I love how this guy oversimplifies evolution almost to a state of retardation. What does evolution have to do with where we go when we die? Seriously you people are stupid as dirt. Evolution is a process of adaptation. The Herp dee Derp is strong in this one!
@FocusPress1 Lastly, you have not provided evidence for God all you have done is state how complicated the nervous system is. 19:00 all of that can be explained by evolution. In that respect organs would come first. You know that the building blocks of DNA have been shown to appear spontaneously in experiments on early earth conditions.
Irreducible Complexity is a cop-out. There is nothing that complex in nature...
@nanaforiod I don't really think you understand what's going on here. Irreducible complexity has actually been proven true, contradicting evolution. The building blocks of DNA formed in a lab-controlled environment that does not simulate an early-earth atmosphere. Check out my suggested channels for more on irreducible complexity.
@TheScienceFoundation You use the argument from incredulity just to avoid the facts and you've made straw man arguments on both irreducible complexity and specified complexity. From now on, I will ignore any comment that says 'argument from incredulity' and take it as trying to avoid facts!
Irreducible complexity has been proven true in many (if not all proposed) systems. They just cannot be produced in a step-by-step process.
@TChapman500 No, I point out that it's an argument from incredulity because it's an argument from incredulity. You still didn't answer my question on the functional empirical difference between your definition and mine, mine being the one Behe uses by the way.
Again, irreducible complexity is an assertion based on ignorance and even so has been refuted in every instance it's been claimed.
You also have utterly failed to produce any mechanism at all, just the bare assertion of design.
@TChapman500 You're going to 'ignore' such comments because they rightfully expose the fallacy in your arguments and you've made it clear you're not interested in actual facts or educating yourself.
@TheScienceFoundation I already know the facts and what both sides say. Evolution says that things have to form in a step-by-step process. Irreducible Complexity says that there are many systems that can't form in a step-by-step process. Observation says that there are many systems that can't form in a step-by-step process. Evolutionists respond with a just-so story by lining up similar structures, which is not evidence for evolution and the stories have tons of gaps in them.
@TChapman500 No, IC says that there are systems which can't be altered without removing current function. Evolution says nothing about not being able to alter previous function to adapt a new one, this is known as modular evolution.
'Observation says that there are many systems that can't form in a step-by-step process'
No, there's not. Literally everyone has been debunked even though IC as a concept is a fallacy and didn't really require debunking in the first place.
@TheScienceFoundation "More projection on your part and the systems have a subset of homologues which show that a system comprised of fewer parts can serve function." There is a minimum number of parts required in order for that system to function.
"You still have yet to produce the first mechanism for design" We have, but you say "anything but God." Science will not exclude any explanation from consideration. You are excluding the most logical explanation for design.
@TheScienceFoundation "modular evolution doesn't work by removing necessary parts." Irrelevant! We're trying to go from 0 parts to the bare minimum parts required to perform a function. Since we're starting with 0 parts, how many necessary or unnecessary parts can we remove?
"You have yet to demonstrate that it's design in the first place." We have, but so far, you've made a straw man out of every case.
0 parts? Since when did evolution start with zero parts? Evolution is about the part that happens after simple mechanisms like self replicating cells. I think you're confusing "Evolution" with "Abiogenesis". Feel free to Google...
About how parts can get "added", have you noticed that not everyone looks alike? That is due to natural variation within species and when these random variations accumulate, with the help of environmental factors, they create new species.
@nanaforiod First off, abiogenesis is an evolutionary theory (one that was shot down centuries ago).
Secondly, you are confusing "species" with "kind," and confusing a process that removes information with a process that adds information. Each kind came descended from a creature of the same kind and although there are large variations within kinds, they never change what kind of creature they are. Plus these variations remove genetic information.
Centuries ago we didn't have the resources or the technology to shoot down such a theory.
Abiogenesis is NOT evolution. It is a theory about the formation of biological structures from non living origins; Evolution is the changes in a species due to natural selection and environmental factors.
Did you lose information from your parents when you are born? NO!! You gained a combination of their genes silly (including some recessive genes).
@nanaforiod Life from non-life (whether you call it abiogenesis or the law of spontaneous generation) has been shot down long ago by scientific experiments. Life only comes from preexisting life and every experiment that tried to prove otherwise has failed (they don't even come close). Or as the case was centuries ago, had experimental errors that changed the apparent outcome of the experiment. All hypothetical models to explain life from non-life have been proved impossible.
@TChapman500 Where is your proof? I'll admit that I was misinformed if you can show me when abiogenesis was "shot down".
Also do you have any information about the CURRENT scientific consensus on abiogenesis? A century is a long time ago and I'm sure if you bothered to research it you'd see that since then new tests have been performed. Besides it doesn't change the fact that Evolution and Abiogenesis are two different things. Spontaneous generation is not abiogenesis either...
@nanaforiod They both say life comes from non-life, so they're treated as the same thing. It was shot down when it was shown that not even microscopic life can form on non-living organic matter. Because it can't form from non-living organic matter, it doesn't form from non-organic matter.
Do a search on [creation(.)com/] for "abiogenesis" and the first two results have the majority of the evidence against abiogenesis.
@TChapman500 Evolution doesn't say anything about how life arose/began; Evolution only says that life can evolve over generations into new life and vastly different forms due to Environmental Pressures accompanied by:
Natural variation within species
Natural Selection
Hereditary traits
and even random mutation.
Nowhere is it even implied in Evolution that life can form from non-life. They are separate theories.
Frankly I doubt creation(dot)com is the best source for scientific research...
@nanaforiod I bet you a shinny penny he thinks Abiogenesis is the ancient hypothesis of spontaneous generation..Most Cretards are told the hypothesis of SG when they learn about Abiogenesis. very common.
If he would google "Self replicating chemicals." he would pee his pants but creatards will never admit thier opinion is wrong. That's what makes them so fun to pick on. When you prove they are wrong they never admit you did. It's a form of super retardation called blind faith in dur!
@TChapman500 Define kind... In fact define species.
Here is my definition: A species of animal is a group of animals that can produce virile offspring with each other. Lizards are of the same species right? Then why do some "kinds" of lizard not produce virile offspring with another kinds? According to science (and my definition of species) the lizards are of a different species. And here is how that is possible.
@TChapman500 Actually, read the description. This is not the same as the video that was debunked.
potholer54 says:
I've used the example of the greenish warbler, after someone pointed out that the ensatina is not the best example of a ring species. Hybrids of the two end-species in the ensatina ring exist in two locations, whereas there are no hybrids from the two end-species descended from the greenish warbler.
@TChapman500 I have never seen anywhere that Irreducible Complexity had become scientific consensus. If irreducible complexity was "proven true" then it would be an accepted science (which it is not). It is basically a cop-out for lazy people who cannot understand the simple mechanism of evolution. Irreducible complexity is a theory for those who do not understand that an eye is not an eye, merely a collection of cells strung together in the familiar pattern by nature and chance.
@FocusPress1 All of those things you listed about the moon and the sun, do well to explain why this planet is the only planet we can see for light-years which can bear (our perception of) life. It is also a fact however that the earth is NOT the perfect temperature to sustain even human beings. The winter's are too cold in almost every part of the earth to survive without protection and the deserts are to hot almost throughout the year.
@FocusPress1 "A car presupposes a creator" yes, because it bears all the marks of a Human creation: metal shell, gas engine with some electric parts all put together in almost perfect connections all with a purpose. A beaver dam is made every piece for a purpose, a birds nest etc. Now when you look at the human body, it does not look like that. When you look at how reproduction adds traits to the offspring and how many utterly useless body parts we have you see a mechanism. Natural Selection.
@FocusPress1 I'm almost one hundred percent sure we do not owe our existence to Viruses. In fact I believe that the scientific consensus is that we share common ancestors with them perhaps but their evolution does not run parallel to ours in any way. Also Human beings wouldn't have to exist for viruses to proliferate there are tons of other potential hosts.
Just because the idea of happy accidents isn't appealing to you doesn't mean that God exists...
@FocusPress1 For anyone who's studied biology and understands how evolution works, it is frustrating to see folks like Brad Harrub say that it's all smoke and mirrors. We have clear, observable, repeatable, independently verifiable evidence for macroevolution. If you type "macroevolution" into Google Scholar, there's 15,000 peer reviewed works. Blocking even 1 person supporting science only helps to insulate your views and create an echo chamber.
Very good video - especially at 12:00 with the Science Digest quote, etc.- thanks. The namer of the "Big Bang", Sir Fred Hoyle said ""Some super-calculating intellect (God) must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule!"
Your right that it takes way more blind faith to believe nothing created everything. See the second Law of Thermodynamics too.
I still laugh out loud when I watch the pure ignorance shown in this video. The fact that people believe this and are willing to spread this non-sense is truly shocking.
I love how this guy oversimplifies evolution almost to a state of retardation. What does evolution have to do with where we go when we die? Seriously you people are stupid as dirt. Evolution is a process of adaptation. The Herp dee Derp is strong in this one!
GodKillerAtheist 1 month ago
Proud to be the lucky mistake of brainless morons!! :D
ttllyprocrastinator 2 months ago
Ancient Indian book Bhagvat all these had expressed by Auther Ved Vyas.
siddhpith 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Brad Harrub you are an IDIOT!!! GOD DOESNT EXIST!!! EVOLVE!!!
DIOSNOEXISTEJAMAS 3 months ago
@FocusPress1 Lastly, you have not provided evidence for God all you have done is state how complicated the nervous system is. 19:00 all of that can be explained by evolution. In that respect organs would come first. You know that the building blocks of DNA have been shown to appear spontaneously in experiments on early earth conditions.
Irreducible Complexity is a cop-out. There is nothing that complex in nature...
nanaforiod 4 months ago
@nanaforiod I don't really think you understand what's going on here. Irreducible complexity has actually been proven true, contradicting evolution. The building blocks of DNA formed in a lab-controlled environment that does not simulate an early-earth atmosphere. Check out my suggested channels for more on irreducible complexity.
TChapman500 3 months ago
@TChapman500 Wrong, irreducible complexity is an argument from incredulity. Even so every structure that has been claimed to be IC has been debunked.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation You use the argument from incredulity just to avoid the facts and you've made straw man arguments on both irreducible complexity and specified complexity. From now on, I will ignore any comment that says 'argument from incredulity' and take it as trying to avoid facts!
Irreducible complexity has been proven true in many (if not all proposed) systems. They just cannot be produced in a step-by-step process.
TChapman500 3 months ago
@TChapman500 No, I point out that it's an argument from incredulity because it's an argument from incredulity. You still didn't answer my question on the functional empirical difference between your definition and mine, mine being the one Behe uses by the way.
Again, irreducible complexity is an assertion based on ignorance and even so has been refuted in every instance it's been claimed.
You also have utterly failed to produce any mechanism at all, just the bare assertion of design.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TChapman500 You're going to 'ignore' such comments because they rightfully expose the fallacy in your arguments and you've made it clear you're not interested in actual facts or educating yourself.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation I already know the facts and what both sides say. Evolution says that things have to form in a step-by-step process. Irreducible Complexity says that there are many systems that can't form in a step-by-step process. Observation says that there are many systems that can't form in a step-by-step process. Evolutionists respond with a just-so story by lining up similar structures, which is not evidence for evolution and the stories have tons of gaps in them.
TChapman500 3 months ago
@TChapman500 No, IC says that there are systems which can't be altered without removing current function. Evolution says nothing about not being able to alter previous function to adapt a new one, this is known as modular evolution.
'Observation says that there are many systems that can't form in a step-by-step process'
No, there's not. Literally everyone has been debunked even though IC as a concept is a fallacy and didn't really require debunking in the first place.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TChapman500 'Evolutionists respond with a just-so story by lining up similar structures'
More projection on your part and the systems have a subset of homologues which show that a system comprised of fewer parts can serve function.
'which is not evidence for evolution and the stories have tons of gaps in them.'
You still have yet to produce the first mechanism for design
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation "More projection on your part and the systems have a subset of homologues which show that a system comprised of fewer parts can serve function." There is a minimum number of parts required in order for that system to function.
"You still have yet to produce the first mechanism for design" We have, but you say "anything but God." Science will not exclude any explanation from consideration. You are excluding the most logical explanation for design.
TChapman500 3 months ago
@TChapman500 'There is a minimum number of parts required in order for that system to function.'
Again you're ignoring the fact that modular evolution doesn't work by removing necessary parts.
'We have, but you say "anything but God."'
No, you've asserted god with zero substantiation.
'You are excluding the most logical explanation for design.
You have yet to demonstrate that it's design in the first place. Assertion *is not* evidence and never will be.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation "modular evolution doesn't work by removing necessary parts." Irrelevant! We're trying to go from 0 parts to the bare minimum parts required to perform a function. Since we're starting with 0 parts, how many necessary or unnecessary parts can we remove?
"You have yet to demonstrate that it's design in the first place." We have, but so far, you've made a straw man out of every case.
TChapman500 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TChapman500 'We're trying to go from 0 parts to the bare minimum parts required to perform a function.'
Strawman, modular evolution works by modifying and/or adding to existing parts.
'We have, but so far'
No, you've claimed it over this is not, nor will it ever be, the same as demonstrating it as fact
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TChapman500
0 parts? Since when did evolution start with zero parts? Evolution is about the part that happens after simple mechanisms like self replicating cells. I think you're confusing "Evolution" with "Abiogenesis". Feel free to Google...
About how parts can get "added", have you noticed that not everyone looks alike? That is due to natural variation within species and when these random variations accumulate, with the help of environmental factors, they create new species.
nanaforiod 3 months ago
@nanaforiod First off, abiogenesis is an evolutionary theory (one that was shot down centuries ago).
Secondly, you are confusing "species" with "kind," and confusing a process that removes information with a process that adds information. Each kind came descended from a creature of the same kind and although there are large variations within kinds, they never change what kind of creature they are. Plus these variations remove genetic information.
TChapman500 3 months ago
@TChapman500
Centuries ago we didn't have the resources or the technology to shoot down such a theory.
Abiogenesis is NOT evolution. It is a theory about the formation of biological structures from non living origins; Evolution is the changes in a species due to natural selection and environmental factors.
Did you lose information from your parents when you are born? NO!! You gained a combination of their genes silly (including some recessive genes).
nanaforiod 3 months ago
@nanaforiod Life from non-life (whether you call it abiogenesis or the law of spontaneous generation) has been shot down long ago by scientific experiments. Life only comes from preexisting life and every experiment that tried to prove otherwise has failed (they don't even come close). Or as the case was centuries ago, had experimental errors that changed the apparent outcome of the experiment. All hypothetical models to explain life from non-life have been proved impossible.
TChapman500 3 months ago
@TChapman500 Where is your proof? I'll admit that I was misinformed if you can show me when abiogenesis was "shot down".
Also do you have any information about the CURRENT scientific consensus on abiogenesis? A century is a long time ago and I'm sure if you bothered to research it you'd see that since then new tests have been performed. Besides it doesn't change the fact that Evolution and Abiogenesis are two different things. Spontaneous generation is not abiogenesis either...
nanaforiod 3 months ago
@nanaforiod They both say life comes from non-life, so they're treated as the same thing. It was shot down when it was shown that not even microscopic life can form on non-living organic matter. Because it can't form from non-living organic matter, it doesn't form from non-organic matter.
Do a search on [creation(.)com/] for "abiogenesis" and the first two results have the majority of the evidence against abiogenesis.
TChapman500 3 months ago
@TChapman500 Evolution doesn't say anything about how life arose/began; Evolution only says that life can evolve over generations into new life and vastly different forms due to Environmental Pressures accompanied by:
Natural variation within species
Natural Selection
Hereditary traits
and even random mutation.
Nowhere is it even implied in Evolution that life can form from non-life. They are separate theories.
Frankly I doubt creation(dot)com is the best source for scientific research...
nanaforiod 3 months ago
@TChapman500 CreationDoTcom is a pedophile site you'll catch a virus and the police will watch you..man you're trying to get people arrested!
GodKillerAtheist 1 month ago
@nanaforiod Also, even though you claim abiogenesis is not evolution, if abiogenesis is shot down (which it has been), evolution goes down with it.
TChapman500 3 months ago
@TChapman500 Explain. Explain how one theory depends on the other.
nanaforiod 3 months ago
Comment removed
GodKillerAtheist 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nanaforiod I bet you a shinny penny he thinks Abiogenesis is the ancient hypothesis of spontaneous generation..Most Cretards are told the hypothesis of SG when they learn about Abiogenesis. very common.
If he would google "Self replicating chemicals." he would pee his pants but creatards will never admit thier opinion is wrong. That's what makes them so fun to pick on. When you prove they are wrong they never admit you did. It's a form of super retardation called blind faith in dur!
GodKillerAtheist 1 month ago
@TChapman500 Abiogenesis shot down HAHA Tell me more funny man! I can sense the Derp is strong in you also! =D
GodKillerAtheist 1 month ago
@TChapman500 Define kind... In fact define species.
Here is my definition: A species of animal is a group of animals that can produce virile offspring with each other. Lizards are of the same species right? Then why do some "kinds" of lizard not produce virile offspring with another kinds? According to science (and my definition of species) the lizards are of a different species. And here is how that is possible.
/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8&feature=channel_video_title
nanaforiod 3 months ago in playlist More videos from FocusPress1
@nanaforiod Your video is refuted by this video:
/watch?v=R8xIObr7OlQ&feature=watch_response
TChapman500 3 months ago
@TChapman500 Actually, read the description. This is not the same as the video that was debunked.
potholer54 says:
I've used the example of the greenish warbler, after someone pointed out that the ensatina is not the best example of a ring species. Hybrids of the two end-species in the ensatina ring exist in two locations, whereas there are no hybrids from the two end-species descended from the greenish warbler.
nanaforiod 3 months ago
@TChapman500 I have never seen anywhere that Irreducible Complexity had become scientific consensus. If irreducible complexity was "proven true" then it would be an accepted science (which it is not). It is basically a cop-out for lazy people who cannot understand the simple mechanism of evolution. Irreducible complexity is a theory for those who do not understand that an eye is not an eye, merely a collection of cells strung together in the familiar pattern by nature and chance.
nanaforiod 3 months ago
@FocusPress1 All of those things you listed about the moon and the sun, do well to explain why this planet is the only planet we can see for light-years which can bear (our perception of) life. It is also a fact however that the earth is NOT the perfect temperature to sustain even human beings. The winter's are too cold in almost every part of the earth to survive without protection and the deserts are to hot almost throughout the year.
nanaforiod 4 months ago
@FocusPress1 "A car presupposes a creator" yes, because it bears all the marks of a Human creation: metal shell, gas engine with some electric parts all put together in almost perfect connections all with a purpose. A beaver dam is made every piece for a purpose, a birds nest etc. Now when you look at the human body, it does not look like that. When you look at how reproduction adds traits to the offspring and how many utterly useless body parts we have you see a mechanism. Natural Selection.
nanaforiod 4 months ago
@FocusPress1 I'm almost one hundred percent sure we do not owe our existence to Viruses. In fact I believe that the scientific consensus is that we share common ancestors with them perhaps but their evolution does not run parallel to ours in any way. Also Human beings wouldn't have to exist for viruses to proliferate there are tons of other potential hosts.
Just because the idea of happy accidents isn't appealing to you doesn't mean that God exists...
nanaforiod 4 months ago
@FocusPress1 For anyone who's studied biology and understands how evolution works, it is frustrating to see folks like Brad Harrub say that it's all smoke and mirrors. We have clear, observable, repeatable, independently verifiable evidence for macroevolution. If you type "macroevolution" into Google Scholar, there's 15,000 peer reviewed works. Blocking even 1 person supporting science only helps to insulate your views and create an echo chamber.
jcchurch 4 months ago
Very good video - especially at 12:00 with the Science Digest quote, etc.- thanks. The namer of the "Big Bang", Sir Fred Hoyle said ""Some super-calculating intellect (God) must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule!"
Your right that it takes way more blind faith to believe nothing created everything. See the second Law of Thermodynamics too.
GoodyBob 4 months ago
I still laugh out loud when I watch the pure ignorance shown in this video. The fact that people believe this and are willing to spread this non-sense is truly shocking.
sorryca 4 months ago
@sorryca You've been reading the wrong books... there's nothing to laugh about.
savana906 4 months ago