Darwin Evolution Adam & Eve -English 1 of 12- Hany Mina Mikhail -12 titles:see more info

[Ganstaz003]

I'm sorry but I've pointed many mistakes in this video and one of them is about you claiming science does not approach 'why' in their explanations. Science does speak about the 'why's'. and That is what we call a 'theory'.

Fact = What (observed

Theory = Why (explanation of a fact)

So a theory in science addresses a 'why' and a 'how'. It explains both.

Also, a god can exist without a religion. Religious people think that it is impossible for god to exist without a religion and that's false

[Cootabux]

Wait a sec., it wasn't atheists who made the claim that Evolution is against a god. It's the theists who feel threatened by Evolution! It's theists who attack Evolution bcuz they don't accept the fact that we share a common ancestry with apes, just as they believe science goes against the 6,000 yr Xian claim of the age of the Earth. So they attack Geology and Cosmology bcuz these scientific disciplines counter what they believe the bible tells them. Don't blame us for not accepting superstition.

[MrFungus420]

Why do you keep dishonestly talking about Darwin?

Are you so ignorant that you do not realize that there have been advances in the last 150 years?

[leptismagna10]

Are you Coptic Egyptian? If so, you must be well aware that your religion is a relic of the ancient Egyptian religious tradition, a vestige of the worship of Isis, virgin mother of Horus during Egypt's Hellenistic era, rather than being based on the worship of the new god Christ, who probably never existed.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Coptic religion very much, as it is the modern link to our ancient Egyptian past, through language, liturgy and theology.

[HanyMinaMikhail]

@leptismagna10 I have no problem with sceptics about the virgin birth. The Ancient Egyptian methology speaks of a completely different virgin conception. Isis, Osiris and Horus have no similarity to God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit except the number 3. The Spiritual non-material nature of God for us as Christians has nothing based on the Egyptian trinity. Believers need no proof, unbelievers would not accept any proof except a metrial one. Christ's witnessed resurrection is the nearest

[leptismagna10]

@HanyMinaMikhail except that you have no proof that the account of the resurrection is verifiable. And yes, historical study demonstrates that all ancient extinct Middle Eastern religions from Egypt to Babylon had a profound influence on the scriptures, rites and rituals of today's living religions. Of course, if you saw that, you would not be a believer.

Consider for example, the striking similarity between Psalm 104:24 and Akhenaton's hymn to the sun disc, 1,355 years before the christian era

[leptismagna10]

@HanyMinaMikhail "Believers need no proof" then on what basis do you believe? "unbelievers would not accept any proof except a metrial one" is there any other kind of proof (besides reason and logic)? That's like saying "unbelievers would not accept any proof except a REAL one"

[leptismagna10]

@HanyMinaMikhail we are not necessarily more "intelligent" than anything. Like gods, "intelligence" is a human social construct, not applicable to anything outside the human realm. Ultimately both you and I are plain matter, only 24 elements interacting with each other compose our bodies, therefore we are no different than what stars are made of.

Evolution also makes no claim to explain abiogenesis, but only to explain the complexity of life. Crediting it all to a "creator" answers nothing.

[leptismagna10]

Just about everything in this universe can be explained by evolution. Evolution by natural selection is fact of life, and a fact of nature. Once you have a solid understanding on how the laws of nature work, you'll realize that no supreme creator is required.

God is just a concept created by man for superstitious and political reasons. If you can't see that now, you just have to open your eyes and ears, and read some history, and some science.

[HanyMinaMikhail]

@leptismagna10 The origin of matter-space-time (the Universe) out of nothingness (the Point of Singularity, Stefen Hawking) before which nothing existed, and the meaningful ascending graph of the Evolution of plant and animal life, in only an extremely short period of 3 billion years, makes your suggestion a great joke! If these 2 events can occur by themselves, and not by an inherent Natural Law of Evolution by a Creator, then mere "matter" is more intelligent than you and me, it is a god!

[leptismagna10]

@HanyMinaMikhail Besides, there's no reason at all to believe in the baseless Judeo-Christian creation myth of "Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden" (which actually comes from Assyrian-Babylonian mythology - hence Eden being in Iraq) any more than the ancient Chinese/Egyptian/Greek or Norse creation myths.

In fact, there's no reason to believe that the Hebrew/Christian Bible or Quran have an ounce of truth to them at all since they were written by deluded people looking for an easy answer.

[Cootabux]

HanyMinaMikhail

What makes you think that the "the point of Singularity" was the creation event?? How do you know that it wasn't a transition of matter from one form into another? The co-called BB may well be a continual process making universes?

Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only change form.

Some people are quick to assume so much, from knowing so little.We don't know enough about the BB, or the pre-BB state, to claim anything, much less that a god made it all happen.

[modernrocks]

1. God said man brought death into the world, evolution makes this impossible, god is correct not you. 2. Jesus said god made them male and female from the creation of the world. 3 God made man in his image, not the image of bacteria or even a knucle walker. 4. He made trees on day 3, the sun on day 4 and the bees on day 5 proving a litteral week, its the only possible way. Yom always means 24 hours when an evening and a morning is used.

[Euphobia2]

Sadly Evolution/DNA just proves that Adam & Eve never existed and the bible needs Adam & Eve to commit that Sin. The Jewish version came first then Christianity and lastly Islam. Sadly the first version is wrong. I cannot help it it is wrong. You are correct Evolution is a fact. You are too sensible to ignore this. There may be a God but not the one based on the bible. It is very difficult for many believers to accept this but they will one day..

[rainbowhearts1000]

Read the freaking Bible evolution does not exist if it did there no longer be monkeys and apes on this Earth God created everything its a fact of not Christianity but also a fact of life

[WaiSideOriginal]

If Death passed upon the earth with sin. And there was no sin before the fall of man. Then there is no death before the fall. There is no Death before sin. THERE IS NO EVOLUTION BEFORE THE FALL. The World was created in 6 days. If you question that you question the Bible. Where is your authority?

[mayermusic1092]

Theistic evolution can't be truth, if God used the evolution the process to create, then why when he created the first monkey, that He leave it to evolve? No, He created man, man and woman make human beings together, monkey plus time does not equal human being, i am sorry but i don't know how that is passed as science.

[gerontodon]

The point that Richard Dawkins is making, is that the mechanism for change proposed by neo-darwinists-- random mutation and selection-- makes the input of a creative intelligence superfluous. He's right, 'the blind watchmaker' view is inherently materialist. Sure, you can subscribe to it, and still feel that there's something left out. But to say it has no metaphysical implications is just wrong. Personally, I think neo-darwinism's days are numbered anyway..

[InfiniteMischief]

theastic evolution, the belief that the God of Issac used time to create.... what a load... if we are not literal about the 6 day creation week God's own words in His forth commandment to keep the Sabbath on the 7th day are meaningless.

this belief leads away from God and teach's opposition to His word.

[HanyMinaMikhail]

@InfiniteMischief Why does God take 9 months to create you in the womb? Why does he take years for a tree to grow and be fruitful? Please open your mind and look at God's glory in how Nature works and grows.

[InfiniteMischief]

@HanyMinaMikhail God created all that is in 6 days and rested on the seventh. I don't know why God created a woman to be prgnant for 9 months, He created her that way for a reason I bet, you can ask Him when He comes back. It has nothing to do with a closed or open mind, either you believe all of it or none, either you'll be counted among the saved or you won't.

[HanyMinaMikhail]

@InfiniteMischief

Semitic languages use the word Yom = Day = a period of time, regardless how long, and not a 24 hour period. The Bible states "one day to the Lord is the same as a thousand year and vice versa." Jesus said: this is the day of Salvation. If He meant that 24 hours only then neither you nor I could be saved ! Why do Literalists attempt to terrorise believers as in your last setence? It is fear of logical Biblical interpretation. Open your mind dear brother. Hany Mikhail

[InfiniteMischief]

@HanyMinaMikhail a day equal a thousand years in prophecy... jesus did'nt say it was the ONLY day of salvation. if believing God's word makes me a literalist then I guess I am. We all have an ONGOING choice for salvation. "The wages of sin are death" a terrorist must have said that because it's so literal. I'm not the one name calling here and if you are not a biblical christian, your not my brother.

[mayermusic1092]

@HanyMinaMikhail you can't use the one day = 1000 years in this case, because that means God would still be creating today, it's been 6,000 years or so, that is what we christians believe, so if that were the case then God hasn't rested yet, that is kind of ridiciulous, in fact that doesn't make anysense. If we went by the one day =1,000 years part then that means God is just now creating mankind? really, that belief does not make sense. Either six literal days or not, choose!

[InfiniteMischief]

@HanyMinaMikhail God created nature to reflect His glory. We all see His face in nature. You take away the miracle of creation, the rest of the sabbath and move us away from God glory by believing in theastic evolution.

[Faidros62]

I like your description of evolution. It´s sober and correct to a sertain point. However you leave the subject where Darwin proposes the mechanism that give us the diversification. Witch is also where Lamarck and Darwin differs. The process of random mutation and natural (non-random) selection. To realy understand the theory of evolution you can´t just look at the result (the tree of life) and ignore the mechanism behind it.

[dsydebot]

When we do that, if we allow ourselves to follow the evidence through to conclusion, we come to the sort of being commonly called "God".

[noelplum99]

....as long as you are prepared for 'God' to include lots of things that do not necessarily involve intelligence, agency or any of the attributes that theists, or even deists, commonly attribute to 'God' then I don't see we are in disagreement. If, however, your argument boils down to :'their are things we cannot answer therefore my god did it' then we are miles apart.

PS: I actually made a more lengthy reply to this guy but he removed the rest of what i had to say - draw your own conclusions.

[dsydebot]

This isn't quite true; things exist, and so we know there must be some non-contingent existence--something that doesn't depend upon other things for its existence. Even if matter is eternal, we'd still have the problem of why it exists at all. It doesn't have within itself the full explanation for its existence. Once we postulate that there is something that is a sufficient explanation of itself, we can begin to reason out what that thing must, by logical necessity be.

[HanyMinaMikhail]

I accept: God is beyond material enquiry. He is not material. I accept: scientific minds would enquire about the Origin of God. By definition He is the FIRST ULTIMATE CAUSE. The only thing I cannot accept , as it is an absolute fallsy, is for any atheist to claim on scientific basis that God does not exist, when science is only materialistic!!! Also all arguments of atheists against God are, at best, not scientific according to the definition of what science is. Atheism is FAITH not science

[patrickledford420]

@HanyMinaMikhail i disagree about atheism needin faith just like it doesnt need faith to not beleive in bigfoot or unicorns but yes people that say evolution vs god just makes no sense im atheist but not at all because i accept evolution

[ReligousTruth]

@HanyMinaMikhail

Atheism is NOT a faith, it is absence of faith. Glad you're thinking, which led you to conclude that evolution is scientifically logical. Take it another step. There are MANY religions and MANY gods from which to choose. Now scientifically choose the correct one. Create a chart and at the top list all the gods. Ya-whey, Odin, Thor, Zeus, etc. Not under each write the reasons you do not believe in them. You will see that none are believable for all the same reasons. NONE.

[noelplum99]

What i cannot see is how you assert that evolution does not provide a 'why' for my existence. I exist because my mother and father had a strong natural predisposition to reproduce. That predisposition is genetic and surely you can see that any allele arising that, when phenotypically expressed, led to an organism that had no desire to reproduce then that mutation would quickly die out.

[noelplum99]

If that isn't an answer to the 'why' question then i don't know what is (even if you assert it is a proximal answer and an ultimate answer exists beyond it, it is still a fundamentally important piece in the jigsaw and, critically, the only piece we know to exist for certain).

[HanyMinaMikhail]

Order and Natural Law can only mean 1 of 2: Either there is a Creator, pre-existing, and outside of, all matter, time and space; or matter is itself Eternal and managed to EXIST SPOTANEOUSLY and ORGANISE itself! Science can only answer the HOW but not the WHY matter is eternal, if ever proven. Even Eternity of matter demands a very big WHY? and of course HOW? This discussion is far prior to reproduction and the Evolution Theory itself. Your discussion only pushes back in time the reply to WHY

[Faidros62]

@HanyMinaMikhail

The "WHY" - is begging the question. For it to be relevant there must be a reason and for a reason you are there has to be a reasoner. Why has there to be a "why" for the existence of the universe? I can´t see why there has to be a reason for the universe to exist. I believe the universe just exists becourse it can and it does exist for no reason at all.

[noelplum99]

I also think it is a silly point you make that basically 'you have to worship something' and if it isn't god then it is a rock. For a 57 year old consultant and FRC I find is frankly bizarre that you would hold such a position. Are you saying that it is a physiological impossibility for us to not worship anything? What about chimps? do they have to worship something? What about rodents? Guppies? blue-green algae? At what point, then, in the chain of evolution did worship become unavoidable?

[HanyMinaMikhail]

Man felt a need to ask WHY am I and this universe here? and felt the need to worship when man developed consciousness of himself and the universe. History of all cultures speaks loudly of this fact, despite all atheistic preaching! This is metaphysics sir; a different realm, not amenable to confirm or negate by lab science, whatever you say. But, If you strongly believe you are no different from the creatures you mentioned, then welcome to "Planet Apes" until you discover God.

[noelplum99]

Planet Apes sounds very reasonable to me, certainly not an insult!

I absolutely agree with your first statement btw, humans have long sought explanations for things outside their control: God moves the sun through the sky; the forest juju steals goats in the night; sea monsters cause the loss of ships on the high seas. However, just as noone would suggest from this that we inherently have to believe in forest spirits and sea monsters neither should we draw the conclusion that we necessarily ...

[noelplum99]

...have to keep worshipping something we hope will explain those things we cannot fathom (especially once we now have sound materialistic answers for so very many of them).

Two points: one let me state off the bat i am not 100% averse to a deistic position (though i see no particular reason to favour such a position I accept it as a possibility)

secondly, i'd like you to watch my video 'i know you haven't got soul' as i'd be interested in your thoughts as a man of medical science (see my yt page

[noelplum99]

i understand your differentiation of the 'how' and 'why' questions but I disagree vehemently when you state that science does not (at least attempt to) tackle the 'why' question.

Evolution, very definitely, provides us with a 'why' answer and one which makes absolute sense and one which precipitates out directly from the theory. The 'why' is that we are the vehicles for the reproduction of our genes. You can say that this is not the ONLY reason but that is a position you have no evidence for..

[noelplum99]

in other words, evolution DOES provide a very elegant and compelling answer to the why question (and self-fulfilling, genomes that have a tendency to reproduce prosper and genomes that don't die out) irrespective of whether or not their is some loftier higher purpose (or not especially lofty higher purpose, such as to worship God).

[HanyMinaMikhail]

Evolution does NOT answer the WHY. When science can tell us & confirm exactly WHAT, and HOW, existed BEFORE the Big Bang (the zero point, see my previous replies & references) and HOW LIFE appeared on Earth, spotaneously from inorganic matter, I would concede that Evolution & Science have nearly answered all HOW. NOTHINGNESS becoming matter & INORGANIC matter becoming DNA spontaeously by chance is scientifically near impossible. Prove it. Until then I wish you all the best with your studies.

[Gnomefro]

Unlike what you seem to think, there's nothing that suggests there's intelligence behind natural law. The only intelligence we know requires material brains to function. That does *not* mean that matter itself is intelligent, like you claim in your strawman argument, but that intelligence can arise from matter in an evolutionary process.

Genetic algorithms are used to construct AIs by the way - you basically deny both math and reality if you say it can't happen.

[Gnomefro]

Beyond that, we don't actually know that the universe started from nothing. Or that "nothing" is even possible.

The meaningful ascending graph is also not a sign of intelligence. It's a mathematical necessity given reproduction with variation+natural selection combined with non-intervention from an outside force.

If you think it sounds like support for an atheistic worldview - you'd be right.

[HanyMinaMikhail]

The Point of Singularity, was math. deduced as the ZERO point of matter, space and time; NIL, EXNIHILO. There was no "before". Read A Briefer History of Time (S Hawking) and The Matter Myth (P Davis & J Gribbin). You ? believe in Eternal Existence of Matter (no need outside force!) this is actually a religeous faith, in almighty Matter-god ! Genetics confirm that Evolution, is a meaningful Natural Law. It is either a sign of intelligence or chaos, which would have destroyed as much as build

[HanyMinaMikhail]

Order and Natural Law must imply Intelligence. This is either within and part of matter or outside it. There is no 3rd explanation. You cannot have the cake and eat it! I am a 57 year old Consultant Surgeon, Fellow of the Royal College in UK. I studied science, chemistry, genetics, physics and biology. What are your qualifications sir? Matter that can evolve spontaneous intelligence is fiction!!! Steven Hawking: If the Universe has a beginning [and it has] there is a role for a Creator.

[Gnomefro]

The problem with the "Why?" question is that you don't know that it's a valid question at all, let alone a "bigger question". You'll find that among the scientists who will dismiss the "Why?" question are virtually all nobel laureates and the vast majority of the members of the National Academy of Sciences. Such people are almost all atheists.

Not that it really matters what they think about metaphysics, but trying to construe atheist scientists as an irrelevant minority is moronic.

[HanyMinaMikhail]

The WHY? remains as long as intelligent men exsist. It is definitely a moronic intellectual scuicide to believe that we came by mere mathematical chances and will eventually go into oblivion as an absurdity!!! Atheism has never quenched mankind. God, in Christ, does it and will continue the same. Noble laureates may belive in God or not, but to negate God's existence in the name of science is the worst non-scientific claim: like measuring temprature in kilograms!! Silence is more scientific

[samthed]

Hany, The Coptic Orthodox Church does not support the false theory of evolution.

Why are you preaching it?

I really liked your earlier series about the Divine Energies. But I am very disappointed that you have taken this position on evolution against the Church's teaching.

The TREE OF LIFE is a jewish kabalist teaching. i.e. Satanism. I am very surprised that you have fallen for this lie and modernist heretical JEWISH teaching.

[samthed]

The jews call us GOYIM which denotes Animal. Hands down they control the universities in America. They teach us that we are animals. And now WE BELIEVE WE ARE ANIMALS. That's what's going on here.

I am surprised you don't know this.

Many have lost their faith in God because of these false teachings.

[HanyMinaMikhail]

Whether God created in one second or 16 billion years that does not cotradict faith in God the Creator; Evolution is not against God or Church.Theologians who believe they have the only correct science of the world bring blasphemy not glory. Remember Gallileo? Read Kosta Banadaly "story of Adam and Eve" on my website. and "How to Read the World, Creation in Evolution". Listen to all the videos first. The Bible is not a book of physical science. The Church teaches the WHY not the HOW

[minasoliman]

You're wrong. There is no official view from the Coptic Church against evolution. I choose my words carefully. "Official" meaning synodical. Yes, there are bishops who are against it, but not all. The late HG Bishop Beemen is pro-evolution. I know many Coptic priests who are pro-evolution. It's not a false teaching. Those who think evolution is false is ignorant of science. I've shared this with my father of confession,and though he disagrees with me,he didn't condemn me for my beliefs.

[minasoliman]

There are many bishops (probably even HH Pope Shenouda himself) who don't accept the Divine energies beilef. It's amazing how you pick and choose what you like and dislike and call them "against the Coptic Church's teachings." Shame on you for spreading false information about what the Coptic Church teaches. (btw, I also accept the doctrine of Divine energies)

[minasoliman]

btw, Dr. Mikhail, the videos are great. I think the videos are better geared towards Christians who take the Bible literally than to atheists though. It's going to be hard to convince atheists considering there's so much to say about evolution and many things you say can be misconstrued by them as many like to play semantics on your wording of things.Dr.Mikhail, have you read "Finding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller and "The Language of God" by Francis Collins. Excellent books on the subject.