Fairy Tales

[mhrby1985]

Macro-Evolution has been repeatedly observed, try simply using google and the phrase "Observed Instances of Speciation"

Several of the other phases you are talking about has also been observed, either directly or indirectly, as the aftermath of them and other traces showing they have happened, as formation of planets and solarsystems is a still ongoing event.

Also organic life did not come from inorganic matter, but from organic matter according to most hypothesis's

[TheEdge012]

As to pt. 1 of your reply...I googled "has macro-evolution been observed". It seems there are just as many articles claiming NO as there are YES...so I'd say that's a wash.

Pt.2 - you miss the point of this video. It's not that these processes never happened but that the claim is they did so unassisted by a Creator. Random chance just cannot explain any one of these phases much less all of them.

Pt. 3 - Organic matter that comes from???

[mhrby1985]

@TheEdge012 Pt 1 - Doesn't matter how many articles there are on each side of the subject.

Unless you can adress or rebute the specific observed instances of speciation and explain how this does not break your concept of "macro-evolution has not happened", then you lost the argument.

Popularity/quantity of a given opinion does not give it credibility.

You can keep repeating a claim from now and until the end of time, and it won't become more true by that reason alone

[TheEdge012]

You are the one that asked me to google the topic. I simply pointed out that the results of that search show opinions on both side of the subject...not that this PROVES my side to be correct. It seems the jury is actually hung by what I've read and much of what these articles state come from scientists that have no theist agenda to prove.

[mhrby1985]

@TheEdge012 pt2 - And you know nothing about Evolutionary Theory, if you think Random chance has any place within evolution.

Evolution is mainly driven by natural selection, which is anything but random.

And the claim that it was unassisted by a Creator does nto appear in science.

Find me a single SCIENTIFIC paper which conclude something happened without the assistance of a creator.

That is, as well as your claim, an untestable hypothesis and is thus invalid in science

[TheEdge012]

"That is, as well as your claim, an untestable hypothesis and is thus invalid in science"

Untestable just means you cannot conclude anything...yet SO many DO make conclusions about God just because its an "untestable" concept. I find that narrow and ridiculous...not from a scientific persuit but from a personal one.

[mhrby1985]

@TheEdge012 pt 3 - Carbon based matter, should have been the phrase I used, as Organic matter is by definition a wrong description of it; That is my personal mistake.

You are correct in asking where it would come from, as the suggestion I made by using the term organic matter is sort of ridiculous, as Organic matter, is by definition, matter what was once liivng, making it's existance prior to the first life impossible

[jinnypigs4life]

i guess it was crazy to think that being swallowed by a whale and living for three days in the belly of the whale and being spat out and living to preach the word of god  is far fetched :P grow up guys life is too short to waste it on fairy tales ;)

[TheEdge012]

Tit for tat. You're narrative is hard to believe.  That is my point...not that I expect you to believe mine. But rather end the hypocritical accusation as if your narrative is simple and obvious. I think both sides can do a bit of growing up here!

[GronTheMighty]

I must wholeheartedly agree - the scientific account for the emergence of the universe, the emergence of the seemingly ordered cosmology, the seemingly ordered ecosystems and adaptability of nature is indeed fantastic at the very least - i would go as far as to call in almost unbelievable ; however, believability does not equal truth, neither does improbability equal impossibility - the evidence is what science goes with, and so far it all points to evolutionary theory being correct :]

[TheEdge012]

Well put!!! Yet my side and the atheist usually act as if their explanations for these events are easily believable and obvious. I contend that both are fantastic and difficult to comprehend.

"however, believability does not equal truth, neither does improbability equal impossibility" - awesome line...going to have to steal it!

[GronTheMighty]

Feel free to do so - i never liked the idea of proprietarianistically claiming ownership of ideas or methods or even designs for that matter ;)

Ahhh to coin a phrase...

[TheAtheistTEEN]

to me its curiosity vs declared fact...

science(curiosity) vs a fairy tale(which would be called fact)

science is more like, "this seems like the truth as far as we know on the subject...and heres why...what do you think?"

personally i acknowledge what seems like the truth based on what i know(and researched)...and i never jump to conclusions...i apply this to most aspects of life, and it seldom fails

btw your view of science is a tad warped but i won't comment on that (i'm sure others have)

[TheEdge012]

Though you call yourself atheist, this line of thought displays more of an agnostic approach. Christians and atheists declare fact..."there is no god" or "there is God." Agnostics take the stance of making no declaration. Is that where you see yourself?

[TheAtheistTEEN]

correction: even dawkins thinks that saying "theres a 100% no chance that theres a god" is ignorant aswell as the contrary "theres a 100% there is a god" as well. and the 50/50 stand point is really any better.

he thinks its our duty to consider under what circumstances a god could exist, then consider the probability.

and i agree with him, but my stand point on the matter is that theres 15% chance of there being a god, and it jumps to 20% if you consider multiple gods (makes more sense)

[TheEdge012]

So you are a 15% believer in God and 85% non. Not to split hairs but that is still an agnostic stance. And if Dawkins presents a similar notion, then he too is agnostic. I am curious though...how did you arrive at your calculations of 15 and 20%?

[mhrby1985]

@TheEdge012 Sorry, you seem to not know what the words Agnostic and Atheist means.

Atheists and Agnostic are not exclusive to each other, actually you cannot by defnition of the words Theist and Atheist, but an Agnostic without being either of those 2.

Answer the question: Do you belive in a God?

Yes and you're theist, if your answer is anything else, including "maybe", you're an atheist.

Agnostic goes towards whatever you belive it is possible or not to know if God exists.

[TheAtheistTEEN]

i'll pm you since my post keep vanishing for some reason O_o

[TheEdge012]

Not sure why they are vanishing. I do not cencor my channel.

[TheAtheistTEEN]

"however, believability does not equal truth, neither does improbability equal impossibility"

yeah even dawkins acknowledges that, but that doesn't mean improbability should be taken seriously...and doesn't mean believability shouldn't be checked and confirmed or falsified...

[TheEdge012]

I agree with you. How should we begin?

[TheAtheistTEEN]

what do you mean?

[TheEdge012]

How should we check into this stuff and confirm or falsify it?

[TheAtheistTEEN]

in making your judgment try and make a blind judgment, from the beginning to end do not assume one is already right, and after you have made your decision always consider you could be wrong.

also consider from the beginning weather the matter is intellectual(to find fact) or emotional(to develop your opinions)....

-----------------------------

i pretty much pulled this out the top of my head, i didn't consider checks and etc., but im sure you get the idea...

[TheAtheistTEEN]

gah the first part vanish -_-

1. understand the material, atleast the main points.

2. read multiple sources or watch videos

(one source is never encouraged)

3. read one or more critiqes or essays(something) supporting and one or more rebutting the subject \

4. examine the knowledge you've gained and make your judgment but never forget you could be wrong...

5. with that done you should know the subject well enough to debate your views, doing this expands your knowledge and helps you grow..

[TheEdge012]

For the most part, I have been thorough with my research of faith. In fact, I started this journey not really believing in Christ as anything more than a religious prophet and accepting most of the secular teachings of my high school and college science courses. So I DO know both sides. However, my studies led me here. I still watch, read, listen to various points of view about it but nothing has convinced me yet that I made a mistake.

[daddyrizla]

Good point about the system of beliefs, although, in dealing with macro evolution, it can be taken as a fact that dogs will not produce cats and this is a common misconception in the understanding of evolution. We didvided not only because of sexual evolution but because of many other kinds also. Take the evolution of a species due to needs in food source, climate and changes in the landscape all combine to cause change. Would you agree that things change over time due to these circumstances?

[daddyrizla]

Also just while we are on the point, evolution has never been an argument against the existance of god. It is supported by countless peices of scientific empirical evidence. The difference between a theory and a scientific theory is to be taken into account as well.

[TheEdge012]

While it is not an argument against God most proponents claim it to be an unguided and random process. Perhaps of all the difficult things evolution presents for me to swallow...that is the biggest hurdle.

[GronTheMighty]

Which is quite an understandible thing to object to.

While the mechanic of mutation is quite random, the seletive process the sorts which mutations are beneficial, neutral, or detrimental to the survival, reproduction, or reciprocy of societal functions of the expression of a mutation is quite specific in that it is produced by the environment, the other members of the same species, predators from other species, food sources from other species and other outside sources :)

[TheEdge012]

Gron...in re-reading your comment here a question came to mind that I think someone once asked of Dawkins.  Can you name a beneficial mutation that we've ever observed?

[GronTheMighty]

Lactose tolerance comes to mind..

Increased intelligence also is a clearcut result of mutations to the genes coding both for brain structure and muscular development :)

In fact i think if you look at mostly all of the more specified traits in currently living species you'll find that all of them possess many various mutations that are beneficial in one way or the other.

[TheEdge012]

I have something for you to read/consider on the lactose deal but its too long for this dialog box. Be on the lookout for a PM.

[jussts]

I wouldn't say fairy tale... I think that's a gross oversimplification. I'd say myth... which, I understand, Christians find no less offensive.

PS: You seem like a smart dude so I really wish you wouldn't use that '7 kinds of evolution' strawman argument. You're better than that. Also, 'observable' doesn't just mean what you see with your eyes in a lifetime. We observe the fossil record... we observe the genetic code. These things attest to evolution happening as well.

[TheEdge012]

1. Thanks for the compliments.

2. I would never knowingly present a strawman. That would be a waste of my time and yours.

3. The fossil record and genetic code are ironically two things that persuade me to the theistic/Christian narrative.

4. The only point of this vid was to show how fantastic the atheist/alternative/scientific explanation of existence is...not to present a solid argument against it.

[justchemicalz]

Man, even in "high quality" I can still tell that you're a Longhorn Fan. ;-)

Good vid, brah.

[TheEdge012]

You should see me in person...orange blood running through my veins!

[muzalot]

Not all Christians are Trinitarians, sorry but I think it's very necessary to correct your statement that ALL Christians believe Christ is Deity..

[strongvine]

um...I don't even know what you are talking about. Could you please rephrase or just not say anything. Have you looked at what you wrote here?

[muzalot]

No problemo.. the comment was simply addressing a statement in this vid made at 1:24 when TheEdge says, WE (christians) TEND TO ALL AGREE ON CHRIST.. the problem is that Christians are actually very divided on the nature of Christ, some say Christ is Deity (usually a trinitarian creed) and some say, Christ is Not Deity..

Capiche ?

[strongvine]

Um, I'm only saying that anyone who thinks or believes Christ is not God is not a Christian. Is that not the whole basis of Christianity or else it is just be void and useless.

Well, I guess it's been sadly changed into something else. I guess it's the problem of extremities. But, nevermind. Thanks.

[TheEdge012]

Hey muz, I do my best to make vids that represent a good cross section of people but don't always hit the mark. And since this is not directed at challenging theists on the diety or humanity of Christ but rather presenting the coveted evidence that skeptics demand, I will ask that you forgive this one so I can keep the focus where it needs to be.

[muzalot]

Forgive me for nit picking, I regret making a fuss.. Of course you SHOULD keep the focus on topic:-)

[friendlydiplomat]

Yeah Muzalot, I love this guy's video, I really do! But Jehovah Witnesses, being a 'type' of christian, DO NOT believe Christ is Deity. Most 'Christians' or followers of Christ DO believe He was God in the flesh though.

[preacherman777]

This is a very solid argument. One that atheists usually refuse to see or accept, but entirely true non the less.

[4McClain]

The 7 types of evolution you mention all follow the knowen laws of physics. which observe at work everyday. How is accpting a process that in line with a fairy tale. We have been blessed witht he ability to understand how the natural world works. If we attempt to explain things not in accord with those physical laws that to me would in the realm of the increadably unlikely (ie 6 day creation). I am just not seeing how accepting that scientific explenation of the universe is a fairy tale.

[TheEdge012]

1. I am not well versed enough on physics but suspect that abiogenesis and having 88 chemicals form from just two are just two examples that present physics a problem.

2. I would not call science or creation a fairy tale...which is my point. I see it as hypocritical for either side of this argument to accuse the other of fantastic claims or fairy tales.

[4McClain]

If what you mean by creation is that life and matter instanly appeared from nothing, I find that difficult to believe because we do not observe nature working that way. If you say it happened 6 to 10k years ago, I would call that a fairy tale due to the strong evidence for the age of the earth, distance between stars, etc. Even if we accept that creation is the result of natural laws, we are still left scratching our heads in awe and wonder without believing something contrary to the evidence.

[grumpychuck]

Great video Jim! I think your analogy of dog breeding is off, though. Or the thought that an animal in evolution becomes a totally different species all of a sudden.

However, I agree that evolution is indeed fantastic but plausable when examined closely at the same time that the thought of a god creating everything about 6000 years ago goes beyond fantastic because it is only a thought, or belief....which is fine.

[TruthasICit]

Great Video and nice flip on a common phrase "Fairy Tale" Thank you for bringing to my attention reflect7 several months back as well.

[christoferL]

you've got it man - great points... 5stars plus...

[ThirdProverb]

Great vid Jim, you put the info together clearly & concise. i haven`t come to a conclusion about evolution or any variety of it but as yo have stated,it is not necessary for faith or salvation. in the end there had to be a first cause, that be God - Creator of All. As far as "talking snakes", could it be just a term of description one who acts like a snake or like a "loan shark".The Bible is not intended to be taken 100% literal.Those who see it that way have alot of hurdles to jump.

[LiftAloft]

The primary evidence that convinces me of macro-evolution is the presence of similar "errors" in the DNA code that we have with some lower forms of life.

This being said, if we are honest, doesn't the presence of "similar DNA chains" in our DNA sequences with lower forms of life, provide evidence that creator God used the same materials? Doesn't it provide evidence for a Creationist that the "dust" used by God to create an Adam and then Eve was just the remains of a prior life form? Hmmm

[TheEdge012]

Being made up of similar material or even similar code does indeed imply a single, original source. I contend that this is because we all had the same Creator not the same ape-like ancestor. But again...I am not trying to debate Creationism and Evolution at this time.

[KelsoFabulous]

Excellent Video. Even though I have yet to detemrmine my stance on the topic of evolution vs creationism. You can't deny the fact that the evolution stance could almost be in a Hitchcock movie. God Bless

[TheEdge012]

One of the reasons I rarely even discuss the topic is because it's NOT foundational to salvation.

[jmaconattack]

Great video, Jim. Very concise and to the point. If I'm not mistaken, I believe that Kent Hovind is a huge advocate when it comes to using the evolution points you mentioned. Anyways, I'm looking forward to your personal testimony of what evidence brought you to the conclusion that Christianity is true.

[TheEdge012]

I am aware of Hovind but find references like Randall Niles a bit more credible since they are not in jail for tax fraud... ;)

[jmaconattack]

lol...I'm pickin up what you're puttin down. :)

[TheEdge012]

Great point. I don't think its possible to have a narrative about how things came to be without it being fantastic because existence itself is SO incredible. So I think its hypocritical and a waste of time for the Christian skeptic to make this criticism.

[JeromeStein4U]

Great video! Looks like we were in the same mode. Check out my video.

[TheEdge012]

Will do.

[Katalyzt]

Hello TheEdge012,

In response to the text in the description section of this video; Atheists/atheism do/does not have a worldview. Atheism is merely a response to theistic claims about gods. The fact that we atheists tend to agree on curtain things is merely a coincidence; nothing more. There is no dogma, or tenets to atheism as it is not a religion of any kind, but simply a response.

Katalyzt

[TheEdge012]

All due respect Katalyzt...everyone has a world view. And I qualify my statements by saying "most atheists" adopt the scientific explanation of things so as to distinguish that maybe "some" do not...however rare they may be.

[LiftAloft]

Atheism is, indeed, a "world view." A lack of a belief in a deity or deities is a world view that further gets developed and refined.

For instance, some with the atheist world view could take the position that religion is dangerous... or not. But, they all start at the same place (i.e., the same "world view") that there is no God and/or that there is not enough evidence to justify such a belief.

[Katalyzt]

You are completely misinformed. Atheism is a belief and/or worldview, just about as much as not collecting stamps is a hobby. Think about it.

Katalyzt

[LiftAloft]

Here is where you are not seeing the logic through.

If you are atheist, and you do not define your life in any way by that (not a part of your thinking at all), then I agree.

In your example, I do not collect stamps, but I don't make videos/talk to people/decide how to raise my children/decide how I will vote/decide what I will read based on my lack of a stamp collection.

Do you see, now, how atheism becomes a worldview? If one (like a baby) ignores her atheism, then I agree.

[Katalyzt]

Then we agree; atheism is not a worldview.

Katalyzt

[lilchrizz123]

Hey I have that book, he gave it to me for free,Randall is a cool guy...

[TheEdge012]

Indeed he is!