact. I look forward to it.
@Euphobia1 You're making the mistake of assuming I'm even a Christian. I'm a Celtic pantheon worshiper under the patronage of Lugh Lamheada. However, your assumptions aside, I have no "analogy" for Genesis. You seem to be mixing up analogy with metaphor. Old Testament is pretty much just a collection of fables with morals to them. Kind of like Aesop, but with a bigger following.
Adam and Eve is one of the more transparent, though sinister. Its moral is "knowledge is painful".
@Cainus44 Oh what a pity! I have and will post it to you. No I am not mixing them up. I know my Figures of Speech. Each one needs a different approach. I just thought you might like to start with analogy. Morals are for stories . I must admit I have never heard of Lugh of Lamheada! but it is a situation that I shall endeavor to correct via Wiki.
My field is purely biblical. I do not do the other Gods like Wotan or Apollo as yet it is not possible to prove they do not exist but A&E I can,
@Euphobia1 Not Lugh of Lamheada. Lugh, Lug, Lamheada, or Lugh Lamheada. Celtic warrior/farmer god. In ancient times, revered primarily in my home country of Ireland, and in Wales. Long story. Central to the Celtic religion.
And before you were talking about disproving Christianity. Now you're just saying Adam and Eve. In a purely scientific sense, I can disprove Adam and Eve with a trip to the zoo. To others, things are more metaphysical, and what's real becomes less relevant.
@Cainus44 Exactly! A&E are not Real and never existed! You admit that! So the bible is fiction like Lugh. However Lug is not responsible for all the nonsense committed in the name of A&E, like stoning women to death, forbidding HIV Aids prevention, Middle East Medieval sieges and compromising children's education.
I was educated by Irish RC nuns . No science or sex education. I made up in both areas. Secular education for all. The if you want to believe in myths you can!
@Euphobia1 Actually Lugh being fiction is highly debatable given that accounts from around 100 B.C. in ancient Ireland, while exaggerated, have been largely correct and proven by archaeology and anthropology, especially when describing migrations to the isle, war, and historical figures. Lugh was a mortal before ascending to godhood, and certain figures in the myths of Lugh and Cuchulainn have been proven to exist, such as Queen Maeve.
@Euphobia1 For instance, in my religion, when I die, Lugh Lamheada meets me at the gates of Otherworld, and helps me fight my way to what's essentially a giant pub several thousand feet below the ground.
Does it make a lick of sense on a scientific basis? No. Can it be disproven? Easily. Do I care? Not really. They're my beliefs, and I don't expect anyone else to follow them.
I can understand being annoyed with Abrahamic fundies who do expect that, but you aren't much better than they.
@Cainus44 That sounds delightful! So much better than boring heaven! You are welcome to your beliefs as long as they do not harm anyone. You understand that some believers of the bible do do harm and some will possibly blow the world to smithereens in the name of Allah. Secular education with sound basic science is one answer. No indoctrination in fairy horror stories, the bible is sadistic and terrifying . I was terrified all my childhood. I was given no choice at school. I had to believe.
@Euphobia1 Old Testament is pretty sadistic. 100 B.C. was a sadistic time. If you're terrified of the bible more than you are of the giant, poisonous spiders that infest that accursed island you live on, you really need to get your priorities straight.
And don't compare the bible with "fairy horror stories". You're talking to someone who follows a religion that literally involves faeries slaughtering humans like sheep.
It's important to understand that there is a BIG, BIG difference between SCIENCE and BELIEF SYSTEMS. Scientific laws and theories are tools used to solve problems. Religions are things you believe in for individual reasons. Evolution is NOT something you believe in. It is a tool used to solve problems... like your hammer. You don't believe in your hammer, you use it to solve problems.
La Historia de la Ciencia es un cúmulo de despropósitos en sucesiones encadenadas alcanzando las más altas cotas de estupidez. El Método, por sí solo, no sirve de nada si el proceso cognitivo no está sustentado en la más elemental racionalidad, lógica y sentido común. El edificio de las ciencias teóricas puede equiparse a los sepulcros: blanco por fuera y lleno de podredumbre por dentro.
What does the scientific theory of evolution have to do with theology? Creationism may well be bad science, but to think that biology has aught to say about things like sin and redemption is many many times worse.
I believe that Evolution AND creation probably neither occurred.where is the proof of either? I would love to believe in a loving god that will let me live for ever in paradise but theres probably not one. I do believe that lies and fables are the cause of confusion today. If people today and in the past stayed blameless of being false then we would all know the truth today and be one minded we would either all be atheist or all of us would worship God or gods or whatever. IF NO ONE EVER LIED
@MegaGod2 Bloody hell. I thought the only people who rejected evolution were religious nutcases. If you don't believe in God, what possible reason could you have not to accept evolution as a scientific fact? It certainly can't be a lack of evidence. I must confess, you have piqued my interest...
There are others, few in numbers as they are. This is a good thing! They might have their reasons, they might see holes and then uncover new or refinements to the theory. Or they might be a 100 years ahead of us scientifically, but the likelyness of that is (in all arrogance) nihil in our modern world.
ok people if evolution say we evolve from ape, how did we out smart apes, and also, shouldnt us human should still be evolving of differnt form since evolution is about changing and evolving. some please explain.
Evolution doesn't say we evolved from apes. It says we have a common ancestor with apes.
We outsmarted other species because... we were smarter. The environment was such that intelligence was an important advantage, and some of our distant ancestors were born just a little bit smarter than others (just like what happens today). So, the ones that were born smarter were more likely to survive and have kids. Fast forward a few hundred thousand years and here we are.
2. Our brains evolved so we outsmarted the others. Still, bird outfly us, other apes are stronger, and scorpions can last without food for 6 months. Adaptation, see? ;-)
3. We ARE evolving! But evolution is a slow proces, so it's almost invisible sometimes.
Engineering is tech development from scientific principles/laws. Engineers are interested in proven theories that can be exploited to improve technology. Today the biggest revolution in mechanical and electrical engineering is evolutionary based algorithms for generating design variations randomly, followed by selection for improvements using computer models. This is ACTIVELY being use by the US military for wind turbines to distributed power systems. Evolution theory proven and applied!
We did in fact evolve from lower forms of life. I would say to people who disbelieve this, "Prove otherwise". Proof not faith, Evidence not faith, Logic not faith.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
this woman has an incredibly annoying voice.
i wonder how many people actually watch this video and believe it? not many. people would rather watch me dancing in my room - check out my video, the stats prove it.
In fact the 4 gospels weren't the only gospels written, but were selected by the church to be put in the bible. There is a gospel of Judas Iscariot and a gospel with Jesus flying across Jerusalem. Jesus also was not born in December, contrary to popular belief. He was actually born sometime in late July early August. Do you seriously believe that a poor ancient Israeli family can survive the Arabian winter winds? So as you can see not everything in the Bible, including Adam and Eve, are true
But without A&E and that SIN you don't need the New Testament! You must see that! Even if the biblical A&E are 'reps' where are the real humans they are representing? Not there! A&E are real humans, like you and me.
You are sensible enough not to need this myth. Many of us don't need it today. I don't need to be scared stiff to behave myself.
Good try though! In over 60,000 accumulative views you are nearly the only one to attempt to answer the A&E question.
uh obviously w/o the sin we wouldnt need that sin. If A&E didn't do that SIN there would be no need for the NT & the belief of Jesus. I know that already. It isnt hard to get to that. Btw..that wasnt the reply I made the reply I made was under the one that you replied to me. Not this one
Adam and Eve is just a rep. of the first humans. Most atheist think that all Christians blindly follow the bible word for word. That is not always the case, some of the smarter less naive Christians, like me, no better. The bible is a book on faith alone, not a textbook. I hate Fundamentalist. It was revised and edited over thousands of years. It obviously isn't total truth.
Thank you for replying Euphobia, and good question!. Us Christians don't really follow the OT. It's a great story of God's interaction with man throughout the ages but...that's about it. Now I know what your thinking (or not lol) "jiraiya, that just means u follow only one part of the book". To be exact, we honor the OT as the beginning of God's love for us and is fulfilled by Jesus in the NT. A&E's Sin is "washed away" by his life & teachings. We aren't meant to take it for exact truth.
Well then...So every time a woman braids her hair or wears expensive clothing or gold or jewelry she is sinning correct? or any time a woman teaches a man anything she is sinning as well?
Timothy 2:12 is NT. The bible is Racist, Sexist, and encourages murder. I absolutely refuse to respect any religion that could do such a thing.
what are you talking about? did u even read my comment? stop being so thick in the head. the BIBLE means nothing. it's a book created thousands of year's ago. u say it's racist, sexist, & encourages murder? the country u live in probably does the same, the us encouraged the war in iraq & u were waving ur flag yelling death to saddam probably. the bible isn't the root of christianity u dont even need it tbh & i have no idea what u mean about women, maybe u meant someone else.
However, as you have experienced with others, there are some who take it seriously. Don't pay any mind to them. Religion is pretty much what it looks like, smoke & mirrors, there's like a new rule every year, but the reason why I follow it is because it gives a message of love, compassion, equality for the fellow man, & to take responsibility for our actions, and repent for them. Doesn't have to be like "go to church repent", but can be forgiveness or charitable works.
That's the best way I can explain it to you. Take out of it what you will. Also note I do believe in evolution, I'm not ignorant to just everything. Subbed to your vids too.
Oh dear! 'There are non so blind as they that cannot see.' I trust you were being ironic. If not, ignorance is not a virtue. Today with Wiki and YouTube there is no need for stupidity.
Try 'Science Made Easy' series by Potholer 54 and then see how silly your comment looks!
@roaringwaterbay Pick up a biology-book for junior high or something, something easy and basic and take it from there. Then maybe one day even you'll understand why all scientists in relevant sciences regard evolution as a fact(for instance every single nobelprize winner in the sciences for the past 50 years, or whatever top-level scientist you want. (But you probably believe that all the world's universities and all its scientists, professors and ph.d students have been possessed by Satan haha
I'll just tell you this straight forward: there is no evidence for gravity. It's never been directly observed. Nobody has ever seen a Higgs Boson, it's not real. God decides if, how and when you fall. If Newton's theory would endanger the literal validity of genesis, then this is what Ray Comfort, Kent Hovind and all the other loony tunes would be saying literally.
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't even need to watch this video to know that Adam&Eve won. Because unlike Darwin, they actually existed. Darwin is JUST A THEORY! I don't understand how people could be so dumb! Atheists can't even explain how God exists! They want proof? I could prove God in 2 words- the dna particle. If evolution was real, then how do you explain intelligent design? People need to start thinking with there eyes, not there big books. Only the bible.
I hope I could change your stubborn minds. God Bless!
wutdaFU3K 1 week ago
You actually expect me to belive I came from a monkey? Wtf if that was true wouldn't all monkeys evolve? There would be no monkeys
RapidBeastFire 2 months ago
@RapidBeastFire No, we share a common ancestry with modern apes. We didn't descend from them. You obviously isn't familiar with the theory. All individual do not evolve. A species adapt and evolve, so no not all single monkeys would have evolve.
petion2010 1 month ago
@arianaafghan muslims may not believe in original sin but they do believe dat adam was d first prophet of god,evolution killed ur first prophet and d first revelation means ur first prophet never existed,if thr was no first prophet forget about d last one,means he was a fake proving quran to b a fraud nuthing else,thank u darwin from emancipating us from religious bullshit
thescorpionking2020 2 months ago
Excellent video. Saw it mirrored by @bdwilson1000.
LsBaba 2 months ago
@LsBaba Thank you us so much.
Euphobia1 2 months ago
eeeeevolution
goCubsgo102 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Darwin's 'On the Origin of species' etc can be read free at Project Gutenberg org. For more on science & nature try books by top scientists Richard Dawkins, ' Unweaving the rainbow ' & ' The greatest show on earth ' & PZ Meyers , Victor Stenger, website Talkorigins, Try John C. Lennox V Peter Atikins debate on youtube. Also on Youtube BonoboBill, evidence of common ancestry: human chromosome 2. Also Ken Miller on Pariskillton. Also try reading about endogenous retrovirus & provirus.
zytigon 3 months ago
Even the demons fear God. Atheist know of his exisistence but rejects instructions. nobody wants to be told what to do, but if all were atheist could cilvilization exist could you have a (up) without a (down). The evidence is only visable through Faith and Experience.
TheCuttymane 4 months ago
@TheCuttymane Exactly. You have to assume that it's true before you even look at the evidence..
And actually I suggest you to check what 'atheism' means.
imralav 4 months ago
Most people who belive in Darwinism only belive because Our GOD who is Evolution gave us all the freedom to do, belive, create what so ever we feel with consequences in the End. The BIBLE is the only book that does'nt get old. The only book in the world with (a Begining, a Now, and a End to life.) Adam the first man. Made from dirt . Eve the first woman. Made from Adams spare rib by God. She come from the wound of a man {Woman}. Note> the color of dirt is brown and Edens location was Africa.
TheCuttymane 4 months ago
@TheCuttymane And yet, you have not a shred of proof for these assertions other than your useless "Holy" book. Which, by the way, contains more inconsistencies and lies than Bill Clinton's address to Congress after being accused of sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.
atheistjacob 4 months ago
Darwinism VS Humankind. This video is hilarious. How in the world could a group of /smart/ people, be so ignorant. Stop challenging bed times stories, and dig in to some real research. Look up the word "Adam" in Hebrew. Now look in your Bibles. Wow. On the 6th time period, many men & women existed. Wow. Later, in/after the 7th time period, The Man and The Woman, were created. Don't let them train you as /monkeys/. Think for yourselves. Can God exist in evolution. Can man make serious errors.
OmegaX2Z 5 months ago
Stop talking shit you posh slut. Just suck some monkey kok
5TIMESDAILY 7 months ago
wow, this poor lady is so decieved. If we really evolved from monkeys, then why should man even bother to be kind to one another. she must have been brainwashed or tortured by some Man made religion. ( there are so many people that use the Holy Bible to put fear and doubt unfortunately, and not teach what God's intentions really are.) There are no absolutes in evolution. Evolution is only a theory. God created all the creatures. This is not about religion or fear. it's about His love for us.
1falconeye2 8 months ago
@1falconeye2 Only a theory? You seem to be misguided. I suggest you take the time to learn about scientific theory.
roboticsynapse 7 months ago
@roboticsynapse You said it"scientific THEORY"
1falconeye2 7 months ago
@1falconeye2 When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use. It all comes down to the multiple meanings of the word theory. If you said to a scientist that you didn't believe in evolution because it was "just a theory", they'd probably be a bit puzzled.
roboticsynapse 7 months ago
@1falconeye2 (Continued..) In everyday use, theory means a guess or a hunch, something that maybe needs proof. In science, a theory is not a guess. It's a well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.
roboticsynapse 7 months ago
(Continued 2...)Some people think that in science, you have a theory, and once it's proven, it becomes a law. That's not how it works. In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law.
There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them.
roboticsynapse 7 months ago
@1falconeye2 (Continued 3...) An example will help you to understand this. There's a law of gravity, which is the description of gravity. It basically says that if you let go of something it'll fall. It doesn't say why. Then there's the theory of gravity, which is an attempt to explain why. These explanations are called theories, and will always be theories. They can't be changed into laws, because laws are different things. Laws describe, and theories explain.
roboticsynapse 7 months ago
@1falconeye2 (Cont 4...) Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested. Also, gravity is real! Just because it's real doesn't mean that the explanation is a law. The explanation, in scientific terms, is called a theory.
Evolution is the same. There's the fact of evolution. Evolution (genetic change over generations) happens, just like gravity does.
roboticsynapse 7 months ago
@1falconeye2 (Cont 5...) The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is our best explanation for the fact of evolution. It has been tested and scrutinised for over 150 years, and is supported by all the relevant observations.
Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, remember that they're using the non-scientific meaning of the word. If that person is some figure of authority, they should know better.
roboticsynapse 7 months ago
@1falconeye2 Evolution is not just a theory, it's triumphantly a theory! ;)
roboticsynapse 7 months ago
Darwin just beat out Alfred Russel Wallace in pointing that animals (and Humans) evolved by natural selection
TheKilgoretrout 8 months ago
Do you know the name of the lady who comments in this video? I love her voice.
StrbaTatry 8 months ago
There is a Wiki Article on Hoyles Fallacy . YouTube won't let me post the URL. It explains the statistics and why Hoyle may have got his calculations wrong but again it doesn't matter because DNA proves without doubt that there is no historical Adam & Eve and that is the bit that matters.
Euphobia2 8 months ago
Really the only thing that matters is is there a historical Adam & Eve? DNA says NO.
If Sir Fred Hoyle wants to believe in 'A super Intellect 'that's OK by me. DNA is known to be excellent at identification. Every court relies on it . On the face of it there is no historical Adam & Eve at the moment so they must be a myth and myths don't send you to hell. They can kill you though! What Darwin needed was DNA. It would have amazed him.
Euphobia2 8 months ago
@Euphobia2 Even if evolution by natural selection is true (New scientist Jan 2010 says unlikely) how is that incompatible with creation? Evolution like gravity is just a mechanism that follows certain laws. It says nothing of why those mechanisms or laws exist. There is no logical neccessity for those laws to exist or follow the rules of absurdly complex, abstract maths. All mechanisms need a cause. Laws may tell me how a ball will move after I hit it but not why them or me as the agent exist.
Prodigalfather1 8 months ago
Hitchens asked why did God wait 100,000yrs before religion started in earnest. Human history exploded about 5000 years ago with the emergence of the bablyonians & other cultures. This could well be the very time when Genesis describes God having "breathed a Spirit into the nostrils of man" I could easily argue that such a concept is total compatible with man having suddenly grown (evolved) in wisdom and knowledge. and BTW evolution has nothing to do with the emergence of the 1st replicating cell
Prodigalfather1 8 months ago
@Euphobia2 "On the face of it there is no historical Adam & Eve at the moment so they must be a myth"
There is absolutely no evidence nor do any scientist have any idea how life came from non life. I guess on your logic it must all be a myth?
Sir Fred Hoyle was an agnostic cosmologist. His point was to suggest there is no natural explanation for why our finite universe is rationally intelligible or obeys abstract laws when there is no logical necessity to do so. I can think of one!
Prodigalfather1 8 months ago
this old women is deluded.
RaytownSoClassof2010 10 months ago
@RaytownSoClassof2010 Now that's not very nice! Age discrimination is very un PC these days! Remember one day you may be old too!
If 'that old woman is deluded' is the best you can do in answer to the 'Adam & Eve' problem I feel sorry for you.
I know it is hard to come to terms with something that you really wish you did not have to address but shooting the messenger is not the answer.
You have your youth and life ahead do not waste it on myths of the old!
Euphobia2 10 months ago
@Euphobia2 "Now that's not very nice!" Whats true is true,What can I say? Her age has nothing to do with it. "do in answer to the 'Adam & Eve' problem I feel sorry for you." Problem? What problem? I already know that the evidence for evolution is absent. " Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax EVER. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact." Dr. T. N. Tahmisian Evolutionist.
RaytownSoClassof2010 10 months ago
@Euphobia2 "myths of the old!" Like Darwin's theory,I never believed it in the first place. Thanks though.
RaytownSoClassof2010 10 months ago
misquote? mechanism & agency r different categories. Yes game over. “Reason tells me of the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.” Charles Darwin,
dashan091 10 months ago
A scientific theory to be valid must be observable, testable, falsifiable, repeatable, and make accurate predictions. Please show ME the evidence where MACRO evolution has provided any such data. We still have a missing link when Darwin insist there should be 1000s of failed attempts. What laws of science does random mutations follow to create more complex species when the opposite is predicted (2nd Law of thermodynamics) Please show me the evidence! What does Cambrian explosion tell us?
dashan091 10 months ago
@dashan091 Your use of the second law of thermodynamics shows you really do not know what you are talking about. That is valid for only closed systems. In open systems (like the world) things self-organize all the time. Look at crystals for example. We have filled in all the major missing links since Darwin's time (though of course now there are gaps between those new finds and the old ones, just smaller gaps). We have observed "macro" evolution in the lab hundreds of times (fruit flies eg.).
10Responder01 10 months ago
@10Responder01 WHAT! Francis Crick, the Nobel Laureate well known as the co-discoverer of the DNA double-helix, has stated in his book Life Itself: An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.” Your fruitfly claim is absurd. It fulfils none of the claims of random mutation
Gericho49 9 months ago
PCWDavies: "the living cell is best thought of as a supercomputer — an information processing and replicating system of astonishing complexity. Davies ends his paper by asking: "How did nature fabricate the world's first digital information processor — the original living cell — from the blind chaos of blundering molecules? How did molecular hardware get to write its own software?" Bill Gatesof Microsoft, "DNA is like a software program, only much more complex than anything we've ever devised."
Gericho49 9 months ago
@Gericho49 The first part of your response shows you do not even understand what we are talking about. We were discussing evolution, which is a completely separate matter from the origin of life. Also, you do not even seem to understand what evolution is. You say, "Your fruitfly [sic] claim is absurd. It fulfils [sic] none of the claims of random mutation." What does that have to do with speciation? You really truly do not seem to understand what you are arguing about.
10Responder01 9 months ago
@10Responder01 "Your use of the second law of thermodynamics shows you really do not know what you are talking about" How so? The 2nd law says complex molecules including living things breakdown or bio-degrade. Evolutionary biologists Richard Lenski searched for signs of evolution in bacteria for 20 years, tracking 40,000 generations(20min lifecycles). In the end, the species that they started with was hobbled by accumulated mutations, and the only changes that had occurred were degenerative.
Prodigalfather1 9 months ago
Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids
Prodigalfather1 9 months ago
@Prodigalfather1 "...there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another..." This is completely untrue. There are dozens of cases that are easily identified in the literature, and probably many dozens more than that. Biologists don't publish papers saying, "OMG, I just saw speciation!" these days for mush the same reason they don't publish excited studies about things falling to the ground when dropped: It is common an well-known to occur.
10Responder01 9 months ago
@Prodigalfather1 Creationists always seem to miss the part of the Second Law of Thermodynamics that says, "In a closed system." The Earth, not being a closed system particularly due to all the energy coming from the sun, is not held to the requirement for increased entropy. Thus, you get things like crystals forming, or evolution happening. As far as Lenski, you seem to have taken the exact opposite conclusion that he did. He found 10-20 significantly positive mutations. Look it up on wikipedia.
10Responder01 9 months ago
@10Responder01 "Creationists always seem to miss the part of the Second Law of Thermodynamics that says, "In a closed system." YOU totally missed the point The 2nd Law is about complex things both organic & inorganic tending to less complex things-infinite entropy. The is no computer program that gets better thru loss of data. BTW, the statistical analysis in Lenski's 2008 paper has been criticized for several serious flaws He desperately wanted to prove evolution after 20yrs so he fudged it!
Gericho49 9 months ago
If not a creator God what accounts for a finite rationally intelligent universe & all the IMMATERIAL laws that define it? I am yet to have any atheists accept this challenge despite making it dozens of times. DO u really believe on blind faith that the Laws of science created themselves & then the universe out of nothing" a la(Hawking). Or have u never considered the absurdity of a worldview that demands mindless matter & energy are the source of all reality known as "materialistic reductionism"
Gericho49 9 months ago
@Gericho49 The problem with critiquing atheism based on everything coming from nothing is that you fail to realize that your own view makes exactly the same assumption, you just add a magic fairy in between the nothing and the world. It makes no sense to say that it is impossible for the universe to come from nothing and then state that it came from a magical godhead who came from... nothing.
10Responder01 9 months ago
@Gericho49 That is like five major errors in a single post, I might need two here to debunk them all. You obviously have no background in either physics or chemistry. The Second law is about entropy, which has some relation to concepts of "order", though it doesn't always work as you would think. Complexity does not factor in. Even then, things become more "complex" on their own all the time such as crystals self-arranging in complex shapes or debris in space coalescing into plants.
10Responder01 9 months ago
@Gericho49 It was one of your creationists who brought up Lenski, saying that he found results showing the exact opposite of what he actually found. Perhaps you could illuminate us on his flaws as his work is quite respected. Also, though computer programs rarely get better through loss of data, they get better through mutation of data all the time. Look up genetic algorithms. They depend upon random mutation to optimize results.
10Responder01 9 months ago
@10Responder01 Also, though computer programs rarely get better through loss of data, they get better through mutation of data all the time. Look up genetic algorithms" The latter r applied by an intelligent agent to look at different models. If u think that process has a naturalistic origin u r a bigger fool than u appear
"Computer programs get better through mutation of data all the time" Look up "mutation" = replication error. My computer reports some of them & they dont improve anything..
Prodigalfather1 8 months ago
@Prodigalfather1 The mutations are random, or as random as a computer can make them, in a process that simulates genetic mutation. Of course the mutations are not naturalistic. Computer code is a great deal more robust in replication than genetic code. Thus, a facility for mutation is introduced and the resulting mutants are allowed to compete for fitness (generally through the minimization of some target function).
10Responder01 8 months ago
lol the modern theory proves no doubt it didn't happen End of story... wow that doesn't sound like arguing with a 2 year old.
minime00 10 months ago
There is plenty of evidence that supports evolution and none that supports creationism except the bible. The bible or Abrahamic text is a historical text. It tells the history of the world as seen from 2500 years ago. Thing have changed a bit since then and we know from scientific research that what it says is a historical fact isn't.
So the believers have changed course into the realms of myth, except the creationist who are trying to prove evolution incorrect, they haven't done so yet.
JanetteHeffernan 11 months ago 2
@JanetteHeffernan You are arguing like a child too lol... So it's crazy, you think religion was created by a story from man right? so therefore it's a myth?
minime00 10 months ago
@JanetteHeffernan "There is plenty of evidence that supports evolution and none that supports creationism except the bible".Really? Give examples or stop making unsubstantiated assertions. The Bible is not A book its a library of books written in all the genres NOT just historical. Before u get to evolution u have to account for the 1st 10billion years, a finite rationally intelligible universe, defined by universal immaterial immutable laws and finely tuned, independent physical constants.
Gericho49 9 months ago
What is so laughable about the atheists’ arrogant position is that they 'don’t believe in nothing', they believe anything. A theist need but one universe to justify Design the atheist must fantasize about an infinite number. Hawking doesn’t believe in an actual designer so he actually thinks that “the Laws of science created themselves & a finite, rationally intelligent universe out of nothing.” Do u really have that much faith in mindless matter & energy to be an atheist?
Gericho49 9 months ago
@Gericho49 Oh please! What are you talking about! The Modern Scientific Theory of Evolution is a fact!
Adam & Eve are not historical persons. That is absolutely certain, If you can prove otherwise prove it. I shall be the first to congratulate you and I feel sure every believer in 'Adam & Eve' will too.
JanetteHeffernan 9 months ago
Comment removed
Prodigalfather1 9 months ago
@JanetteHeffernan You addressed none of the challenges re the origin of design, a finite rationally intelligible universe, abstract scientific laws. All u could come back with, was a red herring about Adam Eve not being real persons. If Adam & eve werent the 1st humans what were? Even evolution would hold to a 1st for every new species. BTW the 1st living cell came 12billion yrs after the BB which therefore had nothing to do with Darwinian evolution.
Prodigalfather1 9 months ago
Comment removed
Gericho49 9 months ago
@JanetteHeffernan u jest! Alex Vilenkin, Russian cosmologist "With the proof now in place, current cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: we have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." Paul Davies physicist, cosmologist and astro-biologist : “The impression of design and fine-tuning in the universe is over-whelming." Sir Fred Hoyle: English astronomer, "there is reason to believe a Super Intelligect has monkeyed with physics."
Gericho49 9 months ago
@Gericho49 I googled the remark by Sir Fred Hoyle to find the reference and guess what the ref came up as your comment!!! Could you give the exact ref for this comment please! or I fear your reputation may take a bit of a credibility knock.
Euphobia2 8 months ago
@Euphobia2 I found "About 110,000 results (0.13 seconds) " did u? It is a well known ploy of many atheists to fudge and just make it up as they go along. We theists values honesty & integrity as Christian values. Your insinuation is quite insulting but typical of the bigotry & bias portrayed by those who hold a godless worldview. And Dawkins is a classic example with his loose definition of truth & dodgy sources. Just watch his debate with John Lennox.
Prodigalfather1 8 months ago
Hoyle: A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing-747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? "it has worked out that a yeast cell and a 777 airplane have the same number of parts& the same level of complexity" Hoyle uses the Boeing-747 argument to prove the impossibility of the natural origin of life.
Prodigalfather1 8 months ago
Sir Fred was actually an agnostic who pointed out there could not be a naturalistic explanation for the existence of life & a rationally intelligible universe."A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.".....it seemed better to suppose that the origin of life was a deliberate intellectual act." And for the atheist, it's mindless matter!!
Prodigalfather1 8 months ago
Life is not inanimate it evolves slowly over billions of years." No it has to start that from inorganic molecules unless ur a Dawkins fan who believes in directed Panspermia- Life cant evolve from non-life on earth but presto just kick the idea into space where some alien evolved naturally. The aliens then came to earth & seeded it with life. Michael Denton :"Nothing illustrates just how intractable a problem the origin of life has become than the fact that some seriously toy with panspermia.
Prodigalfather1 8 months ago
@Prodigalfather1 A junk yard is full of inanimate things give or take the odd rat. It cannot evolve although of course there is always the chance if you waited long enough Life is not inanimate it evolves slowly over billions of years. Hoyle ought to know better! Please sent me your Google ref. I'l try again
Euphobia2 8 months ago
@Euphobia2 "Please sent me your Google ref. I'l try again" WHY? I found it several times. If I can find it without too much hunting anyone can. Hint: wikipaedia is not known to give many Christian quotes. When I have tried to add something the next day its gone. e.g Dr Hugh Ross is a physicist, author & christian who details how modern science confirms many of the Bibical creation events. Wiki "sceptics" falsely list him as a 6 day "creationist".when he in fact is a renown scientist
Prodigalfather1 8 months ago
@Prodigalfather1 No I had no luck at all with that quote either and I put the lot in. I have seen that argument though. Maybe I am not having a good day.
Euphobia2 8 months ago
@Prodigalfather1 Well I just tried again and I got 2. What did you Google? I googled "Sir Fred Hoyle: English astronomer, "there is reason to believe a Super Intelligect has monkeyed with physics." and I got two! I don't go in for 'mine quoting'. I am happy to change my position if there is enough evidence. "Maybe the spelling mistake
made a difference. 'Intelligect'. I am not being funny sometime YouTube uploader gets letters in wrong order. I'll try putting the correct spelling.
Euphobia2 8 months ago
@Euphobia2 @Euphobia2 I found it on Wikpedia _Hoyle.I had seen it before . I see Sir Fred thinks life evolved in space that knocks a God the Father created Adam & Eve for six. Yes I am beginning o like Sir Fred Hoyle!
Euphobia2 8 months ago
@Euphobia2 Michael Denton declares in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis: Nothing illustrates more clearly just how intractable a problem the origin of life has become than the fact that some biologists can seriously toy with the idea of panspermia. In short, it is important for the reader to understand that atheistic conclusions do not result from scientific research. Multiuniverse is another such example attempting to explain away design & fine-tuning based on zero evidence or data.
Prodigalfather1 8 months ago
@BashineVarriale and @Euphobia2
I agree with each of you to some extent. Is there evidence that can be used to support evolution? Certainly! It's just that the evidence can also be used to support creation. It's impossible to deny that both evolutionists and creationists begin with a bias. This bias acts like a lens that we see through when interpreting the evidence. There is also evidence, though, that opposes evolution, leaving creation as the alternative logical viewpoint. Thoughts?
JesusIsMyLife101 11 months ago
@JesusIsMyLife101 Before u get to evolution u have to get to DNA & protiens, both depending on each other. From there we must make a gigantic leap of faith to arrive at the first relicating cell "an information processing and replicating system of astonishing complexity. (PCWDavies). Biologists cant even regrow cells from separated cell components in ideal growth media such is their complexity. Maybe u accept on faith the "Laws of Science created themselves out of nothing" (a la Hawking)
Gericho49 9 months ago
@JesusIsMyLife101 Actually it's not evolution or creation. Evolution is just a mechanism like gravity which explains planetary motion. Ignorant skeptics (Hawking) might smugly claim that "God's not needed to explain how planets move, now we have gravity".But all mechanisms are just processes or effects which in turn all need a cause. Scientific laws dont create themselves unless u have unlimited faith in Naturalism that matter & energy is the source of all reality. And yet some here obviously do
Gericho49 9 months ago
@JesusIsMyLife101 u need to differentiate between adaptation & evolution & then "macro" Vs "micro" E.. Evolution may well be an accurate description of a process the mechanism of how complex life emerged but what is in contention is what caused it: was it from blind forces, mindless matter, a cosmic accident, genetic mutations, or "natural selection" New Scientist Jan 2010 says the latter is looking least likel. Read it. All mechanisms/effects need a cause or agency.
Prodigalfather1 8 months ago
HE WAS A IDIOT,A BACKWARD BAFOON,NOTHING MORE,HE HAD THE KNOWLEDGE OF A DELUSIONAL CRACK HEAD.
twor4u 11 months ago
@twor4u I am not sure of whom you are calling a 'Crack Head'. Is it Darwin or another commenter? I feel sure you are not referring to Darwin. You are not that silly. Then again if you are...... well?
Please do not 'Shout'. Uppercase is the equivalent of YouTube 'shouting'. Thank you and thank you for your comment. I appreciate it.
Euphobia2 11 months ago
Evolution is an unproven theory. A Theory that is impossible to prove. Yet you try and pass it as facts without any. You have ideas and science that are not based on Facts and do nothing to further your Theory. Ever learning, ever striving, ever pushing to achieve the Holy Grail, for science to just slip through the mind of theory and reason to sink in with its undeniable truths and the facts of cold, hard science. Sad and sickening. Like beating a dead dog trying to get life from its decay
BashineVarriale 1 year ago
@BashineVarriale Your comment tells me you have no idea what a scientific theory is by definition. There are as many facts to back up evolution as there are to back up the heliocentric solar system theory. You really should learn what science actually is before you say incredibly ignorant things about it.
dodgermutt 1 year ago
@dodgermutt Actually it's not evolution OR creation. Evolution is just a mechanism like gravity which explains planetary motion. Ignorant skeptics (Hawking) might smugly claim that "God's not needed to explain how planets move, now we have gravity".But all mechanisms are just processes or effects which in turn all need a cause. Scientific laws dont create themselves unless u have unlimited faith in Naturalism- that matter & energy is the source of all reality. And yet some here obviously do
Gericho49 9 months ago
Paul Davies physicist, cosmologist and astro-biologist : “The impression of design and fine-tuning in the universe is over-whelming" “It may seem bizarre, but in my opinion science offers a surer path to God than religion.” “It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask WHY and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. –Arthur L. Schawlow, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics
Gericho49 9 months ago
@Gericho49 You are correct the more we learn the less "god" has to do. It becomes less and less necessary for there to be a god as we understand how things happen and why they happen the way they do. When man could not understand thunder and lightning we used gods to explain it. When we didn't understand germs and viruses we used demons to explain it. Would you not think it was silly if someone told you Thor was responsible for thunder? Even Jesus thought normal sickness was demon possession.
dodgermutt 9 months ago
@dodgermutt "You are correct the more we learn the less "god" has to do"
PARDON?? I suggest u re-read his citations from eminent scientists who say that blind forces & mindless matter are hardly likely suspects when we look at the rational intelligibility of the universe & the immaterial laws & maths that define it. Sir Fred Hoyle: English astronomer and mathematician "there is reason to believe a Super Intellect has monkeyed with physicsas well as chemistry & biology"
Prodigalfather1 9 months ago
Hilbert, one of the greatest mathemeticians of the 20th century said, “The infinite [as in infinite past time] is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite…is solely that of an idea…” In 2003, physicists Vilenkin, Borde, and Guth corroborated to formulate a proof that demonstrates that infinite past time is not feasible.
Matter& energy are NOT eternal in past. Game over!
Prodigalfather1 9 months ago
@BashineVarriale Only just read this! What a load of nonsense.
What on earth are you trying to say? Words of one syllable please.
"Evolution is an unproven theory" Since when? DNA proves it "Like beating a dead dog trying to get life from its decay". Yeah right!
Euphobia2 11 months ago
Funny.
MisterHymes 1 year ago
the narrator is annoying.
tcsurvivor03 1 year ago
@tcsurvivor03 I can't help it if I speak Received English. I grant that for some the 'message' is annoying but don't take it out on my voice!
Euphobia2 1 year ago
Christians do seem to forget all too often that Darwin WAS a Christian too!! At least before he completed the Origins of Species. haha. Only Darwin could not close his eyes to evidence. Come on Christians, he was one of you!!! How evil could a Christian be right? Praise Darwin cause he was a very observative bastard!
graphattic 1 year ago
Not to mention he (Darwin) was a good person. Read "The Voyage of the Beagle" if you (anyone who thinks that Darwin was a bad person) do not believe me. These are Darwin's own words, not on his scientific theories, but on his voyage, his journey around the world. If you can read that and still say that he was evil or whatever, then you and I have very different views on reality and temporal context.
Jonstern1983 1 year ago
"Life is a hideous thing, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous. Science, already oppressive with its shocking revelations, will perhaps be the ultimate exterminator of our human species -- if separate species we be -- for its reserve of unguessed horrors could never be borne by mortal brains if loosed upon the world."
- H.P. Lovecraft.
Cainus44 1 year ago
@Cainus44 Life 'Hideous'? Not for me! If I ask myself what has science given me? The answer is EVERYTHING! In contrast the biblical religions offer only a world of suffering for mankind to atone for The Sin of Eve! I do not think it will be the scientists who push the trigger and destroy the world, rather a politician or a religious maniac intent on paradise. I am not related to this couple. My DNA is not theirs. I shall enjoy the what science has given me and then return to star dust.
Euphobia1 1 year ago
@Euphobia1 Ha, that garnered quite a reaction. You missed the point though, as it both refutes and defends both sides of the argument. Literary comprehension instead of immediately jumping to conclusions is what militant fundies and atheists need more than anything.
Cainus44 1 year ago
@Cainus44 Thanks for the comment. Can't quite get your meaning! The literal bible text is quite clear. However today it is fashionable and necessary to defend Genesis by saying that it is an allegory/metaphor/figurative and not meant to be taken literally. Is this what you mean? Took me 28 years to see the bible was fiction and a few more to discover why! Now I know. I by the way am a non believer in the bible. There may be some other God but I do know it is not this one as I can prove it!
Euphobia1 1 year ago
@Euphobia1 I doubt you can prove it without several glaring flaws in your argument. People far more intelligent than yourself have tried failed for the last hundred years, and claiming you can disprove the Christian god simply makes you look arrogant.
Also, you don't seem to get Darwinism or Darwin himself either, otherwise you wouldn't have said what you did in your video.
Cainus44 1 year ago
@Cainus44 Bet you I can! But not in 500 character chunks. The literal argument is proved absolutely the other version takes longer. I do 'get Darwin'. When he was around it could not be proved but thanks to DNA it can now. Yes maybe I am arrogant but so are Christians when they insist I believe in a God with no evidence to prove it and then get cross when challenged. Telling anyone they are arrogant is a way of putting them down. The video was checked for scientific errors by Potholer54.
Euphobia1 1 year ago
@Euphobia1 Your video implied Darwin was trying to disprove the bible. He wasn't. Darwin was a pretty good Christian. He wasn't trying to prove or disprove anything, he just wanted to find out a little bit more on how life works.
And I don't care if I'm putting you down or not, you're arrogant. You, some random youtube author, is claiming to be able to disprove Christianity, something which actual geniuses have failed at. You're arrogant.
Cainus44 1 year ago
@Cainus44 Darwin knew what he was doing. He didn't want to do it but he had too! Evolution simply proves the biblical Adam & Eve don't exist. Darwin knew what that meant. Creationists and fundamentalists do too. I can't help it if the bible is incorrect. I didn't write it! And yes The Modern Scientific Theory of Evolution does prove that A&E don't exist. That's not my fault!
Euphobia1 1 year ago
@Euphobia1 And no, Darwin had no intentions of bringing down a church or shattering beliefs. You really don't know much about the man if you think he did, and are merely projecting your wishes on his memory.
Cainus44 1 year ago
@Cainus44 Don't be so silly. If you knew as much about Darwin as I do you would have more respect for this remarkable man. He knew what he was doing and hated doing it. He knew it would give his wife pain. He knew too that in the future what would happen. His dissection of the barnacle is riveting. It was the barnacle that demonstrated how species change. You should read it!
Euphobia1 1 year ago
@Euphobia1 I think you're over-dramatizing Darwin's attitude towards this, and still just projecting your own beliefs on his memory.
Cainus44 1 year ago
@Cainus44 Don't be silly! Read the evidence!
Euphobia1 1 year ago
@Cainus44
Today many Christians and Jews get around the fact by stating firmly that nobody today reads Genesis in a literal fashion. They do! Creationists and fundamentalist Jews do!. Th Vatican & Islam just insist against all odds that Adam & Eve are real and the fall is a real event so the fact that Genesis can be read metaphorically/figuratively/ allegorically or as an analogy sounds reasonable if said quickly but if one starts to dissect A&E this argument it falls apart on every level
Euphobia1 1 year ago
@Euphobia1 The Vatican insists Adam and Eve were real? You DO realize they endorsed evolution several years back, right? The only Christians who still believe in creationism are non-Catholics.
Yes, Genesis is full of metaphors and is figurative. The Catholic church has said that about the entire Old Testament. You're not stating anything new.
Cainus44 1 year ago
@Cainus44 The RC Catechism states that Adam & Eve are real and the event is Real! To understand the Vatican you must understand Papal Infallibility. See Darwin vs The Pope or read the Wiki page on the subject. Not being an RC you would fail to understand that even if something is in error if it is in Scared Scripture it is correct. That's how the Pope gets away with it. You can believe in Evolution and A&E. Simple. The Pope has not made belief in evolution an ex cathedra but belief in A&E is!
Euphobia1 1 year ago
@Euphobia1 I'm a former Roman Catholic and I still keep up with the church's activities, and hold no malice towards them. One thing I happen to know is that the church has endorsed evolution. John Paul II, the previous pope, was very outspoken about this. In fact, he outright said, and made it Catholic, that Darwin's science of evolution was completely and wholly factual. Benedict XVI, the current pope, while a bit more vague, outright said creationism is false.
Papal infallibility indeed.
Cainus44 1 year ago
@Euphobia1 The Pope may have endorsed theistic evolution but it is still forbidden to believe in the Modern Scientific Theory of Evolution. See Catholic FAQ. You seem a bit hazy on Papal Infallibility. The Pope is only 'Infallible' when defining doctrine. This is done in an ex cathedra statement, like Bodily Assumption Of Mary into heaven Nov 1952 otherwise the Pope is speaking as Herr Ratzinger! Once defined dogma stands even in error. A&E fall into this category.
Euphobia1 1 year ago
@Euphobia1 No, you don't seem to understand that Pope John Paul II said that evolution, as science has stated it, is correct. He's declared that, and it was Catholic law during his reign, and still technically is, since Benedict XVI hasn't revoked it.
Cainus44 1 year ago
@Cainus44 No Cainus! You are wrong! Here is the present Official position of the RC Church.
Catholic Answers - Adam & Eve. This official article has Nihil Obstat/imprematur
This is only attached to articles that are considered Kosher. The Pope as made no formal official position. This is as near as it gets. The Vatican is weaving its smoke and mirrors. It says one thing while meaning another! Wake up!
Only articles with this seal are to be trusted all else is wishful thinking.
Euphobia1 1 year ago
@Euphobia1 Except Benefict XVI HAS said that Creationism is false. I don't particularly care what some worthless American website on the subject says, you can even youtube the Papal addresses.
While there is a schism in the Catholic church over this, both the current and previous popes have denied creationism, and the previous has claimed scientific evolution to be true.
You're in denial for thinking otherwise, and refuse to believe there are Catholics outside of New Zealand who think different
Cainus44 1 year ago
@Cainus44 We all agree on Creationism! The Popes are right about Evolution, they tolerate Theistic Evolution that unscientifically says God did it but as you can see from the Papal USA site with Imprimatur not as yet The Modern Scientific Theory of Evolution. When the Pope ex cathedras that it will truly be the end of the Roman Catholisim. At the moment all Popes are speaking for themselves as ordinary Homo Sapiens. The Catechism still insists A&E are real, this is the conflict. Can't have both
Euphobia1 1 year ago
@Cainus44 A&E have to be real homo sapiens and Sin. The Vatican knows they didn't and yet insists they did. They collect vast sums of money to perpetuate this myth besides interfering in people's private lives. They know they are in error and yet force their members to believe! Is this right? You cannot in any reasonable world believe that black is white or 2+2=5. In the Western World this would be called a scam! I am not saying that it is done on purpose but it is done. You a should know this!
Euphobia1 1 year ago
@Euphobia1 The Vatican only found out about this when Darwin did, and still had no reason to believe it until it was proven years later. They don't collect "vast sums of money to perpetuate this myth" anymore. What money they do collect is the result of donation, not demand, and the majority of the donation money goes right to charity. Say what you will, the Catholic church is the only religion out there that's building schools, farms, and water plants in the third world, out of their pockets
Cainus44 1 year ago
@Cainus44 Obviously I cannot do this in 500 characters as I have to address each figure of speech separately. This topic is on my list of future videos along with 2+2=4 but tonight I shall give it a try with an analogy.
Christians & Scientists love analogies when they have no evidence so an analogy is a good place to start. Maybe you would care to fill in your analogy of Adam & Eve to begin and I shall offer you mine. Naturally the analogy will have to be based on fact. I look forward to it.
Euphobia1 1 year ago
@Euphobia1 You're making the mistake of assuming I'm even a Christian. I'm a Celtic pantheon worshiper under the patronage of Lugh Lamheada. However, your assumptions aside, I have no "analogy" for Genesis. You seem to be mixing up analogy with metaphor. Old Testament is pretty much just a collection of fables with morals to them. Kind of like Aesop, but with a bigger following.
Adam and Eve is one of the more transparent, though sinister. Its moral is "knowledge is painful".
Cainus44 1 year ago
@Cainus44 Oh what a pity! I have and will post it to you. No I am not mixing them up. I know my Figures of Speech. Each one needs a different approach. I just thought you might like to start with analogy. Morals are for stories . I must admit I have never heard of Lugh of Lamheada! but it is a situation that I shall endeavor to correct via Wiki.
My field is purely biblical. I do not do the other Gods like Wotan or Apollo as yet it is not possible to prove they do not exist but A&E I can,
Euphobia1 1 year ago
@Euphobia1 Wasn't able to send you my analogy! You will have to wait for the video!
Euphobia1 1 year ago
@Euphobia1 Not Lugh of Lamheada. Lugh, Lug, Lamheada, or Lugh Lamheada. Celtic warrior/farmer god. In ancient times, revered primarily in my home country of Ireland, and in Wales. Long story. Central to the Celtic religion.
And before you were talking about disproving Christianity. Now you're just saying Adam and Eve. In a purely scientific sense, I can disprove Adam and Eve with a trip to the zoo. To others, things are more metaphysical, and what's real becomes less relevant.
Cainus44 1 year ago
@Cainus44 Exactly! A&E are not Real and never existed! You admit that! So the bible is fiction like Lugh. However Lug is not responsible for all the nonsense committed in the name of A&E, like stoning women to death, forbidding HIV Aids prevention, Middle East Medieval sieges and compromising children's education.
I was educated by Irish RC nuns . No science or sex education. I made up in both areas. Secular education for all. The if you want to believe in myths you can!
Euphobia1 1 year ago
@Euphobia1 Actually Lugh being fiction is highly debatable given that accounts from around 100 B.C. in ancient Ireland, while exaggerated, have been largely correct and proven by archaeology and anthropology, especially when describing migrations to the isle, war, and historical figures. Lugh was a mortal before ascending to godhood, and certain figures in the myths of Lugh and Cuchulainn have been proven to exist, such as Queen Maeve.
Cainus44 1 year ago
@Euphobia1 For instance, in my religion, when I die, Lugh Lamheada meets me at the gates of Otherworld, and helps me fight my way to what's essentially a giant pub several thousand feet below the ground.
Does it make a lick of sense on a scientific basis? No. Can it be disproven? Easily. Do I care? Not really. They're my beliefs, and I don't expect anyone else to follow them.
I can understand being annoyed with Abrahamic fundies who do expect that, but you aren't much better than they.
Cainus44 1 year ago
@Cainus44 That sounds delightful! So much better than boring heaven! You are welcome to your beliefs as long as they do not harm anyone. You understand that some believers of the bible do do harm and some will possibly blow the world to smithereens in the name of Allah. Secular education with sound basic science is one answer. No indoctrination in fairy horror stories, the bible is sadistic and terrifying . I was terrified all my childhood. I was given no choice at school. I had to believe.
Euphobia1 1 year ago
@Euphobia1 Old Testament is pretty sadistic. 100 B.C. was a sadistic time. If you're terrified of the bible more than you are of the giant, poisonous spiders that infest that accursed island you live on, you really need to get your priorities straight.
And don't compare the bible with "fairy horror stories". You're talking to someone who follows a religion that literally involves faeries slaughtering humans like sheep.
Cainus44 1 year ago
@Cainus44 How interesting! Well you are on safer ground than the bible. The spelling was different though but I expect I got the right one.
Euphobia1 1 year ago
It's important to understand that there is a BIG, BIG difference between SCIENCE and BELIEF SYSTEMS. Scientific laws and theories are tools used to solve problems. Religions are things you believe in for individual reasons. Evolution is NOT something you believe in. It is a tool used to solve problems... like your hammer. You don't believe in your hammer, you use it to solve problems.
blaisingm 1 year ago
Jesus, is a fictional character, in a fictional book!
That's all there is to it!
joe102769 1 year ago
Jesus was never born!
joe102769 1 year ago
29 people are tards and can't appreciate life for the splendor it holds.
sabertooth1980 1 year ago
Almighty God, the Universe, Evolution, Reincarnation and pendulum power are related subjects..
jrnjames1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
La Historia de la Ciencia es un cúmulo de despropósitos en sucesiones encadenadas alcanzando las más altas cotas de estupidez. El Método, por sí solo, no sirve de nada si el proceso cognitivo no está sustentado en la más elemental racionalidad, lógica y sentido común. El edificio de las ciencias teóricas puede equiparse a los sepulcros: blanco por fuera y lleno de podredumbre por dentro.
antonio80975 1 year ago
Google "God: Hidden Science"
byScrooby 1 year ago
O please O please O please...
What does the scientific theory of evolution have to do with theology? Creationism may well be bad science, but to think that biology has aught to say about things like sin and redemption is many many times worse.
Americanroyalist 1 year ago
I believe that Evolution AND creation probably neither occurred.where is the proof of either? I would love to believe in a loving god that will let me live for ever in paradise but theres probably not one. I do believe that lies and fables are the cause of confusion today. If people today and in the past stayed blameless of being false then we would all know the truth today and be one minded we would either all be atheist or all of us would worship God or gods or whatever. IF NO ONE EVER LIED
MegaGod2 1 year ago
@MegaGod2 Bloody hell. I thought the only people who rejected evolution were religious nutcases. If you don't believe in God, what possible reason could you have not to accept evolution as a scientific fact? It certainly can't be a lack of evidence. I must confess, you have piqued my interest...
TolpuddleMartyr 1 year ago
There are others, few in numbers as they are. This is a good thing! They might have their reasons, they might see holes and then uncover new or refinements to the theory. Or they might be a 100 years ahead of us scientifically, but the likelyness of that is (in all arrogance) nihil in our modern world.
TakesTwoToTango 1 year ago
the argument is not about truths and lies, its irrational emotion that causes argument. its defense of cherished belief.
adzug 1 year ago
ok people if evolution say we evolve from ape, how did we out smart apes, and also, shouldnt us human should still be evolving of differnt form since evolution is about changing and evolving. some please explain.
6ave305 1 year ago
Evolution doesn't say we evolved from apes. It says we have a common ancestor with apes.
We outsmarted other species because... we were smarter. The environment was such that intelligence was an important advantage, and some of our distant ancestors were born just a little bit smarter than others (just like what happens today). So, the ones that were born smarter were more likely to survive and have kids. Fast forward a few hundred thousand years and here we are.
We ARE still evolving.
d00df00d 1 year ago
@6ave305
1. Apes and humans share common ancestor;
2. Our brains evolved so we outsmarted the others. Still, bird outfly us, other apes are stronger, and scorpions can last without food for 6 months. Adaptation, see? ;-)
3. We ARE evolving! But evolution is a slow proces, so it's almost invisible sometimes.
grozde 1 year ago
brilliant...thanks for posting. 5 stars!!!
jihadpizza 1 year ago 4
bravo *applause* I like this. Favorited.
darkcolmar 2 years ago
Engineering is tech development from scientific principles/laws. Engineers are interested in proven theories that can be exploited to improve technology. Today the biggest revolution in mechanical and electrical engineering is evolutionary based algorithms for generating design variations randomly, followed by selection for improvements using computer models. This is ACTIVELY being use by the US military for wind turbines to distributed power systems. Evolution theory proven and applied!
AvogadrosNumbero 2 years ago
We did in fact evolve from lower forms of life. I would say to people who disbelieve this, "Prove otherwise". Proof not faith, Evidence not faith, Logic not faith.
baxtar1963 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this woman has an incredibly annoying voice.
i wonder how many people actually watch this video and believe it? not many. people would rather watch me dancing in my room - check out my video, the stats prove it.
i did not evolve from a monkey - how insulting.
alfrescodiningblue 2 years ago
lololololol
u r such a noob
bottlecapsandgorilla 2 years ago
@alfrescodiningblue yes you did, from a chimp
pigburn 2 years ago
it's funny when evolutionists get agitated.
roaringwaterbay 2 years ago
i love this video!
perfect narration!
it explains so very much.
thegoochieguy 2 years ago 6
In fact the 4 gospels weren't the only gospels written, but were selected by the church to be put in the bible. There is a gospel of Judas Iscariot and a gospel with Jesus flying across Jerusalem. Jesus also was not born in December, contrary to popular belief. He was actually born sometime in late July early August. Do you seriously believe that a poor ancient Israeli family can survive the Arabian winter winds? So as you can see not everything in the Bible, including Adam and Eve, are true
JiraiyaQWERT 2 years ago
@JiraiyaQWERT
But without A&E and that SIN you don't need the New Testament! You must see that! Even if the biblical A&E are 'reps' where are the real humans they are representing? Not there! A&E are real humans, like you and me.
You are sensible enough not to need this myth. Many of us don't need it today. I don't need to be scared stiff to behave myself.
Good try though! In over 60,000 accumulative views you are nearly the only one to attempt to answer the A&E question.
Euphobia1 2 years ago
uh obviously w/o the sin we wouldnt need that sin. If A&E didn't do that SIN there would be no need for the NT & the belief of Jesus. I know that already. It isnt hard to get to that. Btw..that wasnt the reply I made the reply I made was under the one that you replied to me. Not this one
JiraiyaQWERT 2 years ago
Adam and Eve is just a rep. of the first humans. Most atheist think that all Christians blindly follow the bible word for word. That is not always the case, some of the smarter less naive Christians, like me, no better. The bible is a book on faith alone, not a textbook. I hate Fundamentalist. It was revised and edited over thousands of years. It obviously isn't total truth.
JiraiyaQWERT 2 years ago
@JiraiyaQWERT
Good answer but just explain how the bible can be taken seriously without A&E and that Sin?
Euphobia1 2 years ago
Thank you for replying Euphobia, and good question!. Us Christians don't really follow the OT. It's a great story of God's interaction with man throughout the ages but...that's about it. Now I know what your thinking (or not lol) "jiraiya, that just means u follow only one part of the book". To be exact, we honor the OT as the beginning of God's love for us and is fulfilled by Jesus in the NT. A&E's Sin is "washed away" by his life & teachings. We aren't meant to take it for exact truth.
JiraiyaQWERT 2 years ago
Well then...So every time a woman braids her hair or wears expensive clothing or gold or jewelry she is sinning correct? or any time a woman teaches a man anything she is sinning as well?
Timothy 2:12 is NT. The bible is Racist, Sexist, and encourages murder. I absolutely refuse to respect any religion that could do such a thing.
Good day, sir.
Wiredkid1 1 year ago
what are you talking about? did u even read my comment? stop being so thick in the head. the BIBLE means nothing. it's a book created thousands of year's ago. u say it's racist, sexist, & encourages murder? the country u live in probably does the same, the us encouraged the war in iraq & u were waving ur flag yelling death to saddam probably. the bible isn't the root of christianity u dont even need it tbh & i have no idea what u mean about women, maybe u meant someone else.
JiraiyaQWERT 1 year ago
honestly, you are taking the bible out of context.
6ave305 1 year ago
However, as you have experienced with others, there are some who take it seriously. Don't pay any mind to them. Religion is pretty much what it looks like, smoke & mirrors, there's like a new rule every year, but the reason why I follow it is because it gives a message of love, compassion, equality for the fellow man, & to take responsibility for our actions, and repent for them. Doesn't have to be like "go to church repent", but can be forgiveness or charitable works.
JiraiyaQWERT 2 years ago
That's the best way I can explain it to you. Take out of it what you will. Also note I do believe in evolution, I'm not ignorant to just everything. Subbed to your vids too.
JiraiyaQWERT 2 years ago
Darwin=Newton?
evolution=gravity?
I don't think so. I am sorry Darwin is the one who is rooting around for a scrap of evidence. Once you find it, let me know.
roaringwaterbay 2 years ago
@roaringwaterbay
Oh dear! 'There are non so blind as they that cannot see.' I trust you were being ironic. If not, ignorance is not a virtue. Today with Wiki and YouTube there is no need for stupidity.
Try 'Science Made Easy' series by Potholer 54 and then see how silly your comment looks!
Euphobia1 2 years ago
@roaringwaterbay Pick up a biology-book for junior high or something, something easy and basic and take it from there. Then maybe one day even you'll understand why all scientists in relevant sciences regard evolution as a fact(for instance every single nobelprize winner in the sciences for the past 50 years, or whatever top-level scientist you want. (But you probably believe that all the world's universities and all its scientists, professors and ph.d students have been possessed by Satan haha
winterstellar 2 years ago 2
hahahahaha
loser
bottlecapsandgorilla 2 years ago
I'll just tell you this straight forward: there is no evidence for gravity. It's never been directly observed. Nobody has ever seen a Higgs Boson, it's not real. God decides if, how and when you fall. If Newton's theory would endanger the literal validity of genesis, then this is what Ray Comfort, Kent Hovind and all the other loony tunes would be saying literally.
TakesTwoToTango 1 year ago