How many times have you been told that evolution does not include the origin of life? Why do you creationists keep telling the same lies over and over?
No new information? Explain nylonase.
But of course, you're going to use the excuse that any new information presented does not count as new information because it's still using the same 4 proteins, even though all DNA is made from the same 4 proteins.
So, evolution does not include the origin of life? I thought Darwin wrote a book entitled On the Origin of Species, not how things could hypothetically change over a long period of time. Just as cosmologists can't explain the actual origin of the Universe, when supposedly, they're seeking to understand the origin, evolution, structure and ultimate fate of the Universe. So, why would a state of inertia explode? Why? In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
@DPMosteller Darwin wrote "On the Origin of the SPECIES". This is different from the origin of life. His book explains how populations can be physically separated and each group would change over time as separate groups. Eventually, the changes over time will make the 2 groups incompatible for reproduction, and therefore a new SPECIES is born. I don't remember Darwin addressing how life began in his book.
You can't even get the name of his book right. On the Origin of Species. He gave his explanation in a letter on this very question on how life began in a primordial puddle through a form of chemical evolution that has since been rejected as impossible by that community. Biogenesis means the beginning of life. Again, if you can't get life started through a natural processes, which you cannot, exactly, or precisely, what is your point? If not, then supernatural is logical.
@DPMosteller [You can't even get the name of his book right]
Is there a point there, or are you just throwing out irrelevant info? You made the point that Darwin's book did not explain change over a long period of time. I refuted your point by showing you that he DID explain change over time.
[He gave his explanation in a letter]
Exactly. I said that Darwin didn't address the beginning of life in his book. You seem to agree because he explained it in a letter, NOT the book.
My point: ORIGIN (On the Origin of Species) the word itself means genesis, or beginning. The only reason his poorly named book doesn't explain the genesis of life is because it can't. The US National Academy of Sciences defines Darwinian evolution as all life coming from one common ancestor. Yet, the fact remains, that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macro-evolutionary transformations have ever occurred.
@DPMosteller By the way, the letter was just Darwin's speculation. He didn't present any evidence or experimental data. He knew it was just speculation, which is why he didn't include it in his book.
With all due respect, your whole position, as well as Darwin's, is nothing but empty speculation. Have you noticed that fact? If we place all of our concrete, verifiable evidence on a table, you could see my position. I have done just that before, and it's amazing. I have had professors say they could fill the table with transitional life forms (fossils) yet can't even lay down a picture, or copy of a picture of one they can support. God created life, the facts support it!
@DPMosteller As for your other questions, the honest answer is "I don't know". If they knew those answers, then there would be no reason for them to be looking for answers.
If you're satisfied with the answer of "god dun it", then good for you. But to me, that's not a satisfying answer. If god really does exist and did do everything, that's great, but I still want to know what mechanism and methods he used to do what he did. For me, knowing that god exists won't stop the questions.
In physics, the standard for impossibility is 10E50. Francis Crick said: Constructing a single protein from evolutionary combinatorial selection would require the cell to string together the amino acids (which make up the polypeptide chain) in the correct order. The odds of this complicated biochemical process occurring is twenty multiplied by itself some two hundred times, 10E260, that is a one followed by 260 zeros! God said that He created life, the facts support it!
@DPMosteller [The odds of this complicated biochemical process ....10E260]
How do you even start calculating odds if you don't know the process which created it? You would have to make assumptions about EVERYTHING.
For example, how would you calculate the odds of a specific tree being chopped down, then processed into paper which ends up on your desk? If you don't know which loggers are working and which paper mills will receive it, you can't calculate anything.
The method God used: Creatio ex Deo, ab nihilo, ex nihilo. The reason cosmologists fixate on a point of singularity is because they have the math running backwards. They cannot reach zero in the direction they're going, they can only reduce the result to a smaller factor; the process was moving the other direction from nothing other than God Himself. Creation ab nihilo, ex nihilo is clearly not an option for them; therefore, they're stuck with an absurd position. I am not.
@DPMosteller [The method God used: Creatio ex Deo, ab nihilo, ex nihilo. The reason cosmologists fixate on a point of singularity is because they have the math running backwards. They cannot reach zero in the direction they're going]
You're making no sense. Can you reword your point in a way that a stupid "evolutionist" like me can actually understand it? What is this zero that you're talking about?
Again, if you're satisfied with goddunnit, that's fine. It doesn't satisfy science.
@MrSitemaster2 The Catholic Church is a pope cult. Being a former Catholic I KNOW that followers follow the pope, & not the Bible. Where does the pope get his authority, from the Catholic church and where does the church get it authority, from themselves. The Bible which Catholics don't read states that God created man, period. So your belief in evolution needs to be taken up with God, not man, man is fallible, God is not.
Read the Bible if you want the real truth! Start with Genesis one!
Thanks so much for sharing! The fact that so many people completely debunk intelligent design is a mystery to me. In everything we perceive, there is design. To argue that the entire universe and life itself is the product of random chance that managed to result in all of the numerous life forms on this Earth and the complexity of all reality; all the while dismissing the possibility of a Designer, is a bit shortsighted in my humble opinion. God bless!
@Falcondick69 I believe in abiogenesis but that's completely irrelivant to the observational and experimental evidence showing that all modern life shared a common ancestor. That's life saying the water cycle theory doesn't exist because it doesn't explain where the water came from.
And what a Christian way of communcating you have!
Oh and have you actually read the bible cover to cover?
This material may well be over your head, do you even realize what a foolish statement you just made? Abiogenesis is the key to your statement that all modern life shared a common ancestor. If you want to play the game you must acknowledge rationality. The water cycle is no theory, and it clearly operates by known observable scientific laws of evaporation, condensation, and gravity. Life has never been observed to come from non-life. Never. And without abiogenesis you have nothing.
@DPMosteller I'm going to make a video in the next couple of days and post it as a responce. I can't be bothered to debate any more in the comment section, accept it or reject it up to you.
@YesIamJames see. saying "i believe in abiogenesis" is a faith statement. but saying you drop things you believe only on faith, so i guess you don't believe abiogenesis anymore? and by the way, abiogenesis seems no different than the theory of spontaneous generation which was disproven a while ago....like 500 years.
@Falcondick69 No it's completely different. We have experimental evidence which shows that amino acids and nucleotides can form via completely natural means and very solid theory for how the first cells could have formed. We know that abiogenesis is possible but as of yet no solid proof that that is actually what DID happen. I believe abiogenesis because it's the most convincing explanation based on the evidence available and because there is no credible evidence whatsoever that life is designed
experimental evidence + very solid theory + could have formed + no solid proof + I believe = 0
there is no credible evidence whatsoever that life is designed = blind foolishness
Many evolutionists today automatically rule out intelligent design a priori, regardless of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It seems no amount of credible, documented evidence will suffice. This scotoma is a result of their Dawkins delusion. Sad. Very sad.
@DPMosteller Many creationists today automatically rule out evolution a priori, regardless of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It seems no amount of credible, documented evidence will suffice. This scotoma is a result of their god delusion. Sad. Very sad.
@DizzyDisco93 What is your overwhelming evidence? All of life starts in a species DNA. Since no new DNA information is added to the genome please tell me how a new species develops.
Science is faulty, surely you must agree that scientists have gotten it wrong more times then they've gotten it right, and yet you will cling to your religion of science. It sure takes a lot of faith to be an atheist.
Your statement is not true, actually, it's a boldfaced lie. It's nothing more than a common straw-man. Everyone accepts the fact of microevolution (changes within a kind). It's macroevolution that is rejected, and for good reason. There is no evidence that it has ever occurred on this planet. Evolution delusion! Sad, very sad! Go hide under a rock, and tell yourself you're right, and that all your empty theories and guesses trump the actual facts of the matter.
@DPMosteller ad hominens much? look up ring species and transition fossils, didn't know you made the video. nice strawmans and fallacies.ad hominens much?
There is NO EVIDENCE of macroevolution on this planet. To that, you respond irrationally. Then go your way, you're without excuse, or reason. Where did the information come from for all of this intricate design, from the cell to the fine tuning of the universe? Where? Information cannot evolve from nothing. Evolution has to have something to operate on, a functional, viable living organism before it can do anything at all. So, tell me how life evolved from nothing???
@DPMosteller LOL fine tuning? extrapolate. define information.that's biogenesis not evolution, don't lump the two together. transitional fossils would indicate macro evolution,look at whales in particular. what you ask for isn't observable, observing a phenomena in which its process take far too long for one human life to observe is impossible. if we are to come to a conclusion first define what you think evolution is, how you think it operates, and what you feel would be "proof"
Thanks for making my point that you don't have any facts to support your position. And my question was dealing with the information needed to balance all of the factors in the universe so that conscious life could exist. The information required to produce and sustain a single cell. If you don't understand the common definitions of this issue, then return to the baby pool before you drown in your own ignorance. So, tell me again, how life could evolved from nothing?
@DPMosteller and again I ask for specific definitions and explanations. "So, tell me again, how life could evolved from nothing? " isn't good wording. it blurs the line between evolution and abiogenesis. As for the question posted, I wouldn't know as it is currently beyond my scope of knowledge to comment comfortably on the matter. What do you mean by balance all the factors? If you mean why is the universe the way it is and not some sterile expansion. It's a good question (cont)
@DizzyDisco93 (cont) One no one knows the answer to. only inferences can be made.At the very least you could more clearly define the question "So, tell me again, how life could evolved from nothing?"
well if you go with the evolution route it seems really improbably that it was 100% random, as far as i know scientists say life formed about 3.5 billion years ago is what they get at so the issue here for one is time. for evolution to have happened we need to know a few things
1) how many species have been evolved since the origin? (like 100 species from original to human)
2)how long does it usually take in each case to evolve into a true new species?
then you have to consider the firs torganism had to come into being 100% randomly by chance and nobody knows how long that took. then they would have to evolve into another bacteria by chance, again nobody knows how long that took, then it has to eventualyl become sexual animals that reproduce that way by chance, and if it became a sexual animal like that it would have to have a mate so it would have to evolve into that new species at the same time as another evolves into the new species.
and on top of that each adaptation has to be either a dominante gene or multiple organisms need the same mutationa t the same time, then all of the gene mutations that change it into a new species have to be passed on and the organism has to be lucky as well as adapted to survive to pass the gene on, and also the gene has to be advantageous to that specific environment to a specific lifestyle and so on.
on top of that there are said to have been multiple mass extinctions which would have set the evolutionary progress back by killing most lifeforms and having to repopulate and recreate new species in a timely manner, it also relies on a common ancestor like humans are said to have with chimpanzees to produce 2 different kind of gene mutations that both created new species all of that has to happen in a 3500 million year time limit. it just seems like intelligent design was the most ideal theory.
1. We have plenty of evidence for new genes evolving, nylonase is a perfect example. We understand frame shift insersions, gene duplication and chromosome duplication can all lead to extra information.
2. Evolution doesn't say anything about life coming from non-life. This is a seperate theory known as abiogenesis.
Nice vid. I'm half way through Dr. J.C. Sanford's book "Genetic Entropy", and I've read Michael J. Behe's book "Darwins black box". As Dr. Craig has said it, if evolution is true it would be a miracle!
Yes! I really love it! ANSWERS IN GENESIS produced it and I downloaded it from 7BroncoBoy who has a lot of their work on YouTube and I subscribe to his channel. I converted it into an Mp3 and I am listening to it over and over to memorize it. I also transcribed it to help in memorization. I have never heard such a short, powerful refutation of evolution. It's great! Thanks for the encouragement, but ANSWERS IN GENESIS gets all the credit.
How many times have you been told that evolution does not include the origin of life? Why do you creationists keep telling the same lies over and over?
No new information? Explain nylonase.
But of course, you're going to use the excuse that any new information presented does not count as new information because it's still using the same 4 proteins, even though all DNA is made from the same 4 proteins.
Why do creationists bear false witness so often?
sleazybtd 2 days ago
@sleazybtd
So, evolution does not include the origin of life? I thought Darwin wrote a book entitled On the Origin of Species, not how things could hypothetically change over a long period of time. Just as cosmologists can't explain the actual origin of the Universe, when supposedly, they're seeking to understand the origin, evolution, structure and ultimate fate of the Universe. So, why would a state of inertia explode? Why? In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
DPMosteller 2 days ago
@DPMosteller Darwin wrote "On the Origin of the SPECIES". This is different from the origin of life. His book explains how populations can be physically separated and each group would change over time as separate groups. Eventually, the changes over time will make the 2 groups incompatible for reproduction, and therefore a new SPECIES is born. I don't remember Darwin addressing how life began in his book.
sleazybtd 1 day ago
@sleazybtd
You can't even get the name of his book right. On the Origin of Species. He gave his explanation in a letter on this very question on how life began in a primordial puddle through a form of chemical evolution that has since been rejected as impossible by that community. Biogenesis means the beginning of life. Again, if you can't get life started through a natural processes, which you cannot, exactly, or precisely, what is your point? If not, then supernatural is logical.
DPMosteller 1 day ago
@DPMosteller [You can't even get the name of his book right]
Is there a point there, or are you just throwing out irrelevant info? You made the point that Darwin's book did not explain change over a long period of time. I refuted your point by showing you that he DID explain change over time.
[He gave his explanation in a letter]
Exactly. I said that Darwin didn't address the beginning of life in his book. You seem to agree because he explained it in a letter, NOT the book.
sleazybtd 14 hours ago
@sleazybtd
My point: ORIGIN (On the Origin of Species) the word itself means genesis, or beginning. The only reason his poorly named book doesn't explain the genesis of life is because it can't. The US National Academy of Sciences defines Darwinian evolution as all life coming from one common ancestor. Yet, the fact remains, that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macro-evolutionary transformations have ever occurred.
DPMosteller 4 hours ago
@DPMosteller By the way, the letter was just Darwin's speculation. He didn't present any evidence or experimental data. He knew it was just speculation, which is why he didn't include it in his book.
sleazybtd 14 hours ago
@sleazybtd
With all due respect, your whole position, as well as Darwin's, is nothing but empty speculation. Have you noticed that fact? If we place all of our concrete, verifiable evidence on a table, you could see my position. I have done just that before, and it's amazing. I have had professors say they could fill the table with transitional life forms (fossils) yet can't even lay down a picture, or copy of a picture of one they can support. God created life, the facts support it!
DPMosteller 4 hours ago
@DPMosteller As for your other questions, the honest answer is "I don't know". If they knew those answers, then there would be no reason for them to be looking for answers.
If you're satisfied with the answer of "god dun it", then good for you. But to me, that's not a satisfying answer. If god really does exist and did do everything, that's great, but I still want to know what mechanism and methods he used to do what he did. For me, knowing that god exists won't stop the questions.
sleazybtd 1 day ago
@sleazybtd
In physics, the standard for impossibility is 10E50. Francis Crick said: Constructing a single protein from evolutionary combinatorial selection would require the cell to string together the amino acids (which make up the polypeptide chain) in the correct order. The odds of this complicated biochemical process occurring is twenty multiplied by itself some two hundred times, 10E260, that is a one followed by 260 zeros! God said that He created life, the facts support it!
DPMosteller 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DPMosteller [The odds of this complicated biochemical process ....10E260]
How do you even start calculating odds if you don't know the process which created it? You would have to make assumptions about EVERYTHING.
For example, how would you calculate the odds of a specific tree being chopped down, then processed into paper which ends up on your desk? If you don't know which loggers are working and which paper mills will receive it, you can't calculate anything.
sleazybtd 14 hours ago
@sleazybtd
The method God used: Creatio ex Deo, ab nihilo, ex nihilo. The reason cosmologists fixate on a point of singularity is because they have the math running backwards. They cannot reach zero in the direction they're going, they can only reduce the result to a smaller factor; the process was moving the other direction from nothing other than God Himself. Creation ab nihilo, ex nihilo is clearly not an option for them; therefore, they're stuck with an absurd position. I am not.
DPMosteller 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DPMosteller [The method God used: Creatio ex Deo, ab nihilo, ex nihilo. The reason cosmologists fixate on a point of singularity is because they have the math running backwards. They cannot reach zero in the direction they're going]
You're making no sense. Can you reword your point in a way that a stupid "evolutionist" like me can actually understand it? What is this zero that you're talking about?
Again, if you're satisfied with goddunnit, that's fine. It doesn't satisfy science.
sleazybtd 14 hours ago
@DPMosteller Even the Catholic church accepts evolution, with the addition that it was a process designed and guided by God.
MrSitemaster2 1 week ago
@MrSitemaster2 The Catholic Church is a pope cult. Being a former Catholic I KNOW that followers follow the pope, & not the Bible. Where does the pope get his authority, from the Catholic church and where does the church get it authority, from themselves. The Bible which Catholics don't read states that God created man, period. So your belief in evolution needs to be taken up with God, not man, man is fallible, God is not.
Read the Bible if you want the real truth! Start with Genesis one!
mkmason2002 3 days ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Thanks so much for sharing! The fact that so many people completely debunk intelligent design is a mystery to me. In everything we perceive, there is design. To argue that the entire universe and life itself is the product of random chance that managed to result in all of the numerous life forms on this Earth and the complexity of all reality; all the while dismissing the possibility of a Designer, is a bit shortsighted in my humble opinion. God bless!
7SoliDeoGloria7 2 weeks ago
Answers in Genesis did this one? AWESOME! Sharing this on FB. Thanks for posting!
ParasiteQueen1 2 months ago
@Falcondick69 I believe in abiogenesis but that's completely irrelivant to the observational and experimental evidence showing that all modern life shared a common ancestor. That's life saying the water cycle theory doesn't exist because it doesn't explain where the water came from.
And what a Christian way of communcating you have!
Oh and have you actually read the bible cover to cover?
YesIamJames 4 months ago
@YesIamJames
This material may well be over your head, do you even realize what a foolish statement you just made? Abiogenesis is the key to your statement that all modern life shared a common ancestor. If you want to play the game you must acknowledge rationality. The water cycle is no theory, and it clearly operates by known observable scientific laws of evaporation, condensation, and gravity. Life has never been observed to come from non-life. Never. And without abiogenesis you have nothing.
DPMosteller 4 months ago
@DPMosteller I'm going to make a video in the next couple of days and post it as a responce. I can't be bothered to debate any more in the comment section, accept it or reject it up to you.
YesIamJames 4 months ago
@YesIamJames see. saying "i believe in abiogenesis" is a faith statement. but saying you drop things you believe only on faith, so i guess you don't believe abiogenesis anymore? and by the way, abiogenesis seems no different than the theory of spontaneous generation which was disproven a while ago....like 500 years.
Falcondick69 4 months ago
@Falcondick69 No it's completely different. We have experimental evidence which shows that amino acids and nucleotides can form via completely natural means and very solid theory for how the first cells could have formed. We know that abiogenesis is possible but as of yet no solid proof that that is actually what DID happen. I believe abiogenesis because it's the most convincing explanation based on the evidence available and because there is no credible evidence whatsoever that life is designed
YesIamJames 4 months ago
@YesIamJames
experimental evidence + very solid theory + could have formed + no solid proof + I believe = 0
there is no credible evidence whatsoever that life is designed = blind foolishness
Many evolutionists today automatically rule out intelligent design a priori, regardless of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It seems no amount of credible, documented evidence will suffice. This scotoma is a result of their Dawkins delusion. Sad. Very sad.
DPMosteller 4 months ago
@DPMosteller Many creationists today automatically rule out evolution a priori, regardless of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It seems no amount of credible, documented evidence will suffice. This scotoma is a result of their god delusion. Sad. Very sad.
DizzyDisco93 2 weeks ago
@DizzyDisco93 What is your overwhelming evidence? All of life starts in a species DNA. Since no new DNA information is added to the genome please tell me how a new species develops.
Science is faulty, surely you must agree that scientists have gotten it wrong more times then they've gotten it right, and yet you will cling to your religion of science. It sure takes a lot of faith to be an atheist.
I await your response.
mkmason2002 3 days ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@DizzyDisco93
Your statement is not true, actually, it's a boldfaced lie. It's nothing more than a common straw-man. Everyone accepts the fact of microevolution (changes within a kind). It's macroevolution that is rejected, and for good reason. There is no evidence that it has ever occurred on this planet. Evolution delusion! Sad, very sad! Go hide under a rock, and tell yourself you're right, and that all your empty theories and guesses trump the actual facts of the matter.
DPMosteller 3 days ago
@DPMosteller ad hominens much? look up ring species and transition fossils, didn't know you made the video. nice strawmans and fallacies.ad hominens much?
DizzyDisco93 3 days ago
@DizzyDisco93
There is NO EVIDENCE of macroevolution on this planet. To that, you respond irrationally. Then go your way, you're without excuse, or reason. Where did the information come from for all of this intricate design, from the cell to the fine tuning of the universe? Where? Information cannot evolve from nothing. Evolution has to have something to operate on, a functional, viable living organism before it can do anything at all. So, tell me how life evolved from nothing???
DPMosteller 3 days ago
@DPMosteller LOL fine tuning? extrapolate. define information.that's biogenesis not evolution, don't lump the two together. transitional fossils would indicate macro evolution,look at whales in particular. what you ask for isn't observable, observing a phenomena in which its process take far too long for one human life to observe is impossible. if we are to come to a conclusion first define what you think evolution is, how you think it operates, and what you feel would be "proof"
DizzyDisco93 3 days ago
@DizzyDisco93
Thanks for making my point that you don't have any facts to support your position. And my question was dealing with the information needed to balance all of the factors in the universe so that conscious life could exist. The information required to produce and sustain a single cell. If you don't understand the common definitions of this issue, then return to the baby pool before you drown in your own ignorance. So, tell me again, how life could evolved from nothing?
DPMosteller 2 days ago
@DPMosteller and again I ask for specific definitions and explanations. "So, tell me again, how life could evolved from nothing? " isn't good wording. it blurs the line between evolution and abiogenesis. As for the question posted, I wouldn't know as it is currently beyond my scope of knowledge to comment comfortably on the matter. What do you mean by balance all the factors? If you mean why is the universe the way it is and not some sterile expansion. It's a good question (cont)
DizzyDisco93 16 hours ago
@DizzyDisco93 (cont) One no one knows the answer to. only inferences can be made.At the very least you could more clearly define the question "So, tell me again, how life could evolved from nothing?"
DizzyDisco93 16 hours ago
well if you go with the evolution route it seems really improbably that it was 100% random, as far as i know scientists say life formed about 3.5 billion years ago is what they get at so the issue here for one is time. for evolution to have happened we need to know a few things
1) how many species have been evolved since the origin? (like 100 species from original to human)
2)how long does it usually take in each case to evolve into a true new species?
Falcondick69 4 months ago
@Falcondick69
Very well said! Nice work!
DPMosteller 4 months ago
@DPMosteller no problem. now feel free to spread the word :D
Falcondick69 4 months ago
then you have to consider the firs torganism had to come into being 100% randomly by chance and nobody knows how long that took. then they would have to evolve into another bacteria by chance, again nobody knows how long that took, then it has to eventualyl become sexual animals that reproduce that way by chance, and if it became a sexual animal like that it would have to have a mate so it would have to evolve into that new species at the same time as another evolves into the new species.
Falcondick69 4 months ago
and on top of that each adaptation has to be either a dominante gene or multiple organisms need the same mutationa t the same time, then all of the gene mutations that change it into a new species have to be passed on and the organism has to be lucky as well as adapted to survive to pass the gene on, and also the gene has to be advantageous to that specific environment to a specific lifestyle and so on.
Falcondick69 4 months ago
on top of that there are said to have been multiple mass extinctions which would have set the evolutionary progress back by killing most lifeforms and having to repopulate and recreate new species in a timely manner, it also relies on a common ancestor like humans are said to have with chimpanzees to produce 2 different kind of gene mutations that both created new species all of that has to happen in a 3500 million year time limit. it just seems like intelligent design was the most ideal theory.
Falcondick69 4 months ago
@YesIamJames
I accept your retreat from further debate. I think that would be wise.
DPMosteller 4 months ago
spot on.
CumSeNumesteMelodia 4 months ago
1. We have plenty of evidence for new genes evolving, nylonase is a perfect example. We understand frame shift insersions, gene duplication and chromosome duplication can all lead to extra information.
2. Evolution doesn't say anything about life coming from non-life. This is a seperate theory known as abiogenesis.
YesIamJames 5 months ago
@YesIamJames but for evolution to be true in that sense abiogenesis would also have to be a fact.
Falcondick69 4 months ago
@Falcondick69 Why?
YesIamJames 4 months ago
Simply amazing. Plain and strong, love it!
davegamemaster 5 months ago
Nice vid. I'm half way through Dr. J.C. Sanford's book "Genetic Entropy", and I've read Michael J. Behe's book "Darwins black box". As Dr. Craig has said it, if evolution is true it would be a miracle!
kvash3154 5 months ago
I'm the 14th person to see this, and I absolutely love it.. Wonderful job on this video..
SuperGuitarman69 5 months ago
@SuperGuitarman69
Yes! I really love it! ANSWERS IN GENESIS produced it and I downloaded it from 7BroncoBoy who has a lot of their work on YouTube and I subscribe to his channel. I converted it into an Mp3 and I am listening to it over and over to memorize it. I also transcribed it to help in memorization. I have never heard such a short, powerful refutation of evolution. It's great! Thanks for the encouragement, but ANSWERS IN GENESIS gets all the credit.
DPMosteller 5 months ago