I see your point. Actually, the universe's design is the only factor that would lead me specifically to believe of the existence of god (in this day and age). cutevid
@Bowmaj21 Not like your god of accidental creation, talk about magic, talk about many accidents making complex DNA, the universe.....What amazing faith you atheists must have.
If complex things like DNA need a designer, then why not a complex thing like a God? You're clearly contradicting yourself!
And for the record, Atheists don't have faith that a God doesn't exist, and one of the reasons I don't believe in a God is because I have heard no rational evidence for one!
@lizazoon Give one published scientific paper showing life can come out of non life like you must believe. You believe a fantasy life does not come out of non life. Find it in science, it does not exist. God has always been. Forsake you fantasy faith and join the true faith -the God who made the heavens and the earth.
Moralityof the designer !!God's moral standards? No thanks! Look at how God rewards child sacrifice for Jephthah, how he arranges the killing of Job's beloved children just because Job trusted God, how God commands his people to rip little girls from the bloody arms of their murdered mothers and take them home to share with YHVH's priests, how he approves of public rape to punish people. Look at the command to practice ritualized cannibalism! What a wonderful pattern for morality!
Where where the bannanas! Let me guess you think the earth is just over 6000 years old to. Now let me introduce you to a few new words first on is fallacy everything needs a creator the buildings and the paintings and such So then by this argument god needs a creator now your going to say no he dose not that is called a fallacy . The next word is paradox witch is what you get when you make the above argument and keep following the logical path of said argument. Evolution covers the birds.
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Ps 92:4 For thou, LORD, hast made me glad through thy work: I will triumph in the works of thy hands.
@Sati5311 Hurts your brain because you are not using it enough. Give me one case of life coming from non life. Scientific published paper. Read another book besides your brainwashing atheist books.
SEE 'SINNER' ON MY CHANNEL FOR MORE. THEN SEE 'CONQUEST' & 'TRUCULENTUS' . . . MESSAGE FROM GOD & WARNING OF EVIL FROM A BELIEVER & COMMON SINNER TO THE WORLD.
@Pommit hey dude---the physical world...it does not prove its existance--eg-apples--to ask where that apple came from u cant say it came from itself--u wud hav to go bac to the tree--n its the same wit the tree--it didnt pop into existance lol-go bac to the seed--n so on--now life came from a "simple life form" as u atheists may say but that "simple life form" still doesnt explains its existence.the way to account for this world is for something self existent-in this case GOD>is that reasonable?
A designer has absolutely ZERO relevance to a religion. Even if you proved without a shadow of a doubt through Repeatable Experimentation that a God/s/dess/s exist and created the Universe you have still yet to prove that it is related to even one religion in our history.
Science looks at the evidence and draws a conclusion from it.
Religion looks at the conclusion and tries to find evidence to support it.
Or everything is ordered because of shear coincidence. A random sequence of random events caused the creation of everything in this universe.
"An infinite amount of monkeys, jumping on an infinite amount of typewriters, for an infinite amount of time, will eventually write the entire holy bible, word for word.".
So yes, there is a creator, but not necessarily a living being. The creator could be nothing more than a coincidence.
@pur3o3end - What silly comments on the video. IF you presume that the universe was CREATED, then of course there would be a creator. The point is that there is no evidence for a creation, i.e. there being an intelligence behind the existence of the universe.
"there is no creation"? There is evidence for creation, and what you say is in error. Even if you where an atheistic evolutionist the world would still have been "created" in a process of creation. Although, evidence shows creation to be complex random acts of chance are not enough to fit the world we see today.
if everything has a creator then the creator must have a creator and a place to create and a place to have been created and so forth. Please explain this.
Oh man! You used BRIDS as your evidence of a designer? LOL!
Okay, smart guy. Why do flightless birds have hollow bones and those same muscle groups? For flight, right? So why don't they fly? Is that proof that you are wrong and that all this happened via natural means, or is it proof that your perfect creator made a mistake?
Good question, but MEAN for that smart guy remark ouchie. :-( you're talking of an ostrich I presume, they have hollow bones for running fast they can run up to 64 km per hour which wouldnt have been possible without hollow bones.
Also, penguins, emus, and kiwis. There's also a flightless parrot (see the infamous "shagged by a rare parrot" video to see that guy). There are also several now extinct examples of flightless birds, some of which were larger than an ostrich. And of course the chickens we keep for farming are flightless (not to mention have the genetic ability to grow teeth).
Your question is actually foolish. We know buildings are built because we can see them being built. We can go and talk to the people who built the buildings. We can go to the city planning department and look at the blueprints. We can even build buildings ourselves.
And how does that relate to me pointing out that the issues with birds either point to evolution or a designer who makes countless mistakes? Welcome to irrelevance land. Population: you!
We have been instucted by Christ in John 14 to keep the commandments to create within us a Home for the Spirit of God. It teaches us to Love rather than Judge. Is John 14 truth or Not ?
God is an eternal being. By definition eternal beings cannot be created. The universe, animals, and life is not eternal as we see thought the process of biogenesis. Simple put; if God needed to be created He wouldn't be God. Thanks for the comment.
Over the years we have all been lied to by many false Religous Leaders and so called prophets. Many things we have been taught are not even in Scripture and millions have swallowed so many lies by these false leaders. If you are a truth seeker please visit the web site which is displayed in our user name and take the time to read some of the articles... You will be very shocked.
There is a great audio there for you to listen to. You will come away asking many questions.
We only know a building has a builder from hear say, or from previous evidence of watching a building beeing built. I like the example of a child, or a person from a tribe in the jungle ect. They have no idea of a builder/designer they must be told, or see a building beeing buit to understand it is not a natural occurence.
@Ilikejpgs You just said, and I quote "nothing can come from nothing" Then you said a tiny particle always existed from the big bang? that's contradicting. Futhermore a tiny particle couldn't have existed because nothing existed before the big bang..no matter yet.
Alright then you admit the Big bang cannot take place. Now then, God is different because He is above time, space, and matter. God wouldn't need to be created because He is omnipotent if He needed to be created He wouldn't be God in the first place, so you're limiting God to needing to be created if He was limited he wouldn't be omnipotent therefore not God. Asking "who made God" is like asking "where is the corner of a circle?" there is none if a circle had a corner it wouldn't be a circle
You have several things to think about, for which I am gratefull. Now I will return the favor. When I see a building, a watch, and a painting, I see the sup of human experience focused into a concept and made real. Experience gave people the knowlege to build safe buildings, accurate watches, and beautiful art pieces. Is it so far off to think that mankind was so lonely, that he created a god, so that he had something to look up to in awe and wonderment? Just a thought.
I see your point, yet at the same time, it comes across as an uninspired default for which alternatives are rarely explored. IMO, too few people look a building and think about who did the actual construction, or the painters. Not a thought goes to the miners who provided the ore for the beams and wiring, or the clay pit that supplied the bricks and so on... Rarely do I find myself wondering how a god created something without an infinite regression issue. More to think about perhaps?
Hey, it's NatureSelect by the way. The way birds are "built" was caused by natural selection. Just as their eyes were. Perhaps I'll post a video response to this! Dawkins wrote a whole book(of which I own and am reading) that destroys the "Design proves a designer" thing.
They said the same thing about a rainbow "it looks designed so it must be" then of course it was discovered how a rainbow forms. So suffice it to say design doesn't equal intelligence.
Before you block me and delete my comments that you cannot answer, think about this.
The human genome - 3 billion base pairs of DNA.
The humble onion - 17 billion base pairs of DNA.
How does that fit into your "in gods image", considering god would have had to have spent 5.6 times more time developing the onion over us. Now again, evolution explains this eloquently, can creation?
Why are you judging me? I answered just about all of you're comments and I haven't deleted one..but if you want to be like that there is no point in this talk so I may aswell block you.
I will look into the onion thing, but i'm betting that's a bad comparison Human vs Onion.
anyway that's enough for today i'll answer one last one; Duplications are the result of duplicating existing genetic information, and mutations alter existing genetic information whether original or duplicated Neither of them adds new information.
lol! so, duplication may add content in the genome and when that content mutates, its not new information? thats like saying i can have three arms, but when one of them changes into a wing, thats not new information, its just mutated existing information. LOL!!! HELLO!? information has been added to the genome, compare the original two armed to the one with two arms and a wing, new information! Over simplification, but you should get my point!
No as I said --Duplications are the result of duplicating existing genetic information-- It's like if I had a TV the picture on the TV worked but the sound didn't so I went to the TV store and got a new TV, but this TV'S picture didn't work but the sound did. So I put the TV'S side by side they work together! but no TV is doing anything new so no new information is added.
"no observed mutations have been found to add information."
What are you reading out of the 1970s creation handbook? Thats an ancient one...
Do some research on gene duplication and point mutation, observed in many different circumstances. This is another one of those spreading a blatant lie items.
Do a bit of an easy expiriment to see what i mean by this. Grab a box of 100 matches and tip it on the flaw, take a photo of it. Now stare at that photo after you have cleaned up the matches and wonder what the probability is that they fell exactly in that fashion. You will one day wake up to the fact that you are staring at an outcome, not a goal. The probability is irrelevant because it happened! If however you wanted that exact result before you tipped out the matches, now you have a goal.
And if all had been designed and could NOT be fully described by naturalistic methods, like say, perfectly cubed planets. Then you might have a case to argue. However science beautifully explained everything you claim already, without the need to evoke the supernatural or insane probability. One thing creationists forget, is that the there is no goal, the current state of things is the outcome, not the target. Never was, never will be.
What scientists are claiming everything happened "by chance". Please tell me, all I see are creationists coming up with this statement.
Science has explained how everything has formed during and post big bang. If you want to talk pre-big bang its purely in the realm of theory at this time, which also doesnt prove god. "i dont know YET" is an acceptable answer, the default isnt godditit cuz you cant explain it.
"..if the Earth moves 5 degree's closer to the sun there would be no life is a fact. "
No its not a fact. First of all, distance from the sun isnt measure by degrees, its measured by distance. Second, the "habitable zone" stretches from venus through to mars, the only varient factor between these places and our own is temperature. We have life here on earth surviving quite well in arid heat and in subzero temperatures. Such a statement as yours is only one of pure ignorance.
It is called "The Goldilocks Zone" and is usually known by Astrobiologists as the Habitable Zone, so Skathenbleh addressed this issue already in the above post. Astrobiologists also point out that the heat energy needed for life can be supplied by the tidal heating of satellites around gas giants, such as Jupiter's Europa and Saturn's Titan, which means that large gas planets make their own Habitable Zones for moons in their orbit.
Funny how a lot of that DNA is whats called Junk DNA, we have proven this by stripping huge percentages of junk DNA from mice and they are born and grow exactly the same. Something only accounted for by evolution leaving in redundant data, or by a very wasteful and poor designer.
"like the vestigial appendix that scientist have recently debunked? "
Wisdom Teeth? Coccyx? Blushing? Goose pimples? Explained by evolution, but by your myth?
Alright you didn't answer the main issue and that is that our DNA has more coding then a computer. Instead of addressing this issue you move away from it and get into some DNA that might not be need. But as for the junk DNA topic many of the DNA sequences formerly relegated to the junk pile have begun to obtain new respect for their role in genome structure and function, gene regulation and rapid speciation. Scientists are now finding out that alot of DNA they thought was junk have a role. con-
"Alright you didn't answer the main issue and that is that our DNA has more coding then a computer" It could have a billion times more coding than a computer, that doesn't prove your myth in any way. Evolution accounts for DNA complexity and it also accounts for junk DNA which makes up a large part of it. Endogenous Retroviruses also flow in our DNA linking us to our cousins, this is something that creation CANNOT ever account for.
"many of the DNA sequences formerly relegated to the junk pile have begun to obtain new respect for their role in genome structure and function"
Some sequences yes, however noncoding DNA (junk DNA) do not form genes nor form proteins. More than 90% of the human genome is classified as noncoded. Some of this has been revised, however there is still large portions of DNA which serve absolutely no purpose. This is well documented.
WHAT THE @$%!, you use EVOLUTION to back you play? Before you try and weasel out of this one, speciation is the very thing creationists argue CANNOT HAPPEN, yet you try and use it as evidence AGAINST Evolution??!?!?
after all we just possibly have not found it all yet. You give an example of how mice can live without some DNA? We can live without a lot of things the appendix is a good example does that now mean it has no role in our bodies? of course not! as for wisdom teeth theses also seem to have a role in our body. Common past dental practice was a tendency to routinely remove wisdom teeth. Recent empirical research has concluded that this practice is unwise inless it becomes needed.
No wisdom teeth do not play a major role in humans anymore, as funnily enough, approximately 35% of the population are now being born missing wisdom teeth, a sharp increase on our heritage which it was very uncommon not to have all four wisdom teeth. I myself have only developed two wisdom teeth. Evolutionary change in action, as this vestigial item its just redundant in humans, it actually causes problems now, hence why it evolving out of our genome pool.
The major problem resulting from removal of third molars, aside from the loss of these useful teeth, is the complications related to tooth extractions.
Extract from New Scientist on the usefulness of Junk DNA
"Most researchers agree that 50 per cent is the top limit (for noncoded DNA being useful) because half of our genome consists of endless copies of parasitic DNA or "transposons", which do nothing except copy and paste themselves all over the genome until they are inactivated by random mutations. A handful are still active in our genome and can cause diseases such as breast cancer if they land in or near vital genes. "
Again in the future we might be able to find use for that DNA like we have found with many. Also Junk DNA could demonstrate a loss genetic expression rather then us gaining genetic expression from ancestor. but again you didn't mention how complex DNA really is?
woah there didn't even notice all theses comments. oh well time for some debunking, but I won't waste all my time with this. "whoever "designed" the human body did a really **** job of it'' are you kidding me!? Our body is incredible complex our DNA is made up of coding more coding then that PC you sit behind! "We have vestigial features only accounted for by our evolutionary past. Pretty crappy design.'' haha! like the vestigial appendix that scientist have recently debunked?
All cosmological arguments (which this is one) have been shown to either be fallacious, or apply equally to both any god or any theoretical universe.
The problem for the cosmological argument is that due to its inherent nature, it can never disprove a naturalistic beginning to the universe that doesn't in the same action disprove a god.
It is thus not referenced by true intellectuals as it breaks down to nothing but what flavour of unknown you want to believe.
As edward said, first prove design in the first place, i mean, whoever "designed" the human body did a really crap job of it, i mean, our only dominant feature over animals is our intelligence, thats it. Animals in nature trump us in all other categories of physical attributes. We breath through the same tube we eat and drink, male reproduction shares a waste organ's drain. We have vestigial features only accounted for by our evolutionary past. Pretty crappy design.
well the ratings are disabled... wonder why... lol
subscribe? lmao, your peddling an argument that has been debunked not just hundreds of times just on youtube, but thousands. so all we are going to hear from you is ray comfort drivel no doubt.
and comment, hmm, pretty sure you going to be like other creationists and just delete all comments that get you stuck in a corner or offend your faith? faith is faith because it has no fact.
Surprisingly this guy seems to leave (at least some) negative comments up, even if he does disable ratings. One point in his favor.
It's just sad that they have to resort to quote mining, censorship, and just plain dishonesty to defend their supposedly true faith. You'd think that if it were true it would defend itself just by the facts, right? But no, instead you have kids like these lying for Jesus. It's shameful they don't even realize they're spitting on their own beliefs.
The title. Implying that the universe is designed.That's dishonest, because it's not proven.
3:45 . The moon is not a perfect sphere (it's not circular, by the way). There's plenty of craters and ridges on it. Many other moons are also mostly spherical, so you're lying about that.
Also 3:45 you're begging the question. That's a logical fallacy. What's the point of asking that? If Earth was 5 degrees closer life would never have appeared to begin with and you wouldn't be asking dumb questions
"The title. Implying that the universe is designed.That's dishonest, because it's not proven." I am trying to show in the video how the universe appears desighned. Can you say without a doubt it is not designed to prove me a liar? a logical fallacy?! Again i'm showing how the universe appears to be designed...if the Earth moves 5 degree's closer to the sun there would be no life is a fact.
There's tons of other nonsense that isn't directly a lie, too. Like Ray Comfort's debunked "when you see a painting" line.
Again, you need to prove that the universe is designed before you can say design proves a designer. If you see a bunch of colorful lichen on a stone wall do you claim there's a colorful-lichen-mural-maker?
That and Paley's watch argument. Again, same as above. Prove it's designed, then you can say there's a designer.
AGAIN I'M TRYING TO ***SHOW** HOW THE UNIVERSE APPEARS DESIGNED. In the video I say "I cannot accept this was all made by chance" anyway no i'm done chatting with you. You have been very rude in all of you're comments, called me a liar, and dumb without even reasoning it out a bit first.
"well the ratings are disabled... wonder why... lol
subscribe? lmao, your peddling an argument that has been debunked" rating are disabled because athiest seem to have the time to come back to this video daily to 1 star it. No this has not been debunked.
When you see an organism that survives by eating man-made materials, do you think it grew the ability to eat the material or that a god decided that it would intervene? (if i remember correctly it's some micro-organism that eats a type of clothing material developed a few decades ago)
Same concept as MRSA, they evolved and coincidentally became more complex.
Design does prove a designer, but first you have to prove there's a design in the first place. Everything we see about the universe at every level from micro- to macroscopic shows otherwise. If you assume a priori that your answer is correct, it's possible to formulate a question that can't possibly be wrong. Assume that blue is red and you can safely say the sky is pink under that rule, but we both know it's nonsense.
Even if I had, what does that have anything to do with anything I said? If I cursed and then said grass was green, it wouldn't turn the grass red, would it?
Humans aren't plants, bacteria, or rocks. That makes us animals. Just ask Linnaeus, the creationist who labeled us as such in the first place.
If you're so easily upset at people understanding statistics and probabilities (and facts) more than you, I suggest you go back to school. Sheesh, what a twerp.
This clip is wonderful, indeed, they actually believe it happened by chance, and the way the Atheists try to ignore that, wonderful !!!! You got to love them :)))
Says you. "We" atheists know it couldn't have happened purely by chance, and no-one's saying it did except for you idiots. Evolution is a gradual process driven by different mechanisms, one of which is natural selection. It's as non-random as you can get. No chance involved there.
So, do you make a career out of lying for Jesus, or is it just a hobby?
Who left the cage open ? One of the animals ran away, damn it, how can we catch this one ? This animal is also very offending, about chances ? TRILLION TRILLION TRILLION TRILLION TRILLION of a chance, now please get in your cage again, this isn't funny, the visitors want to have some fun tomorrow !
"TRILLION TRILLION TRILLION TRILLION TRILLION of a chance"
Care to explain how you calculated that probability, please include your mathematical working as i would love to know.
Also ad hominems do not help your cause, only help others see you as quite sad and dim-witted, not having the intellectual ammunition to attack the argument, so you resort to name calling. Small children can achieve that feat, try again?
WRONG. You don't even know you're own world veiw? Chance has to play a major role in mutations. Chance would have to play a major role in cosmic-evolution aswell,.
Where did I say chance had no part in mutations? That much is a given. But mutations are not where the buck stops.
Take a bunch of six-sided dice. Roll them. You get a bunch of numbers. Those are your "mutations". Using "natural selection", re-roll the dice showing any value under 4. The "bad" mutations get cycled out, and eventually you wind up with a "high-value" system. You must understand this by now, why do you keep lying about it?
I was talking to the other atheist my friend. Don't compare DNA to dice. Dice has 6 numbers DNA contains 2 billion letters. Plus I do not see were you get you're random illustration from? no observed mutations have been found to add information.
Amen brother. Design is so evident in all living things that evolutionists who have been presented with the evidence live a life of denial and work to beat down their concience, which tells them they are wrong. Good wrok brother.
Havo..Charles Darwin says the eye is complex and is absurd to come about by evolution then later on dismisses what he said earlier in his chapter and basically says "ah well, it came about that way anyway" meantime if Charles Darwin could see how complex our eye is today he would probably give up his naturalistic view. I'm not going to get into all that ways of how are eye is complex now because the comment section is to small.
OK, sheesh, I almost didn't notice this because you've "accidentally?" forgot to put it as a reply to my comment. Let me put what CD said in laymen terms for you- He says that if you just think about it, the eye seems to be irreducibly complex, but then in the VERY NEXT paragraph says that if you use LOGIC, you can see that it is possible for the eye to be produced by evolution. Is that clear enough?
"if Charles Darwin could see how complex our eye is today"
You mean the eye wasn't as complex in Darwin's days as it is now? I'm sorry but, No. Not only is that just wrong, but, really, who are you to assume what Darwin would say if he was alive now? Furthermore, even if Darwin said that evolution was impossible, it wouldn't do anything to hurt evolutionary theory. Not only are there many evolutionary paths for the eye to evolve, the irreducible complexity of the eye has been defeated in court.
The eye not complex? I happened to like my eye, but since we are talking about evolution let's see what Charles Darwin had to say: "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." -Charles Darwin.
OH WOW. WOW. I cannot believe you just used that quote. Do you even bother to research something before you say something like that? OK, now I dare you to tell the paragraph following that quote. I DARE YOU.
OK, since you seem not to be intellectually honest enough or polite enough to give me an answer, let me give you the rest of the paragraph-
"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; [Cont]
[Cont]" and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real."
-Charles Darwin
pur3o3end, you really have to do some catching up on creationist logical fallacies, in this case- quote mining.
"I can't imagine how it would evolve, therefore, it couldn't have evolved"
Remember the eye? That old nugget was hard to pass up in an evolution debate. Too bad it was explained. It is not longer irreducibly complex, well, scratch that, it NEVER WAS irreducibly complex.
Davotheravo you called me a dumb *** for putting "Hallow, and not Hollow" in the video. Do you see me comment on you're video's for the misspelt word fotus?
Humans on Earth that is correct, evolution says nothing on the origin of life only on the origin of species so in contrary evolution has no idea how the first living organism got here. It only states that it got here and changed over time.
So in saying creation says: God made us.
Evolution says: ???
as you can see evolution DOES Not have an answer for how we got here, but rather how we evolved.
This comment section has gotten very nasty in there words. Please keep you're debates, comments, and so on clean and civil or I will remove them. Also in response to many of the evolutionary comments. Evolution has not been observed, and no i'm not talking of particles changing over time i'm talking of particles changing into people. Creationists agree that things change over time the key component is the type of change. Also a response to wolfrester: Creationists believe that God put con-
O.K. I think that a bit of humor is necessary because this discussion is making people depress.
I have a friend who is a Mechanical Engineer. He belive that is a designer of everithing that exist, but from the mechanical point of view he criticizes the designer that has forgoten to put a valve conecting our head with our arse. He think that this is the reason why we cannot eliminate the shit accumulated for so many years in our head!
existence alone is not proof of its creation. The whole "If you see a building, you know somebody built it" argument is flawed. Its existence doesn't make me believe it was built. Its the fact that I have seen construction workers build buildings before that make me believe that this building was constructed by them as well.
If you see an object in front of you, all you can assume is that the object exists and that its in front of you. You cant prove or assume anything else.
Evolutionists say that the object got there because it changed from other objects from along time ago. They can say this because they found proof of those other objects.
Creationists say that somebody put the object there. But they have no evidence of how, or why. Maybe If you showed us some foot prints of the creator.
well, they have about as much evidence of what we evolved from or changed from as we do about our religion. because they believe (crude terms) we came from slime, then earthworms, then what we are today. if thats true they believe they are biological machines who only act on impulses and what their brain reads from their enviroment meaning they cant even trust their own thoughts, cause its all just a chemical reaction
Even though everything you just said amounts to mindless gibberish and has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, I am going to humor you. Lets say Evolution is wrong.
Now show my evidence that Creationism could be true. (Remember, existence alone only proves that it exists, not how it got there.)
No, not really. We see design in clouds, but they come through natural processes. We see design in snowflakes, crystals, gems, etc. but they do not require a designer.
This was an EPIC FAIL and more of that Ray Comfort bullcrap.
Design does not require an anthropomorphized designer. Designs appear in clouds, for example, with no more of a designer than uneven heating, evaporation, and other natural causes. Even an anthropomorphized designer need not be a deity.
If the designer does not need a designer to create it, why should other things?
some people just dont under stand u only need to belive youseft an dont belive some bible brag blah blah about this an that an say God did this an god did that wow BIG WOOP who cares i so dont belive in that i belive in my seft an that gets me to my dreams my future an Understanding so Come plz dont belive the people that push Bibles in your face saying totaly lie's an story about some god or man that build our planet !!!! u half to be pertty dumb to belive this fake story ?.
Also, you seem to be under the impression that darwinian evolution is a process based upon random chance. The only element of chance is what kind of mutation will occur. Whether the mutation is beneficial or not and how it changes the species as a whole depends upon natural selection, the engine of evolution.
Paley's watchmaker arguement now stands as a farce. It is void of all logic and its arguements have been refuted so many times. Look at my video on Aaronk1994, in the description there is a breakdown of the logical innerracies that are rife within the arguement. Nobody should feel the need to answer a question or arguement that doesn't make any sense.
Once more, you completely misunderstand evolution. Evolution, i would like to make clear, does not rely on sheer chance for complex organisms to form. It is a process that occurs over millions of years. Millions of tiny, random, incremental mutations build on each other. It is their adaptation to their environment that creates the illusion of design.
As for the earth, the moon, the sun being well suited for life...we have a very large universe. It's called the anthropic principle, look it up.
The human contains numerous flaws, such as the universal blind spot that causes so many car accidents. Quite serious flaws can be found in our jaw, where critical and obvious imperfections mean that we humans have to go to our dentists regularly.
To play the devil's advocate here, a key component of micro and macro evolution is adaptability. The greatest principle of the theory is that organisms developed traits through natural selection. This would explain why birds are formed so well, they adapted to become better balanced and quicker because the ones with the aforementioned traits were the ones who survived the most.
To play God's advocate here, id have to say that it is highly improbable that so many features that helps a bird survive would come about by natural selection and mutation. This hypothesis might have been considered when we use to think that a cell was only a blab of jelly however scientist now know that our cells are as complex as a galaxy. Think of it billions of DNA letters changing without one skip or flaw. I would be happy to send you a link to a site that explains this more clearly.
I see your point. Actually, the universe's design is the only factor that would lead me specifically to believe of the existence of god (in this day and age). cutevid
ragegraa 1 month ago
@Elififa
Everything in the video was scientific facts my friend.
pur3o3end 1 year ago
4 words. Occamz razor, Infinite Regression.
End of story.
Microtardz 1 year ago
Simply asserting design is begging the question.
JonathanSarfati 1 year ago
A Buliding needs a Builder?
A Painting needs a Painter?
But a God doesn't need a God Maker, COS HE'S MAGIC!
Bowmaj21 1 year ago
@Bowmaj21 Not like your god of accidental creation, talk about magic, talk about many accidents making complex DNA, the universe.....What amazing faith you atheists must have.
scottandsara86 1 year ago
If complex things like DNA need a designer, then why not a complex thing like a God? You're clearly contradicting yourself!
And for the record, Atheists don't have faith that a God doesn't exist, and one of the reasons I don't believe in a God is because I have heard no rational evidence for one!
Bowmaj21 1 year ago
And god s SPOKE the whole universe into being. OUT OF NOTHING -- LOL...
lizazoon 1 year ago
@lizazoon Give one published scientific paper showing life can come out of non life like you must believe. You believe a fantasy life does not come out of non life. Find it in science, it does not exist. God has always been. Forsake you fantasy faith and join the true faith -the God who made the heavens and the earth.
scottandsara86 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Moralityof the designer !!God's moral standards? No thanks! Look at how God rewards child sacrifice for Jephthah, how he arranges the killing of Job's beloved children just because Job trusted God, how God commands his people to rip little girls from the bloody arms of their murdered mothers and take them home to share with YHVH's priests, how he approves of public rape to punish people. Look at the command to practice ritualized cannibalism! What a wonderful pattern for morality!
lizazoon 1 year ago
Where where the bannanas! Let me guess you think the earth is just over 6000 years old to. Now let me introduce you to a few new words first on is fallacy everything needs a creator the buildings and the paintings and such So then by this argument god needs a creator now your going to say no he dose not that is called a fallacy . The next word is paradox witch is what you get when you make the above argument and keep following the logical path of said argument. Evolution covers the birds.
Timmurrayjr84 1 year ago
@Timmurrayjr84 Let me guess you think billions of years and accidents made complex humans. Fool!
scottandsara86 1 year ago
Amen!
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Ps 92:4 For thou, LORD, hast made me glad through thy work: I will triumph in the works of thy hands.
BlindLed 1 year ago
This video hurts my brain. There are so many "facts" that are incorrect I wouldn't know where to start...
You must first know something about science in order to call it bullshit.
READ A GODDAMN BOOK OTHER THAN THE BIBLE!!!
Sati5311 1 year ago
@Sati5311
Personal attacks and cursing will get you blocked. Next time if you have something to refute state your side.
pur3o3end 1 year ago
@Sati5311 Hurts your brain because you are not using it enough. Give me one case of life coming from non life. Scientific published paper. Read another book besides your brainwashing atheist books.
scottandsara86 1 year ago
SEE 'SINNER' ON MY CHANNEL FOR MORE. THEN SEE 'CONQUEST' & 'TRUCULENTUS' . . . MESSAGE FROM GOD & WARNING OF EVIL FROM A BELIEVER & COMMON SINNER TO THE WORLD.
GERENDAZEE 1 year ago
If there is a God and he created the universe then who created him?
Pommit 1 year ago
@Pommit
see my video, who created God the answer.
pur3o3end 1 year ago
Thanks for the comments.
pur3o3end 1 year ago
@pur3o3end
Wow....you really are sad....that comment proves it....
Gandalf54231 1 year ago
@Gandalf54231
Gandalf, attacking someone personally instead of the topic at hand only discredits your side, but even so thank you for watching my video.
pur3o3end 1 year ago
@Pommit hey dude---the physical world...it does not prove its existance--eg-apples--to ask where that apple came from u cant say it came from itself--u wud hav to go bac to the tree--n its the same wit the tree--it didnt pop into existance lol-go bac to the seed--n so on--now life came from a "simple life form" as u atheists may say but that "simple life form" still doesnt explains its existence.the way to account for this world is for something self existent-in this case GOD>is that reasonable?
CL0Z3R 1 year ago
@Pommit Answer-He has always existed. Why do you think there had to be a starting point? First cause, no cause.
Brucev7 1 year ago
A designer has absolutely ZERO relevance to a religion. Even if you proved without a shadow of a doubt through Repeatable Experimentation that a God/s/dess/s exist and created the Universe you have still yet to prove that it is related to even one religion in our history.
Science looks at the evidence and draws a conclusion from it.
Religion looks at the conclusion and tries to find evidence to support it.
Enjoy your Bronze Age Goat Herder Campfire Tales
turkeyburgers 1 year ago
same design = same designer !
different design = differnt designer ?
gregrutz 2 years ago
Are you really that stupid? You clearly missed the point. Besides, its an INFINITE AMOUNT of typewriters.
if 1000 typewriters broke, there would be an INFINITE amount left to replace them. Stop being ignorant.
wd50 2 years ago
Design only proves that a finite number of physical laws govern matter and energy within the physical area and timeframe occupied by our species
Botany101 2 years ago
Or everything is ordered because of shear coincidence. A random sequence of random events caused the creation of everything in this universe.
"An infinite amount of monkeys, jumping on an infinite amount of typewriters, for an infinite amount of time, will eventually write the entire holy bible, word for word.".
So yes, there is a creator, but not necessarily a living being. The creator could be nothing more than a coincidence.
wd50 2 years ago
Amen TC!
pur3o3end 2 years ago
@pur3o3end - What silly comments on the video. IF you presume that the universe was CREATED, then of course there would be a creator. The point is that there is no evidence for a creation, i.e. there being an intelligence behind the existence of the universe.
Pommit 1 year ago
@Pommit
"there is no creation"? There is evidence for creation, and what you say is in error. Even if you where an atheistic evolutionist the world would still have been "created" in a process of creation. Although, evidence shows creation to be complex random acts of chance are not enough to fit the world we see today.
pur3o3end 1 year ago
if everything has a creator then the creator must have a creator and a place to create and a place to have been created and so forth. Please explain this.
canascot02 2 years ago
nice vid
pinoyrawr 2 years ago
Oh man! You used BRIDS as your evidence of a designer? LOL!
Okay, smart guy. Why do flightless birds have hollow bones and those same muscle groups? For flight, right? So why don't they fly? Is that proof that you are wrong and that all this happened via natural means, or is it proof that your perfect creator made a mistake?
hgryphon 2 years ago
Good question, but MEAN for that smart guy remark ouchie. :-( you're talking of an ostrich I presume, they have hollow bones for running fast they can run up to 64 km per hour which wouldnt have been possible without hollow bones.
pur3o3end 2 years ago
Also, penguins, emus, and kiwis. There's also a flightless parrot (see the infamous "shagged by a rare parrot" video to see that guy). There are also several now extinct examples of flightless birds, some of which were larger than an ostrich. And of course the chickens we keep for farming are flightless (not to mention have the genetic ability to grow teeth).
hgryphon 2 years ago
Just out of curiosity - Do you reject the idea of a builder if you see different types of buildings then?
Or having houses built with different materials?
Or small house compare to the castle?
gsnowakowski 2 years ago
Hello gsnowakowski.
Your question is actually foolish. We know buildings are built because we can see them being built. We can go and talk to the people who built the buildings. We can go to the city planning department and look at the blueprints. We can even build buildings ourselves.
And how does that relate to me pointing out that the issues with birds either point to evolution or a designer who makes countless mistakes? Welcome to irrelevance land. Population: you!
hgryphon 2 years ago
Creation does prove a creator. However, that is so clearly not the case with the universe or with life that I really wonder what your point is.
hgryphon 2 years ago
We have been instucted by Christ in John 14 to keep the commandments to create within us a Home for the Spirit of God. It teaches us to Love rather than Judge. Is John 14 truth or Not ?
purveyor100 2 years ago
"God is not created"
God is an eternal being. By definition eternal beings cannot be created. The universe, animals, and life is not eternal as we see thought the process of biogenesis. Simple put; if God needed to be created He wouldn't be God. Thanks for the comment.
pur3o3end 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Over the years we have all been lied to by many false Religous Leaders and so called prophets. Many things we have been taught are not even in Scripture and millions have swallowed so many lies by these false leaders. If you are a truth seeker please visit the web site which is displayed in our user name and take the time to read some of the articles... You will be very shocked.
There is a great audio there for you to listen to. You will come away asking many questions.
Blessings
Thanks Ben
2besavedcom 2 years ago
We only know a building has a builder from hear say, or from previous evidence of watching a building beeing built. I like the example of a child, or a person from a tribe in the jungle ect. They have no idea of a builder/designer they must be told, or see a building beeing buit to understand it is not a natural occurence.
harvellt 2 years ago
You are basically argument that because existance exists it must be created simply because it exists.
What would a universe that is not created look like?
Raptor302 2 years ago
"What would a universe that is not created look like? "
NOTHING
pur3o3end 2 years ago
@pur3o3end
This video doesn't prove anything. Indeed, it is simply an argument from Incredulity
Dhorpatan 2 years ago
particles can't exist without space or matter....read up on the big bang more..
pur3o3end 2 years ago
@Ilikejpgs You just said, and I quote "nothing can come from nothing" Then you said a tiny particle always existed from the big bang? that's contradicting. Futhermore a tiny particle couldn't have existed because nothing existed before the big bang..no matter yet.
pur3o3end 2 years ago
Alright then you admit the Big bang cannot take place. Now then, God is different because He is above time, space, and matter. God wouldn't need to be created because He is omnipotent if He needed to be created He wouldn't be God in the first place, so you're limiting God to needing to be created if He was limited he wouldn't be omnipotent therefore not God. Asking "who made God" is like asking "where is the corner of a circle?" there is none if a circle had a corner it wouldn't be a circle
pur3o3end 2 years ago
if He needed a Creator He wouldn't be God. Watch my other video.
pur3o3end 2 years ago
You have several things to think about, for which I am gratefull. Now I will return the favor. When I see a building, a watch, and a painting, I see the sup of human experience focused into a concept and made real. Experience gave people the knowlege to build safe buildings, accurate watches, and beautiful art pieces. Is it so far off to think that mankind was so lonely, that he created a god, so that he had something to look up to in awe and wonderment? Just a thought.
rtottenc 2 years ago
or God created us, something to also think about :-)
pur3o3end 2 years ago
I see your point, yet at the same time, it comes across as an uninspired default for which alternatives are rarely explored. IMO, too few people look a building and think about who did the actual construction, or the painters. Not a thought goes to the miners who provided the ore for the beams and wiring, or the clay pit that supplied the bricks and so on... Rarely do I find myself wondering how a god created something without an infinite regression issue. More to think about perhaps?
rtottenc 2 years ago
Great work on this pur. :)
MultiArchangel 2 years ago
Thank you :-)
pur3o3end 2 years ago
OH GAWD ISRAEL
Hey, it's NatureSelect by the way. The way birds are "built" was caused by natural selection. Just as their eyes were. Perhaps I'll post a video response to this! Dawkins wrote a whole book(of which I own and am reading) that destroys the "Design proves a designer" thing.
toragpoons 2 years ago
"to me it seems that these creatures were made with special features to survive, I cannot believe in happened by chance"
It didn't happen by chance, it was directed by natural selection which is not random.
sweatytoothmadman 2 years ago
Random mutation is not a part of natural selection?
Rainbow's still need proper element's to come into effect. light, water, and air. None of that can we make out of nothing =)
Thanks for the comment, best wishes.
pur3o3end 2 years ago
They said the same thing about a rainbow "it looks designed so it must be" then of course it was discovered how a rainbow forms. So suffice it to say design doesn't equal intelligence.
sweatytoothmadman 2 years ago
Before you block me and delete my comments that you cannot answer, think about this.
The human genome - 3 billion base pairs of DNA.
The humble onion - 17 billion base pairs of DNA.
How does that fit into your "in gods image", considering god would have had to have spent 5.6 times more time developing the onion over us. Now again, evolution explains this eloquently, can creation?
skathenbleh 2 years ago
Why are you judging me? I answered just about all of you're comments and I haven't deleted one..but if you want to be like that there is no point in this talk so I may aswell block you.
I will look into the onion thing, but i'm betting that's a bad comparison Human vs Onion.
pur3o3end 2 years ago
anyway that's enough for today i'll answer one last one; Duplications are the result of duplicating existing genetic information, and mutations alter existing genetic information whether original or duplicated Neither of them adds new information.
pur3o3end 2 years ago
lol! so, duplication may add content in the genome and when that content mutates, its not new information? thats like saying i can have three arms, but when one of them changes into a wing, thats not new information, its just mutated existing information. LOL!!! HELLO!? information has been added to the genome, compare the original two armed to the one with two arms and a wing, new information! Over simplification, but you should get my point!
skathenbleh 2 years ago
No as I said --Duplications are the result of duplicating existing genetic information-- It's like if I had a TV the picture on the TV worked but the sound didn't so I went to the TV store and got a new TV, but this TV'S picture didn't work but the sound did. So I put the TV'S side by side they work together! but no TV is doing anything new so no new information is added.
pur3o3end 2 years ago
"no observed mutations have been found to add information."
What are you reading out of the 1970s creation handbook? Thats an ancient one...
Do some research on gene duplication and point mutation, observed in many different circumstances. This is another one of those spreading a blatant lie items.
skathenbleh 2 years ago
Do a bit of an easy expiriment to see what i mean by this. Grab a box of 100 matches and tip it on the flaw, take a photo of it. Now stare at that photo after you have cleaned up the matches and wonder what the probability is that they fell exactly in that fashion. You will one day wake up to the fact that you are staring at an outcome, not a goal. The probability is irrelevant because it happened! If however you wanted that exact result before you tipped out the matches, now you have a goal.
skathenbleh 2 years ago
And if all had been designed and could NOT be fully described by naturalistic methods, like say, perfectly cubed planets. Then you might have a case to argue. However science beautifully explained everything you claim already, without the need to evoke the supernatural or insane probability. One thing creationists forget, is that the there is no goal, the current state of things is the outcome, not the target. Never was, never will be.
skathenbleh 2 years ago
"I cannot accept this was all made by chance"
What scientists are claiming everything happened "by chance". Please tell me, all I see are creationists coming up with this statement.
Science has explained how everything has formed during and post big bang. If you want to talk pre-big bang its purely in the realm of theory at this time, which also doesnt prove god. "i dont know YET" is an acceptable answer, the default isnt godditit cuz you cant explain it.
skathenbleh 2 years ago
"..if the Earth moves 5 degree's closer to the sun there would be no life is a fact. "
No its not a fact. First of all, distance from the sun isnt measure by degrees, its measured by distance. Second, the "habitable zone" stretches from venus through to mars, the only varient factor between these places and our own is temperature. We have life here on earth surviving quite well in arid heat and in subzero temperatures. Such a statement as yours is only one of pure ignorance.
skathenbleh 2 years ago
look up "The Goldilocks Theory"
pur3o3end 2 years ago
It is called "The Goldilocks Zone" and is usually known by Astrobiologists as the Habitable Zone, so Skathenbleh addressed this issue already in the above post. Astrobiologists also point out that the heat energy needed for life can be supplied by the tidal heating of satellites around gas giants, such as Jupiter's Europa and Saturn's Titan, which means that large gas planets make their own Habitable Zones for moons in their orbit.
ScientiaPerceptum 2 years ago
"more coding then that PC you sit behind!"
Funny how a lot of that DNA is whats called Junk DNA, we have proven this by stripping huge percentages of junk DNA from mice and they are born and grow exactly the same. Something only accounted for by evolution leaving in redundant data, or by a very wasteful and poor designer.
"like the vestigial appendix that scientist have recently debunked? "
Wisdom Teeth? Coccyx? Blushing? Goose pimples? Explained by evolution, but by your myth?
skathenbleh 2 years ago
Alright you didn't answer the main issue and that is that our DNA has more coding then a computer. Instead of addressing this issue you move away from it and get into some DNA that might not be need. But as for the junk DNA topic many of the DNA sequences formerly relegated to the junk pile have begun to obtain new respect for their role in genome structure and function, gene regulation and rapid speciation. Scientists are now finding out that alot of DNA they thought was junk have a role. con-
pur3o3end 2 years ago
"Alright you didn't answer the main issue and that is that our DNA has more coding then a computer" It could have a billion times more coding than a computer, that doesn't prove your myth in any way. Evolution accounts for DNA complexity and it also accounts for junk DNA which makes up a large part of it. Endogenous Retroviruses also flow in our DNA linking us to our cousins, this is something that creation CANNOT ever account for.
skathenbleh 2 years ago
"many of the DNA sequences formerly relegated to the junk pile have begun to obtain new respect for their role in genome structure and function"
Some sequences yes, however noncoding DNA (junk DNA) do not form genes nor form proteins. More than 90% of the human genome is classified as noncoded. Some of this has been revised, however there is still large portions of DNA which serve absolutely no purpose. This is well documented.
skathenbleh 2 years ago
"and rapid speciation."
WHAT THE @$%!, you use EVOLUTION to back you play? Before you try and weasel out of this one, speciation is the very thing creationists argue CANNOT HAPPEN, yet you try and use it as evidence AGAINST Evolution??!?!?
skathenbleh 2 years ago
Creationists don't deny speciation...
pur3o3end 2 years ago
after all we just possibly have not found it all yet. You give an example of how mice can live without some DNA? We can live without a lot of things the appendix is a good example does that now mean it has no role in our bodies? of course not! as for wisdom teeth theses also seem to have a role in our body. Common past dental practice was a tendency to routinely remove wisdom teeth. Recent empirical research has concluded that this practice is unwise inless it becomes needed.
pur3o3end 2 years ago
No wisdom teeth do not play a major role in humans anymore, as funnily enough, approximately 35% of the population are now being born missing wisdom teeth, a sharp increase on our heritage which it was very uncommon not to have all four wisdom teeth. I myself have only developed two wisdom teeth. Evolutionary change in action, as this vestigial item its just redundant in humans, it actually causes problems now, hence why it evolving out of our genome pool.
skathenbleh 2 years ago
The major problem resulting from removal of third molars, aside from the loss of these useful teeth, is the complications related to tooth extractions.
pur3o3end 2 years ago
Extract from New Scientist on the usefulness of Junk DNA
"Most researchers agree that 50 per cent is the top limit (for noncoded DNA being useful) because half of our genome consists of endless copies of parasitic DNA or "transposons", which do nothing except copy and paste themselves all over the genome until they are inactivated by random mutations. A handful are still active in our genome and can cause diseases such as breast cancer if they land in or near vital genes. "
skathenbleh 2 years ago
Again in the future we might be able to find use for that DNA like we have found with many. Also Junk DNA could demonstrate a loss genetic expression rather then us gaining genetic expression from ancestor. but again you didn't mention how complex DNA really is?
pur3o3end 2 years ago
Anyway thank you all for commenting feel free to con commenting just keep it CLEAN AND RESPECTFUL!!
pur3o3end 2 years ago
woah there didn't even notice all theses comments. oh well time for some debunking, but I won't waste all my time with this. "whoever "designed" the human body did a really **** job of it'' are you kidding me!? Our body is incredible complex our DNA is made up of coding more coding then that PC you sit behind! "We have vestigial features only accounted for by our evolutionary past. Pretty crappy design.'' haha! like the vestigial appendix that scientist have recently debunked?
pur3o3end 2 years ago
Now down to some education...
All cosmological arguments (which this is one) have been shown to either be fallacious, or apply equally to both any god or any theoretical universe.
The problem for the cosmological argument is that due to its inherent nature, it can never disprove a naturalistic beginning to the universe that doesn't in the same action disprove a god.
It is thus not referenced by true intellectuals as it breaks down to nothing but what flavour of unknown you want to believe.
skathenbleh 2 years ago
As edward said, first prove design in the first place, i mean, whoever "designed" the human body did a really crap job of it, i mean, our only dominant feature over animals is our intelligence, thats it. Animals in nature trump us in all other categories of physical attributes. We breath through the same tube we eat and drink, male reproduction shares a waste organ's drain. We have vestigial features only accounted for by our evolutionary past. Pretty crappy design.
skathenbleh 2 years ago
"please subscribe, rate and comment?"
well the ratings are disabled... wonder why... lol
subscribe? lmao, your peddling an argument that has been debunked not just hundreds of times just on youtube, but thousands. so all we are going to hear from you is ray comfort drivel no doubt.
and comment, hmm, pretty sure you going to be like other creationists and just delete all comments that get you stuck in a corner or offend your faith? faith is faith because it has no fact.
skathenbleh 2 years ago
Surprisingly this guy seems to leave (at least some) negative comments up, even if he does disable ratings. One point in his favor.
It's just sad that they have to resort to quote mining, censorship, and just plain dishonesty to defend their supposedly true faith. You'd think that if it were true it would defend itself just by the facts, right? But no, instead you have kids like these lying for Jesus. It's shameful they don't even realize they're spitting on their own beliefs.
EdwardHowton 2 years ago
Give me one example in this video were I lie?
pur3o3end 2 years ago
The title. Implying that the universe is designed.That's dishonest, because it's not proven.
3:45 . The moon is not a perfect sphere (it's not circular, by the way). There's plenty of craters and ridges on it. Many other moons are also mostly spherical, so you're lying about that.
Also 3:45 you're begging the question. That's a logical fallacy. What's the point of asking that? If Earth was 5 degrees closer life would never have appeared to begin with and you wouldn't be asking dumb questions
EdwardHowton 2 years ago
"The title. Implying that the universe is designed.That's dishonest, because it's not proven." I am trying to show in the video how the universe appears desighned. Can you say without a doubt it is not designed to prove me a liar? a logical fallacy?! Again i'm showing how the universe appears to be designed...if the Earth moves 5 degree's closer to the sun there would be no life is a fact.
pur3o3end 2 years ago
Do you want me to go on?
There's tons of other nonsense that isn't directly a lie, too. Like Ray Comfort's debunked "when you see a painting" line.
Again, you need to prove that the universe is designed before you can say design proves a designer. If you see a bunch of colorful lichen on a stone wall do you claim there's a colorful-lichen-mural-maker?
That and Paley's watch argument. Again, same as above. Prove it's designed, then you can say there's a designer.
You repeat yourself quite a bit
EdwardHowton 2 years ago
You mean you repeat yourself quite a bit?
''Prove it's designed''
''Prove it's designed''
''Prove it's designed''
''Prove it's designed''
AGAIN I'M TRYING TO ***SHOW** HOW THE UNIVERSE APPEARS DESIGNED. In the video I say "I cannot accept this was all made by chance" anyway no i'm done chatting with you. You have been very rude in all of you're comments, called me a liar, and dumb without even reasoning it out a bit first.
pur3o3end 2 years ago
"well the ratings are disabled... wonder why... lol
subscribe? lmao, your peddling an argument that has been debunked" rating are disabled because athiest seem to have the time to come back to this video daily to 1 star it. No this has not been debunked.
pur3o3end 2 years ago
When you see an organism that survives by eating man-made materials, do you think it grew the ability to eat the material or that a god decided that it would intervene? (if i remember correctly it's some micro-organism that eats a type of clothing material developed a few decades ago)
Same concept as MRSA, they evolved and coincidentally became more complex.
dorado221 2 years ago
Your videos are really informative and give ansers to my questions good work!
TheChristianTuber 2 years ago
Informative? This drivel? Please.
Design does prove a designer, but first you have to prove there's a design in the first place. Everything we see about the universe at every level from micro- to macroscopic shows otherwise. If you assume a priori that your answer is correct, it's possible to formulate a question that can't possibly be wrong. Assume that blue is red and you can safely say the sky is pink under that rule, but we both know it's nonsense.
Same for this 'design' foolishness.
EdwardHowton 2 years ago
Wow, the animal posted twice ! And cursing again ! LOL, this animal is mad !!!!!
Please, go into your cage, we need to keep some order at the zoo
michaeljacksongone 2 years ago
Where did I curse? Nowhere.
Even if I had, what does that have anything to do with anything I said? If I cursed and then said grass was green, it wouldn't turn the grass red, would it?
Humans aren't plants, bacteria, or rocks. That makes us animals. Just ask Linnaeus, the creationist who labeled us as such in the first place.
If you're so easily upset at people understanding statistics and probabilities (and facts) more than you, I suggest you go back to school. Sheesh, what a twerp.
EdwardHowton 2 years ago
Thanks for you're support God bless you michael.
pur3o3end 2 years ago
:))) you're welcome !
michaeljacksongone 2 years ago
Very nice, favourited.
May Jesus Christ bless you
Amen,
The JL-channel (= mystic / prophet )
jacoblorber 2 years ago
Great video! God Bless.
OrthodoxyIsTruth 2 years ago
This clip is wonderful, indeed, they actually believe it happened by chance, and the way the Atheists try to ignore that, wonderful !!!! You got to love them :)))
And the music is very relaxing, favorited LOL
Blessing to you my friend
CreationistsWON 2 years ago
"they actually believe it happened by chance"
Says you. "We" atheists know it couldn't have happened purely by chance, and no-one's saying it did except for you idiots. Evolution is a gradual process driven by different mechanisms, one of which is natural selection. It's as non-random as you can get. No chance involved there.
So, do you make a career out of lying for Jesus, or is it just a hobby?
EdwardHowton 2 years ago
Who left the cage open ? One of the animals ran away, damn it, how can we catch this one ? This animal is also very offending, about chances ? TRILLION TRILLION TRILLION TRILLION TRILLION of a chance, now please get in your cage again, this isn't funny, the visitors want to have some fun tomorrow !
michaeljacksongone 2 years ago
"TRILLION TRILLION TRILLION TRILLION TRILLION of a chance"
Care to explain how you calculated that probability, please include your mathematical working as i would love to know.
Also ad hominems do not help your cause, only help others see you as quite sad and dim-witted, not having the intellectual ammunition to attack the argument, so you resort to name calling. Small children can achieve that feat, try again?
skathenbleh 2 years ago
WRONG. You don't even know you're own world veiw? Chance has to play a major role in mutations. Chance would have to play a major role in cosmic-evolution aswell,.
pur3o3end 2 years ago
It's not a world view, it's a reality-based view.
Where did I say chance had no part in mutations? That much is a given. But mutations are not where the buck stops.
Take a bunch of six-sided dice. Roll them. You get a bunch of numbers. Those are your "mutations". Using "natural selection", re-roll the dice showing any value under 4. The "bad" mutations get cycled out, and eventually you wind up with a "high-value" system. You must understand this by now, why do you keep lying about it?
EdwardHowton 2 years ago
I was talking to the other atheist my friend. Don't compare DNA to dice. Dice has 6 numbers DNA contains 2 billion letters. Plus I do not see were you get you're random illustration from? no observed mutations have been found to add information.
pur3o3end 2 years ago
Amen brother. Design is so evident in all living things that evolutionists who have been presented with the evidence live a life of denial and work to beat down their concience, which tells them they are wrong. Good wrok brother.
NephilimFree 2 years ago
Havo..Charles Darwin says the eye is complex and is absurd to come about by evolution then later on dismisses what he said earlier in his chapter and basically says "ah well, it came about that way anyway" meantime if Charles Darwin could see how complex our eye is today he would probably give up his naturalistic view. I'm not going to get into all that ways of how are eye is complex now because the comment section is to small.
pur3o3end 2 years ago
OK, sheesh, I almost didn't notice this because you've "accidentally?" forgot to put it as a reply to my comment. Let me put what CD said in laymen terms for you- He says that if you just think about it, the eye seems to be irreducibly complex, but then in the VERY NEXT paragraph says that if you use LOGIC, you can see that it is possible for the eye to be produced by evolution. Is that clear enough?
Havokreator 2 years ago
"if Charles Darwin could see how complex our eye is today"
You mean the eye wasn't as complex in Darwin's days as it is now? I'm sorry but, No. Not only is that just wrong, but, really, who are you to assume what Darwin would say if he was alive now? Furthermore, even if Darwin said that evolution was impossible, it wouldn't do anything to hurt evolutionary theory. Not only are there many evolutionary paths for the eye to evolve, the irreducible complexity of the eye has been defeated in court.
Havokreator 2 years ago
The eye not complex? I happened to like my eye, but since we are talking about evolution let's see what Charles Darwin had to say: "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." -Charles Darwin.
pur3o3end 2 years ago
OH WOW. WOW. I cannot believe you just used that quote. Do you even bother to research something before you say something like that? OK, now I dare you to tell the paragraph following that quote. I DARE YOU.
Havokreator 2 years ago
OK, since you seem not to be intellectually honest enough or polite enough to give me an answer, let me give you the rest of the paragraph-
"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; [Cont]
Havokreator 2 years ago
[Cont]" and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real."
-Charles Darwin
pur3o3end, you really have to do some catching up on creationist logical fallacies, in this case- quote mining.
Havokreator 2 years ago
i'm pretty sure someone tried to use that on "TheAtheistExperience", the video was called "Creationist Quote mine collapse".
FSMGauss 2 years ago
Irreducible Complexity isn't a valid argument.
It is also known as argument from ignorance.
"I can't imagine how it would evolve, therefore, it couldn't have evolved"
Remember the eye? That old nugget was hard to pass up in an evolution debate. Too bad it was explained. It is not longer irreducibly complex, well, scratch that, it NEVER WAS irreducibly complex.
RealityBend 2 years ago
God bless you and thank you for this wonderful video adding it to my playlist.
collegestudent29 2 years ago
Davotheravo you called me a dumb *** for putting "Hallow, and not Hollow" in the video. Do you see me comment on you're video's for the misspelt word fotus?
pur3o3end 2 years ago
Humans on Earth that is correct, evolution says nothing on the origin of life only on the origin of species so in contrary evolution has no idea how the first living organism got here. It only states that it got here and changed over time.
So in saying creation says: God made us.
Evolution says: ???
as you can see evolution DOES Not have an answer for how we got here, but rather how we evolved.
pur3o3end 2 years ago
Evolution doesn't even try to say how life was created. That's abiogenesis. I'd recommend you look at cdk007's video on abiogenesis.
Brybryrox 2 years ago
That is exactly what I just said Mr Brybryrox. I was Responding to wolfrester.
pur3o3end 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ahh. I see, then. Please forgive me--I misread.
Brybryrox 2 years ago
This comment section has gotten very nasty in there words. Please keep you're debates, comments, and so on clean and civil or I will remove them. Also in response to many of the evolutionary comments. Evolution has not been observed, and no i'm not talking of particles changing over time i'm talking of particles changing into people. Creationists agree that things change over time the key component is the type of change. Also a response to wolfrester: Creationists believe that God put con-
pur3o3end 2 years ago
O.K. I think that a bit of humor is necessary because this discussion is making people depress.
I have a friend who is a Mechanical Engineer. He belive that is a designer of everithing that exist, but from the mechanical point of view he criticizes the designer that has forgoten to put a valve conecting our head with our arse. He think that this is the reason why we cannot eliminate the shit accumulated for so many years in our head!
AGLMIL 2 years ago
existence alone is not proof of its creation. The whole "If you see a building, you know somebody built it" argument is flawed. Its existence doesn't make me believe it was built. Its the fact that I have seen construction workers build buildings before that make me believe that this building was constructed by them as well.
WolfRester 2 years ago
then try to give any logical reasoning as to how it got there if you never saw anyone do it and thats not proof of a creator
krumpman525 2 years ago
Think of it this way.
If you see an object in front of you, all you can assume is that the object exists and that its in front of you. You cant prove or assume anything else.
Evolutionists say that the object got there because it changed from other objects from along time ago. They can say this because they found proof of those other objects.
Creationists say that somebody put the object there. But they have no evidence of how, or why. Maybe If you showed us some foot prints of the creator.
WolfRester 2 years ago
well, they have about as much evidence of what we evolved from or changed from as we do about our religion. because they believe (crude terms) we came from slime, then earthworms, then what we are today. if thats true they believe they are biological machines who only act on impulses and what their brain reads from their enviroment meaning they cant even trust their own thoughts, cause its all just a chemical reaction
krumpman525 2 years ago
Even though everything you just said amounts to mindless gibberish and has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, I am going to humor you. Lets say Evolution is wrong.
Now show my evidence that Creationism could be true. (Remember, existence alone only proves that it exists, not how it got there.)
WolfRester 2 years ago
...... More failing from the american educational system....
ItachiRaikiri 2 years ago
"Design Proves A Designer"
No, not really. We see design in clouds, but they come through natural processes. We see design in snowflakes, crystals, gems, etc. but they do not require a designer.
Feredir28 2 years ago
This was an EPIC FAIL and more of that Ray Comfort bullcrap.
Design does not require an anthropomorphized designer. Designs appear in clouds, for example, with no more of a designer than uneven heating, evaporation, and other natural causes. Even an anthropomorphized designer need not be a deity.
If the designer does not need a designer to create it, why should other things?
Feredir28 2 years ago
5 + Good Vid & Good Music!
Praise The LORD, Thy GOD!
Jesus Christ! our LORD & SAVIOR!
Deo Vindice!
rebelstang 2 years ago
some people just dont under stand u only need to belive youseft an dont belive some bible brag blah blah about this an that an say God did this an god did that wow BIG WOOP who cares i so dont belive in that i belive in my seft an that gets me to my dreams my future an Understanding so Come plz dont belive the people that push Bibles in your face saying totaly lie's an story about some god or man that build our planet !!!! u half to be pertty dumb to belive this fake story ?.
GayBoyRunning 2 years ago
why dont you just keep running your gay boy self off a cliff..
krumpman525 2 years ago
Comment removed
GayBoyRunning 2 years ago
Also, you seem to be under the impression that darwinian evolution is a process based upon random chance. The only element of chance is what kind of mutation will occur. Whether the mutation is beneficial or not and how it changes the species as a whole depends upon natural selection, the engine of evolution.
DavothaRavo123 2 years ago
Paley's watchmaker arguement now stands as a farce. It is void of all logic and its arguements have been refuted so many times. Look at my video on Aaronk1994, in the description there is a breakdown of the logical innerracies that are rife within the arguement. Nobody should feel the need to answer a question or arguement that doesn't make any sense.
DavothaRavo123 2 years ago
Once more, you completely misunderstand evolution. Evolution, i would like to make clear, does not rely on sheer chance for complex organisms to form. It is a process that occurs over millions of years. Millions of tiny, random, incremental mutations build on each other. It is their adaptation to their environment that creates the illusion of design.
As for the earth, the moon, the sun being well suited for life...we have a very large universe. It's called the anthropic principle, look it up.
Dubhuir 2 years ago
Good job explaining things also very intense music..
thunderstorm20000 2 years ago
even if evolution were to be disproved (somehow..)
how do you account for 'flaws' in design?
the imperfect human eye for instance
saggard 2 years ago
First, imperfect in who's eyes? lol
Second, any imperfections you see today would coincide with the Bible perfectly. We have been in a state of genetic entropy since the fall.
truthseeker1973 2 years ago
The human contains numerous flaws, such as the universal blind spot that causes so many car accidents. Quite serious flaws can be found in our jaw, where critical and obvious imperfections mean that we humans have to go to our dentists regularly.
DavothaRavo123 2 years ago
Good job my man!
This video is very different than most on this subject .
It's conclusion offers the viewer an opportunity to go to heaven after they die. Otherwise, they would be lost for eternity.
5 stars.
Keep up the good work.
pbar1000 2 years ago
Dude! Amazing! Everything has a creator, makes perfect sense! 5/5, this is going to be my featured video on my channel
kingkaga898 2 years ago
Thing called darwinism..
The strongest will survive.. That means the weak will not live because they could not adapt to the surrondings.
That explains why birds have lighter bones and camels have longer and thicker lashes and are capable of storing water for such a long time.
fromdaburgh07 2 years ago
1. That's not called Darwinism that's called natural selection, and natural selection in no way proves Darwin's general theory of evolution.
2. if the strongest will survive my question to you would be 1) why are they still here to this day? 2) how did they get here in the first place?
pur3o3end 2 years ago
To play the devil's advocate here, a key component of micro and macro evolution is adaptability. The greatest principle of the theory is that organisms developed traits through natural selection. This would explain why birds are formed so well, they adapted to become better balanced and quicker because the ones with the aforementioned traits were the ones who survived the most.
g00america 2 years ago
To play God's advocate here, id have to say that it is highly improbable that so many features that helps a bird survive would come about by natural selection and mutation. This hypothesis might have been considered when we use to think that a cell was only a blab of jelly however scientist now know that our cells are as complex as a galaxy. Think of it billions of DNA letters changing without one skip or flaw. I would be happy to send you a link to a site that explains this more clearly.
pur3o3end 2 years ago