CREATION vs evolution -Evolution: A Theory In Crisis-

[Bailey828282]

Miller urey just proved creation and nobody even paid attention. First look at the equipment his using to prove his stupid theory that failed. He CREATED a tool, that's the KEY word creation. In order for him to conduct his experiment he had to intelligently design the equipment proving that the universe was created by an intelligence a mind not by chance. Everytime this stupid athiest work on labs they r proving a mind creates things. Disproving evolution just by their equipment, their creatio

[aden302000]

You cannot logically prove A by disproving B. This is not a valid proof. You are assuming that there are only two outcomes, A and B. But you have not considered that C could be a possibility. And what is C? The spaghetti monster (bless his deliciousness) was the cause of all life. I have sooooo much proof of this! If you dont believe me you will drown in pasta sauce for the rest of eternity. Without the delicious spaghettiness your soul will be emply! Convert now and believe.

[BigD71889]

great job man

[ScholarVisual]

Very rational break down.

[buffboynick]

I got tons of videos on my channel that DESTROY the CULT of evolution.

I suggest Dr David Berlinski's videos (he is Agnostic)

There are actually 3 theories to explain the origin of life. Evolution and Creationism both have flaws. The one i endorse is FLAWLESS

But you're right.....

Evolution is factless nonsense. Its also RACIST.

[tallliza]

@buffboynick Creation is factless nonsense. One day, a god, comming from nowhere, stepped out of the void, said " POOF" and there was the whole universe, with its millions of galaxies, all millions of lightyears apart, and all this happened in an nano second, OUT OF NOTHING. Creation is so dumb, so infantile, that from the 106 colleges which form the "Christian Coalition of Colleges" only 5 teach litteral biblical creation. Creation is a fairy tale not even credible in kindergarten,.

[BigD71889]

@tallliza if u replaced creation with evolution, this statement would make more sense lol

[nmast2]

@tallliza Either way you want to look at it there is a poof. Both creationism and evolution require faith that something out of the ordinary happened. Poof a "pre-existing singularity" (as someone else has commented) randomly expanded or poof God in His perfect timing created a world for his own glory. Either way something has to have been pre-existent and either way something seemingly supernatural had to have happened.

[MyJibJib]

This guy sounds really gay and probably has too close a relationship with the church....

[SqueakerAlpha]

big bang (expansion)> nucleosynthesis of hydrogen and helium>gravity > star formation, nucleosynthesis to iron > supernova >nucleosynthesis of heavier elements > dust clouds > gravity >star formation and acretion discs > planets > etc > life begins > evolution.

Miller_Urey worked. More recent experiments work better as there is a better understanding of what the atmosphere was like.

If I run you through a woodchipper you dont get back together either , your point ?

loojk up eukaryote

[SqueakerAlpha]

Why would a BIOLOGY book be talking about big-bang cosmology ? abiogenesis is a research concept, possibly a hypothesis working toward a theory. Evolution is a theory, tested for a hundred years and still the nest explanation we have . Creation is NOT science, no matter what creation story you pick. False dichotomy. facts not in evidence on big bang , and what does that have to do with evolution.

[Ozzyman200]

If there really were any evidence against evolution, surely someone would have found something by now. All these critics surely would have presented some evidence by now if they had any. It's been observed, the maths confirms it, it fits mountains of evidence, and there's still no plausible alternative. The science vs creationism debate was over long ago.

[Strikesnake1994]

this speech is full of half-truths and that experiment with a cell in a testube was disproven years ago.

[YurNotSpecial]

@natemast1 You had the word evolution in your video, but I was not surprised to find that you spent so little time actually talking about evolution. Evolution explains how life becomes diverse; it has nothing to say on the origin of life (that's called abiogenesis), nor does it comment on the big bang theory (that's cosmology). I find it rather confusing how one is supposed to take you seriously when you refuse to speak on the subject you're attempting to debate.

[christlover3000]

their are over 1000 esteemed scientist's who will admit that evolution is in crisis

[ransomdave]

@christlover3000 And the Dawkins foundation has a signed list of over 5000 who say its not. Oh, and everyone on the lists first name is Steve

[DaJonas]

I stopped watching 50 seconds in, as you make the ridiculous claim that the only options are Evolution and Creationism and that disproving one proves the other. This is incorrect, as it is easy to form a third option: Life has always existed. Don't say that's impossible, because that's what you're claiming for your god(s), and special pleading is rather ugly.

Negative proof is never positive proof, it doesn't work that way. If I were to say 2+2=1 or 2+2=5 and 2+2=/=1, does 2+2=5?

[christlover3000]

@DaJonas no but 2+2+1 = 5 and its imposable for life in a finite time span to have existed forever God is exempt because he exists outside of time.

[Sprattelkungen]

Comparing a living cell to a car is a logical fallacy and therefor a lie. Since you know enough to make a video about the subject I expect you to know how evolution works as well. Explain why you knowingly lie about how evolution works?

[basemetalx0]

I am not going to say that there are not problems with both theories however there appears to be more with the creationist theory as there is no viable evidence there is proof of a god. Or even how god came into existence. I understand what you are attempting to say in this video but I do not believe that using parts of an engine something that is not alive and requires assembly to a cell of a living organism that can replicate its self to produce more is a good comparison.

[eaglestudios829]

I'm glad to see there are still some people who look at the facts and go with what they tell you...

:) Great Video!

[TristinSplah]

Good Video Man, Use the internet to reach people. Don't stop sharing the love of Christ. God Bless you

[TristinSplah]

Please, im not here to argue, I just want you to think about what I am about to say. *If I am wrong, I loose nothing. If your wrong, you loose everything.* You don't have to reply, I will leave you alone. but please, just take a moment to think

[TristinSplah]

Here is also something Special about the Bible. All though ancient times till a few hundred years ago, humans believed the earth was flat. It was not until the 1500s that this was proven inaccurate. However, many hundreds of years earlier, the prophet Isaiah

wrote,

Isaiah 40:22 22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,  And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in

[TristinSplah]

cont...Over thousands of years ago the Bible described the earth as a sphere, saying that the skies ("heavens") are spread out like a tent. now remember, the bible was written in hebrew. The word translated circle is the Hebrew word "kuhg", a more exact connotation of which is sphericity or roundness. That is right everyone, the the Writers of the bible had an inside source for future knowledge. how is this possible? Because the bible is the Word of God like it says.

[ransomdave]

I hate to break it to you, but the earth is not a circle, it's a sphere. A circle implies a flat shape.

With the description you provide I picture a flat disk with a dome covering it, presumably to hold the stars in. Which is very unlike the modern understanding of a globe with infinity stretching out in every direction.

Also, the earliest observations confirming a spherical Earth were made somewhere before the 8th century BC with measurements of its circumference dating back to 240 BC.

[christlover3000]

@ransomdave oh come on are your serious it does not how was Isaiah who live in 700 BC going to write sphere when the word had not even been invented yet the bible points to the earth being a circular shape which it is your just trying to explain it away to convince yourself

[ransomdave]

@christlover3000

I'm trying to explain it away? haha.

The word hadn't been invented? How do you know? Now you're just making stuff up. The whole circle issue isn't even the worse description in the bible. What about the firmament? A body of water large enough to cover the entire planet (in the supposed flood) but translucent enough to let enough of the suns rays in. That's just laughable.

[christlover3000]

@ransomdave The firmament was the bibles word for sky and space and water was a lot more pure back then then it is now it never once said light can completely pierce threw through where did you hear that the pillars of the earth are a representation of tectonic plats in a way they are like pillars and it already said in the bible that god hung the earth on nothing what other religion can explain in scientific terms about the laws of nature like the bible can I will tell you. non of them

[ransomdave]

@christlover3000

That's because all religions are made up... The bible is not scientific, can't you see that these interpretations are made up retrospective to what we discover through science. Why use the words pillars to explain tectonic plates? the two are are not even remotely similar. If a science text book described tectonic plates as pillars it wouldn't get published.

And it doesn't matter how pure you think water was, light still wouldn't get through half a mile of it.

[christlover3000]

@ransomdave seriously dude once again it was made thousands of years ago so the words they use then are different then the words we use to describe it all now but is all comes down to being the same thing but theirs not pint in arguing with you becuase your going to keep trying to find things to explain it off to convince yourself

[ransomdave]

@christlover3000

Talk about projection...

[christlover3000]

@ransomdave I'm not explaining away truth I'm explaing truth but you will believe what you want nothing I say can convince you you have to see the truth yourself

[ransomdave]

@christlover3000

I could say the very same thing back to you.

The thing is that I'm not the one who has to deny almost all of modern science, nor do I have to make things up, like there was no word for sphere, or that water was much purer.

[TristinSplah]

That Good sir is strongly not true. Several great scientists, including Isaac Newton do not doubt the bible. and the bible is very scientific. ex Job 36:27-28 27 For He draws up drops of water, Which distill as rain from the mist, 28 Which the clouds drop down And pour abundantly on man."

[TristinSplah]

cont.. We find a very precise description of the hydrological cycle, in which water evaporates in the air, and comes doen as rain. it was not until the late 1600s that the scientists affirmed this cycle.

[ransomdave]

Again I'm going to have to correct you. The water cycle was first described by Aristotle at around 350 BC, perhaps more than 400 years before the Book of Job was written.

[pentagramrises]

y dont these people use facts to back there case at all?

[TristinSplah]

actually there is a lot of facts and science behind Creation.

[pentagramrises]

actually the carbon dating of fossils disproves creationism, it is impossible for the theory of creationism to be correct. any Thus any science behind Creationism is flawed or was never true.

[TristinSplah]

to: pentagramrises.

Look at what i posted above you.

You have not done all your research.

[pentagramrises]

quoting fellow ignorant people e.g. Isaac Newton does not help your point as these people lived in a time were they were staved of the knowledge that we currently have.

Also quoting the bible is illogical in a scientific discussion as it is a book that does not use scientific facts or even logical theorems.

[TristinSplah]

Did you even read the verses?

How can you call that illogical? Scientific facts of today existed long ago in the bible. Did you look that over sir?

[pentagramrises]

wait how were those quotations any evidence of the science of today?

And how does the predictions of a round earth help you prove creationism, btw Egyptian people also understood that the earth was round.

[TristinSplah]

I was showing you that the bible is in fact scientific and credible. Look, I believe that life was not a mistake. I believe that there is a purpose and a hope for things yet to come. I just wanted to let you know, that there is a loving God. He wants people to be with him, and that is our decision. I hope you make the right one.

[pentagramrises]

well thats wrong then you are attempting to tell me that something with no evidence for it exists, if we are doing this i just want you to know that there is a Yeti . both these comments have no evidence to support them but cannot be proven inccorrect, nor can they be proven correct. and even tho scienfic evidence can prove that it is unlikely for them to exist people still have faith, it is ILLOGICAL to have blind faith

[TristinSplah]

Yet, you have blind faith. Where did this all start? What started it? If you can tell my exactly how and were the Universe started, then go ahead. You have faith that a living organism came from a rock that was rained on. Answer these,1. Where did the space for the universe come from? 2. Where did matter come from? 3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)? 4. How did matter get so perfectly organized? 5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

[pentagramrises]

So holes in my story make ur story true? your story HAS been dispoven it is impossible, this is due to Caron and Radioactive dating methods (which are scientific fact) and yes other stories (eg Big bang) have holes in there story but these is yet to be evidence that makes them impossilbe. Im am not saying my story is correct i am not saying that there is or isnt a god but i am saying creationism is impossible and its has been and continues to be proven impossibe. that is blind faith

[TristinSplah]

Actually, it HAS NOT been proven wrong sir. A lot of people would like to believe that, but how can someone actually go and say, there is nothing else out there. Do you even understand mathematics? we are only of the 3rd Dimension, there very well could be other dimensions which we have no idea consist of. Heres another point, I believe there was a world wide flood (add up the dates it was about 4400 years ago). Is it interesting that the oldest living tree discovered is a little over 4000

[TristinSplah]

(cont) 4000 years. The oldest Coral Reef also. Not to mention scientists estimate the age of the sierra desert to about the same time. How about this. When clams die they relax and open up. But on top of mt. Everest they found fossilized clams in the closed position. 450 miles from the beach and 5.5 miles above sea level. Interesting.

[ransomdave]

Sorry, but the oldest living tree is thought to be around 9,500 year old. I am curious where you got this 4000 year number, I have heard it quoted more than once, but when I look up "oldest living tree" or "oldest living organism" I get hundreds of results for trees much older than 4000 years old.

[christlover3000]

@ransomdave actually the oldest living three is 5700 years old.

[ransomdave]

@christlover3000 You say that so matter of factly, Just search "oldest living tree" in google, everysingle result on the first page of results lists trees older than 5700.

[christlover3000]

@ransomdave I was wrong the oldest living tree is not 5700 years old its 5000

[ransomdave]

@christlover3000

To reach this figure you had to avoid clicking on all the other non creationist websites.

[ransomdave]

@TristinSplah Where did God come from?

[TristinSplah]

@ransomdave That is a great question! I believe God is outside of time. We cannot understand that because we have always live within the bounds of time. To think of something without a start or end is confusing because we are within that bond of time. And also in the same way, It could be asked, where did Everything come from? A question that a human cant answer because we weren't there : P hope that helps!

[ransomdave]

@TristinSplah

I agree with you, it is probable that no one will ever know for sure how it all began. However, you could quite easily substitute the word "God" for the word "cause" and your message would still make sense. Logically, the universe has a cause, but why do you call that cause God?

[TristinSplah]

@ransomdave I would have to say, because I have seen people's lives be transformed (as well as my own), have seen supernatural things, and felt unexplainable peace, each occurring while in relationship or worship to who we know to be God.

[ransomdave]

@TristinSplah

Every religion in the world has people who claim to have "experienced" their particular God. In this sense all we can say for sure is that some sort of spiritual experience exists. There is no reason to assume that this "experience" has anything to do with the birth of the universe, or anything else for that matter. What's more there are countless ex-religious who say that these "experiences" are created through a group fenzy (speaking in tongues etc.), or through meditation.

[TristinSplah]

@ransomdave But when my friend who was deathly allergic to foods like potatoes, got healed, and when my friends aunt's tumor disappeared It backs up what I already believe. I'm just saying that my view and heart is forever set on God and the Hope that He brings. One day I was sitting, and I heard a voice clear as day. (That does not happen to many people) but something audibly spoke to me and said,"Don't worry, I will always Love you".

[ransomdave]

@TristinSplah

Why would an all powerful loving God create allergies or tumors just so that he could occasionally heal them? and secondly, what evidence did you have to come to the conclusion that that was God's voice?

[TristinSplah]

@ransomdave The fact is, we live in a broken world. There is sickness and pain, and I don't blame that on God, I blame that on us. either way what happened were miracles. and What that voice said to me helped carry me and brought a sense of peace and comfort that I have found no where else. : )

[ransomdave]

@TristinSplah

I have heard this before. "It is not God's fault that bad things happen, it's ours"... Tell me something, what do we have to do with disease, or birth defects, what do we have to do with earthquakes, volcanoes or hurricanes, what do we have to do with the countless other things that kill, injure people? If God exists, he's either not all powerful or not all loving.

[TristinSplah]

@ransomdave It wasn't what God wanted for us. That is the hope we have for the future, when things are right again. We have free will, and God wants us to choose Him with that free will, not control us. ((But like I said, I have personally experienced things and know that I know that I know Jesus Christ is Lord. Amen!))

take it or leave it, but I am tired of commenting on here. Message me if you ever have any questions : P peace!

[theonewayroad01]

Are you saying that the first cell is made by god? But doesn't that goes against the bible or koran?

[theonewayroad01]

Oh my god, I can't believe how stupid people can be. "Disproving one proves the other to be true". No wonder you support creationism.

[ChemEBeaver]

Yay evolution is disproven, that proves the universe was created on a turtle's back!

Its funny how creationism has no research or evidence so they have to rely on confusing people that evolution has no / wrong evidences.

[daddyg321]

I' ve watched the debate and posted comments to both sides on many vids laughing most of the time. I believe some day both sides will be proven partly right. I stated one day that God said let it be and the big bang there it was I thought a newly converted "christian" was going to kill me his arguement" they claim the big bang so its wrong". I get the same from the evo crowd"God didn't cause the big bang because that would be creationism it just happened"

[Johannes9126]

The argument with the scrambled cell not coming together again is the most stupid thing I have ever heard. This is like comparing blowing your brains out with a .44 with brainstorming.

[Menestheus]

The Big Bang was not an explosion, but an expansion. The name is a misnomer. Which you would know, if you had done even five seconds of research.

Miller-Urey, again no research. Experiments have been done with gases corresponding to the current model, and there they still produce amino acids.

"Case for a Creator" - Sounds like a really unbiased book. Also, having all the parts of a modern cell is not the same as having all the parts of a primitive cell.

[Menestheus]

To the monkey analogy: That isn't the way evolution works. To see your analogy destroyed, watch the video 'watch?v=5sUQIpFajsg' The relevant bit starts at 4:40.

DNA has four base pairs. The human genome has around 3 billion base pairs, but simple bacteria require far fewer (as few as 160,000). And they are modern organisms. So that only shows the number required to be competitive today.

[natemast1]

I'm not saying "The Case for a Creator" is not biased. Many of your information probably came from biased sources as well. What are you saying the differece is between modern cells and primitive cells?

Also, I know The Big Bang was not fully an explosion. The theory says there was first a random explosion of energy, then an expansion, and yes I have researched that for many more than 5 seconds.

If you would research the current model, no it does not produce amino acids...look it up.

[Menestheus]

The difference between modern cells and primitive cells is that modern cells must compete with other modern cells, while primitive cells were competing against other primitive cells. Imagine if you took the Coca-Cola company exactly as it was in 1925, with its production, distribution, and advertising methods intact, and completely replaced the modern company with it. Even though it was top of the line at the time, it couldn't even begin to compete today.

[Menestheus]

The Big Bang was the moment when the pre-existing singularity expanded. It does not contradict physical laws, it is in fact required by them.

The problem with early atmosphere is that nitrites are created from the CO2 and N2, and nitrites do destroy amino acids. However, both iron and various carbonates neutralize the nitrites. Before there was abundant O2 to oxidize it, there were substantial levels of iron in the ocean. Accurate atmosphere run with iron produces amino acids in experiments.

[daddyg321]

Even those doing the experiments say "what we believe the earth was like" its still conjecture not proof.

[whitesquirrel7]

@Menestheus

to quote the video [014 +]

'the big bang theory and evolution are being taught in most biology classes"

why would the big bang theory be taught in a biology class?

[natemast1]

The idea is suggested as how life began

[TheFifthApes]

The big bang theory is not taught in biology class...

[natemast1]

Darwin could find no such case because he did not know what the inside of a cell looked like. If he could have see the inside of a cell he would have been thrown way off because there are many things including a flagellum that could not have come about through small progressions. About DNA, yes there could be multiple possible outcomes, but what are the chances that one of those sequences randomly makes an organ that can see, or smell, or hear?  very small

[Menestheus]

"flagellum . . ."

Wrong. There are numerous gradual pathways by which the flagellum could have evolved. The same is true for every other so called 'irreducibly complex' structure.

"what are the chances . . .?"

Wrong again. Not about the random part, it is unlikely for complex organs to come about randomly. But evolution is not random. Evolution works by natural selection, the non-random selection of random variation.

[natemast1]

What is one of the numerous gradual pathways? There are forty some parts all needed to make a flagellum work. How did they all come together to make a working engine like structure? Natural selection can not work in this situation.

[Menestheus]

Dr. Ken Miller (watch?v=0hW7ddJOWko) and Youtube user cdk007 (watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w) can explain far better than I can. Short version, single proteins develop for one function, then other proteins develop to work with the ones that are already there. In addition, some of the proteins (or groups of proteins) start working with other already present proteins (or groups of proteins) to perform more complex functions. Between the two methods you can build very large, very complex things, step by step.

[quedorf]

and please do not quote mine Darwin. That is cheap and wrong. Please mention that the next line in the origin of species is "But I could find no such case". A university student should know to do his own research, instead of following propaganda.

[quedorf]

I hope you are not taking science in university. Do you realize how wrong your monkey typewriter analogy is. No maybe that chance of them typing shakespeare is small, but they will type something, and this is the same as dna sequencing correctly. There is no one preconceived outcome. There is countless possible outcomes, and low and behold one did. You seem to believe that there is only one possibility, and that is your first mistake.