people please help me giving a like to my friends video project! their grade depends on the amount of likes they get! just search "deshidratacion hipotonica". its in spanish. views also count! thankksss
@OhmgrownCron Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!!!! atheists are MORONS! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins!
This is the biggest misunderstanding in the structure-function relationship and he calls himself a scientist? It's like seeing two tress whose trunks have grown together and concluding that they were created that way to compliment one another.
No scientist has EVER suggested that eukaryotic cells sprang into being, eukaryotes are FAR FAR evolved from the first life which was just a self replicating molecule and we know how cell membranes can form on their own. This video is just propaganda nonsense.
@legion1a Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!!!! atheists are MORONS! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins!
@legion1a Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!!!! atheists are MORONS! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins!
@AlexR4444 Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!!!! atheists are MORONS! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins!
so what are you claiming? that complexity and small-ness prove God? we actually know much of what each of these is made of. and i'm sick and tired of people saying that if evolution was what happened, we were a mistake. NATURAL SELECTION IS NOT A MISTAKE. IT IS LITERALLY SURVIVAL OF THE STRONGEST, SO WE ARE NOT RANDOM, BUT THE OFFSPRING OF THOSE BEST ADAPTED FOR THEIR ENVIRONMENTS.
If God did it he's clearly pretty dumb because he gave us plenty of genes that don't do anything. Even human engineers don't add parts that aren't necessary, let alone an all-knowing, all-powerful god.
Or as Richard Dawkins says, he must be purposely trying to deceive us. If a creator wanted us to believe in and worship him he would not give us evidence that he doesn't exist. So either he doesn't exist or he doesn't care about us.
This video is - once again- nothing more than the incredulity argument. "See how amazing this works? That just PROVES God did it!" No actually it does NOT.
Yes, the cell is complex, Darwin noted statistically that for his theory of evolution to work there needed be simplicity within the cell. So the odds of evolution happening by random chance if the cells are already complex is about 1 : 10^150, impossible. There are not even that many atoms in the entire universe. Statistically speaking the odds of God causing everything to exist would be 1 : 1.
"Darwin noted statistically that for his theory of evolution to work there needed be simplicity within the cell."
Where did he note that? The concept of the cell in darwin's time was little more than protoplasm, and I'm fairly certain that he never even got into the statistics of it.
"So the odds of evolution happening by random chance if the cells are already complex is about 1 : 10^150, impossible"
First of all, you have a dozen errors in this sentence. 1) "Evolution by random chance" 2) The insinuation that evolution has to do with the creation of original single cells 3) Citing an ambiguous number which cannot have any statistical basis in reality because not all of the facets of the subject are known by modern science, much less a statistician.
"Statistically speaking the odds of God causing everything to exist would be 1 : 1."
No it wouldn't because there's no precident or evidence of it, ergo you can't put a statistical value on it.
Your earlier formula has been repeated in varying levels through the creationist community, yet none of its proponents have ever shown their mathematical proofs or even divulged their parameters for calculation.
This is the point at which somebody with a basic understanding of logic should go "Describing something complex implies the existence of your deity? Isn't that sort of a non-sequitur?"
Come on, /this doesn't prove anything/. Literally, all we have here is somebody pointing out the obvious (cells are complex), sticking their finger in the air and shouting "Yes! This means God exists!"
Common man`s reasons why god does not exist A) total absence from from natural events, No sig of a god before, during or after natural events. B)The total absence of favoritism towards believers. Even church steeples need lightning rods for protection against god.C) The absence of any reaction, when crimes are committed in his name. D) The suffering of the innocent. One could accept suffering of the guilty, but little children
Doesn't this way of thinking lead you to ask the next question which is where did god come from? I dare say you have precisely answered nothing by invoking a god to explain the complexity of the cellular organelles.
@EllerySneed do you even know what a simpleton is? a person lacking intelligence or common sense A) you couldn't even remotely consider me one because of my background in the sciences and University degrees. B) You are probably a simpleton,i.e. you believe that god exists just because something is complex. this is an example of no common sense. chalking something up to "god" just cause it is hard to grasp.Derp.
Oh but you are... you just think you're not because of a piece of paper hanging on your wall. Woop dee freakin doo, true knowledge exists in knowing that YOU know nothing. There is more evidence for God than against God, you just refuse to accept anything unless it points to what you want it too no matter how ridiculous your spin is.... ah well that's just how your religion of humanism works.
The problem is joey you are like every other atheist, so it really doesn't matter what I tell you, you've already come to your conclusion and everything else is shutdown.
Really?! I've made up my mind based on EVIDENCE. Atleast there's evidence, that's the difference between exposing evidence and you just shooting it down because you hate it, to not even having ANY at all like yourself. So... What proof and evidence can you provide that confirms atheism to be accurate and correct. If I'm going to abandon God, there better be some proof and evidence otherwise why would I just blindly follow the humanist religion of atheism??
Your comment does not even make sense. Atheism does not put forth a set of beliefs that need to be proven. Atheism simply is a lack of belief in any supernatural deities - because there is NO EVIDENCE FOR THEM. What "evidence" are you saying you have? There isn't any. That's complete crap.
You failed as it does make sense. You pretend it doesn't make sense so you have a "way out", it is indeed a belief. What proof or evidence can you provide that shows atheism to be accurate and correct. You can't be serious to believe that there is no evidence for your cause.... if there is no evidence than why are you following atheism? Just because.. maybe rebellion? ; )
There's plenty of evidence for God that you dismiss every day, so let's focus on your evidence!
"What proof or evidence can you provide that shows atheism to be accurate and correct."
Why would you ask for proof and evidence of a position which rejects a claim? One isn't required to provide evidence for a lack of belief. Provide proof and evidence that Anti-Magic-Sandwichism is accurate and correct. Or anti-Flying-Spagetti-Monsterism is accurate and correct. Or anti-Hinduism is accurate and correct.
You provided no proof and or evidence, you can't reject something and then offer nothing with nothing to back it up. If I am to follow your way there better be a good reason for me to join the club...
1) I'm not an atheist, so I have no prerogative to "prove" atheism to you.
2) You've made the claim that a god exists, therefor if you want an atheist to believe it, the burden of proof falls on your to prove its existence, not an atheist to prove its non-existence.
3) Atheism wouldn't seek to prove non-existence of god, because its lack of belief in a claim of existence.
4) Tell shock I said hi, and he needs to unblock me.
"you can't reject something and then offer nothing with nothing to back it up."
Yes, I can, because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to prove. You can't just make a claim and declare yourself victorious if I don't provide evidence that you're absolutely wrong.
What you guys fail to realize is that the question is worded improperly. Consult your friend TogetherForPeace's vid for his thoughts about it. Also watch "The question no theist can answer".
I have a Bugatti Veyron in my garage. Its a 1.5 million dollar car, and I got the an accessory which also makes it invisible, untouchable, and undetectable except when it wants you to know it's there..
Provide proof and evidence that your disbelief of my claim is accurate and correct..
@WeedGreenPowerRanger there is no way you can make a bugatti veyron invisible, and there might be such an accessory but it cannot disappear a whole car. and untouch able and undetectable. it does not have a mind of its own nor feeling so it can't let us know its there on its own. this is pure fantasy and make believe. if it were true wouldn't our military use it to attack ememies and intruders without being visible?
"What proof and evidence can you provide that confirms atheism to be accurate and correct. I"
A ShockOfGod follower, I see.
"otherwise why would I just blindly follow the humanist religion of atheism??"
Because one doesn't "Blindly follow" atheism. Atheism isn't a religion, its simply either a lack of belief, a reservation of judgment based on lack of evidence, or in some rare and extreme cases, the outright declaration of no god. Dawkins doesn't even accord to the third.
why the guy in the description said "biblical" ???? assuming the wrong conclusion that it was intelligent design, it doesnt point to any god in particular.
Michael Behe's argument that the Bacterial Flagellum is Irreducibly Complex was completely destroyed by Prof Ken Miller at the Dover vs Kitzmiller trial. Nature is incrededibly complex but Behe has yet to produce a single example of Irreducible Complexity that does not have any known precursors.
oh lord... not JUST the idea of God but a BIBLICAL one at that. If there's one thing you can put your money and soul on it's the bible god being fictitious. And queue an angry american to reply to this comment.
@hotvid3 or the flying spaghetti monster. or any infinite number of possible scenarios. why jump to "god". I prefer the flying spaghetti monster, as it has just as much verifiable evidence for being true as yours - none.
@hotvid3 nay sir, it is the work of the magnificent flying spaghetti monster, or perhaps the tooth fairy with a touch added by santa. and equal amount of "proof" support these hypotheses.
science is used to understand reality, not mythology. please don't mix and match
I like how he states the teleological argument for creation at the end of the video. Sorry Jesus freaks but this is an opinion, not proof. Two very different things. I am not claiming that creationists or evolutionists are right, but the whole basis of the teleological argument is built on the foundation that evolution does not occur. The argument is that something so complex could not have just "happend", rather it must have been created by an intelligent being.
Why can't God prove his own existence. Why is it that people always have to talk on behalf of God, why can't God speak for his own I mean has he not designed a mouth for himself to talk with ?
Poor suckers Religions and Gods are a man made culture developed over the ages.
If there where Gods we would not need religions.
Religions and churches is only a symbol for humans that they wish there where Gods.
Gods only exists when religious people open there mouth, when they shut the Gods are gone.
There could be a god. Make no mistake however - it is not the christian god. That bible book is the biggest crock of shit ever. I'll get a lot of flack for saying that, but anyone and everyone who has ever been truly educated on the events of biblical history knows - the bible is totally full of shit.
Perhaps there is a God, but don't just ASSUME that if there is one, it has to be the christian one. For all we know, it could be a god who has not presented itself to us in any way.
@ruedjgtc There is no difference. The Bible is a Bronze Age book of myth. After the unicorns and talking animals and men walking on the water and a 600 year old goat herder building a Titanic out of desert shrubs, the Prince rides up on his White Horse, rescues the princess and takes her away to live happily ever after in his mansion in the sky. Only those inside the delusion can take this seriously. To everyone else it is obviously a fairy tale.
@derk1946 It is characteristic of delusions that all evidence supports them. Where we see beauty and complexity you claim it is evidence of god's design. If I point out the failures and lousy design (kidney stones, genetic anomalies, hernias, ubiquitous illnesses, infant mortality, etc, etc) you say "That's because of sin!" There is no way to have a rational discussion with deluded people. It's just impossible, by definition.
@Imaginefree69 excellent! The number of parasites, diseases and genetic anomalies capable of damaging human health goes far beyond 10,000!!!! If God did it, was he drunk?
Cells of all kinds evolve to perform their functions over time. It doesn't mean they initially had these functions at all, they could have originated from absolutely nothing (e.g. big bang).
Just like how humans built technology from nothing, so life became from nothing just on the mere inclination of things to survive.
That doesn't prove any higher being's existence, it's just an irrelevant matter-of-fact description of how things progress.
what is wrong with you, you bunch of morons.you debate knowing that you will never change your views, yet its so important for you to change others views. give it a rest. believe what you will. be resolute in your beliefs and shut the hell up about it
I tried to settle this argument and typed in the equation for the law of probability to tell me the number of years to evolve from an atom to an amoeba. All my computer will say is Google Google Google its been over a week now. I think its sick.
This is just another re-hash of the watchmaker argument. I suggest you go watch richard dawkin's "the blind watchmaker" if you think this proves god in any way or form.
Also, an outboard motor looks like that because it HAS to in order to be useful. if it were made any other way it would not push water and would become an abandoned boat. THINK ABOUT IT!
I am studying biochem right now and it amazes me that people can look at biochemical systems and have the first thought in their head be "oh that was created by random chance". Almost as inconceivable as God is to us is what an actual cell performs in daily life. It begs for their to be a creator. Cells are infinitely more complex than any modern supercomputers we have and to think it arose from mere chance is ludicrous.
what is wrong with you? Is it that hard to elucidate a thesis from someones writing? I said its not random chance. And calling people monkeys is a pretty unintelligent way of losing an argument.
The "Random Chance" fallacy again? I would advise you stop simply repeating what kent hovind told you and read a real book now and then. Evolution is NOT simpy "random chance".
if its not random chance then that means there was design in it. Listen I believe a creator started the big bang and the parameters for science like the laws of physics. Everything came together logically. My viewpoint is hard to have because I get flack from both fundamentalists and atheists. My viewpoint is most similar to Newton and other Deists who believe in a scientific, logical "clockmaker" God. What do you guys think of my viewpoint?
Evolution (WTF is Darwinism?) has always expected that life could increase in complexity over time. It is not a surprise or a problem for evolution that what we see after many billions of years is hideously complex.
Watched video, thought it was pretty neat. Read comments, LOL'D HARD because people still use youtube comments and think anyone takes them seriously. Come on people, stop caring so much, everyone thinks everyone that doesn't agree with them is stupid.
How does this video proves the Biblical Creation and the existence of God?! First it doesnt prove nothing because the organisms PROGRESSEVLY evolved. Second, God? or Ala? or Shiva? Bible? or Qur'an? or Vedas? You can't prove the existence of God. Would another person who never heard about your God come to the same conclusion? NO!! But we can't prove His non existence either. The CLOSEST we got from proving something was the Big Bang, there was nothing and then there was everything, even Time.
@magick205 :: No nothing in the bible has ever been misproven, that stuff seems unbelievalbe, but nothing has acutally proved that it is not true. SO before you think you know what you're talking about check it.
Also, the genealogies are false, because the earth has been around a lot longer than 6000-10,000 years
You don't even know what contradictions its referring to, dude.
I think you should make a mental note that you just completely dispelled something without knowing its contents. You should have at least researched first.
@WeedGreenPowerRanger What if time was compressed? If the earth was created with age as if it had evolved over millions of years? What if having faith in the "conclusions" from the limited minds of humans won't give all the answers and lead to people missing truth? Is it honest that we need be aware, no matter how painful it may be to some, that our reasoning needs to be tempered by an awareness of how limited we are, how much we need help from an all knowing, omnipotent mind for direction?
"What if having faith in the "conclusions" from the limited minds of humans won't give all the answers and lead to people missing truth?"
What if? What if? What if it can and will? What if the track record of history is that scientific understanding has always dispelled supernatural explanations? What if every supernatural thing in history has a scientific explanation?
@WeedGreenPowerRanger There is no track record for explaining the psi phenomena. There is no scientific explanation for how people can see glimpses into the future, precognition, before the events even take place. Some can see what will occur with 100% accuracy. How about remote viewing? Can that be explained too?
"Is it honest that we need be aware, no matter how painful it may be to some, that our reasoning needs to be tempered by an awareness of how limited we are"
No, its not because it's never been an issue before, and assuming that we're wrong just so you can cling to whatever religious explanation you choose is cowardly at best, and fascist at worst.
Why do you automatically assume that we need god's help in explaining, when we're churning out TESTABLE explanations every day?
Yes, in fact it is a PROVEN fact that pi does not equal 3, but rather 3.1415926535.........
That is one thing that can literally be "proven" false, but as for the other things, it is not possible to "prove" that they are false, but it most certainly is possible to show that they are so improbable that they are not even worth considering to be true. For example, human flesh turning into salt. This absolutely contradicts physics and chemistry. So does the feeding of the masses.
So... "Matter can not be created nor destroyed." So how did the whole world come about, without anything being created, and we were just a big ball of water, and we're this now. hmm doesn't click.
The big bang is not the "creation" of matter. Nor is it the creation of energy. It is simply the beginning of energy and matter in the form that we see them today. I do not know how the energy got there in the first place. That's one of the problems that science is working on. It is possible that it always existed. M theory is also delving into some interesting areas that could explain it. Either way, the big *poof* described in the bible is impossible.
Reductionist naturalism is equivalent to the logic of "it's turtles all the way down". For those who don't know that story. (A naturalist was told that the Bible says, "the earth hangs on nothing". She, quipped back, "no it sits on the back of a great turtle. When asked what the turtle is on. "another". Again asked. She yelled, "it's turtles all the way down". Life can only be reduced so far and still be viable and evolvable. It would still be extremely complex.
@planterzs First of all, you trying to be high speed by taking quotes out of context is folly. God will be upset with you for trying to subvert His word. After all.. you can't use presumption by fundamentalist arguments to discredit anything. You are attributing the unknown by the written words of men! Aside from quote 19, the other two are purely nonsense that you have likely practiced into meaning. Typical, I hope you will someday be more adventurous than schroedinger's kitty.
lol I'm not taking anything about of context. You can go read the Bible yourself.
God is not completely unknown to me. For one, he wrote his laws into my heart and these laws we're refined when I accepted Jesus Christ. Second, I can look at the universe and see that everything in it was created and designed by Him.
A simple study of ALL religions and science in a sincere search for the truth will inevitably lead a person to Christianity.
So because something is relatively small and complex to human sensory perception, it proves that we can perceive something infinitely absolute by the same sensory operation? Last I checked, relativity was easier to quantify than the infinite.
All this proves is that Michael is a student of probabilities to say evolution cannot happen on the scale of human bio-complexity.. yet is by ignoring specific variance that he makes his claim.
When Darwin envisioned evolution; it was believed single celled life was very simple. Just a few compounds that replicated itself. That's why he believed it would be easy for it to evolve into existence. Darwin was wrong. The simplest life known is very complex. Behe shows in this vid how complex the simplest life is. The first life had to be created. Then we mind as well assume the creation stories are true. Life started with all the major phylum.
Indeed, Darwin was proven incorrect long ago, evolution was not. That does not prove creation.
The "proof" creationsists require relies on everything that "is not". For every advance in science there will be a never-ending quantity of "that which has not been figured out yet".
People will try to label it, try to understand it, and in doing so they contradict the very definition of the unknown. This is the concept of God and creation; an attempt to quantify that which has no quantity. = )
@tinagalarneau: "whereas nothing in the bible has ever been misproven."? Really? So, bats are birds? Pi=3? Basha fighting with Judah after being dead 10 years? Please. Finding the BS in that statement is just too easy.
bringing up the fact that darwin was ignorant on a few matters is a cheap copout. Darwin is dead and he's been dead for over a hundred years. Modern biologists do not care about darwin any more other than as a brilliant scientists who laid the basic foundations for a very powerful Scientific Theory. Modern biologists are aware of the complexity of cells. Behe isn't pointing out something new. We've know of the complexity there. It does not disprove evolution by natural selection.
Did you (we) know that the chromosome cannot live out side the cell the nurtures and protects it. That the cell can't live with out the chromosome that maintains and causes it to reproduce! Darwin said that if any thing that is irreducibly complex was found, his theory would be proved false.
Come out of the Darkness. Read " Signature in the Cell ". If you dare! Where did the Plan for life, written on the DNA come from??????????? "God created each kind with it's seed in it". Geniuses.
lol, the chromosome/cell relationship is not irreducibly complex. you're doing exactly what Behe does, and that's looking at a modern day, highly complex "symbiosis" of parts and saying "ok, if you separate them they have no function". Well you're ignoring that they haven't always been like that. They evolved from much simpler symbioses over an unbroken chain of intermediates to the present day form. Irreducible complexity proponents totally ignore evolutionary processes in their arguments.
ScientiaV: Well you're ignoring that they haven't always been like that. They evolved from much simpler symbioses over an unbroken chain of intermediates to the present day form. " That idea isn't scientific in the least. Science fiction!?
It's not observable. Not happening today. Can't be duplicated in the lab. It's pure hype. Real science relies on what we observe. Not on fairy tales like that you have provided us.
that's ridiculous. Just because it happened in the past doesn't mean we can't observe it, just like we can't directly observe an asteroid hitting the earth 65 million years ago, and can't reproduce it, we can still observe it indirectly. It is extremely easy to imagine intermediate forms, for example going from simple micelles or liposomes with bits of genetic material in them, to simple bacteria with small "nucleoid regions", to eukaryotic cells with a single rudimentary chromosome, to today.
I didn't say it can't be observed. I said it isn't observed. "seen"; and imaging some thing, as you put it. Is not the same as observing it. You can use your imagination all you want. But it isn't real science until you can prove it experimentally. Not with mind experiments. But with real duplicable, laboratory, physical experiments. Other wise we're just discussing hypothetical, philosophical possibilities, that have no relevance to science.
I did NOT say that the evidence is in imagining you. You intentionally warped and twisted what I said. I said that the intermediates for a cell/chromosome symbiosis exist today and can be seen to be fully functional. Just as intermediates to the bacterial flagellum can be seen to exist today and are functional. Irreducible complexity ignores intermediates and tries to look at a modern day mechanism and basically say, "wow, this is complex, no way it popped up fully formed". Ignoring evolution.
Picking parts out of a living cell, and saying they could be intermediaries of the simplest living cell, or system, is fake. You must show a simpler form of viable living cell or system. That could live long enough, or keep a system viable long enough to evolve; and do so with out having all the major parts that the simplest forms of life or essential systems are known to have. Exp: Viable life with out either, "chromosome", "code (plan of itself), a viable metabolism. That evolves.
these intermediates exist/can exist today, showing that the intermediates are feasible. Things go from simple to complex in evolution. Intermediates of obvious and simple to explain. Your argument is moot, and so is irreducible complexity.
19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
You can find evidence for anything if your willing to rationalize from nonsense. Actual proof would be something like shaking hands or running for your life.
The ID Creationism movement is nothing more than the work of religious groups trying to gain control of public science education. Multiple court decisions have summarily trashed their claims and identified their efforts as purely religious. Do not be fooled. These people care nothing about good science. They will return the next generation of our children to the Dark Ages and make us the laughing stock of the world when it comes to science education.
Things evolve all the time with new ingenious ways doesn't mean god did it, this is what people always do if you can't explain some event or life form say it must have been gods doing.
even if there is such a thing as a divine being it didn't create bacteria or elephants on purpose but merely made the snow ball roll down the hill
sooo... because one religion doesn't have the need for self, it MUST be true, well atheism doesn't have the need of a God, does that make atheism true. Another thing, ALMOST EVERYTHING CHRISTIANITY CLAIMS HAS BEEN CLAIMED ALL BEFORE, THE 10 COMMANDMENTS WERE WRITTEN IN EGYPTIAN TOMBS BEFORE MOSES, EVERY RELIGION HAS HAD THINGS LIKE, A CHILD BORN OF A VIRGIN, 3 MEN FOLLOWING A STAR TO THE BIRTH, CHRISTIANITY IS DEJA VU
Jesus is God. Romans chapter 1 is a nice chapter to read. Also Psalms chapter 2. Psalm 53. All good chapters. Repent, do not your pride of knowledge cause you to stumble. How smart are you? compared to Almighty God?
These religious people jump on the band wagon of science to prove their invisible man in the sky is really there......Science does not prove the existence of god.
Michael Behe has been defeated on this Irreducible Complexity argument so many times, that I'm starting to think he's just a glutton for pain and humiliation.
Indeed you are right. Behe is a psychologically interesting individual.
The flagellum might be called irreducibly complex but since the parts can also be used for extraction that is no problem for it to evolve over time. Behe seems honest so he must realize this once it has been shown to him.
Also Behe takes a very strange position as he claims intelligent design but still has the honesty to acknowledge that common descent has strong enough evidence to support it.
I agree. It's interesting to read different editions of Behe's textbook over-time, because he's been forced to slowly give ground to real science. It's starting to reach a point now where he's alienating his former colleagues because of what he's been forced, by the overwhelming weight of evidence to concede.
EVOLUTION IS 100% FACT!!!!!!! 100% FACT, IT HAS BEEN PROVEN, IT HAS BEEN SEEN!!!!!!!!!!!! EG. The African elephants were hunted for their tusks, elephants with bigger tusks were hunted more, so the African elephant's tusks have shrunk in size, the Asian elephants tusks are much bigger, we have seen fossils of African elephants with trunks TEN TIMES AS HEAVY, The whale has hind legs inside its body, why, because it used to be a land animal
Lee Patrick Strobel (born January 25, 1952 in Arlington Heights, Illinois) is a writer and Christian apologist and a former journalist and megachurch pastor. He only has a journalism degree, no science degree. Same degree as Palin and just as retarded. His junk has been debunked in a court of law.
Stupefying your mind in religious sleep. Caustic trumpery from your pitiful god. Centuries of lies to bolster belief. Empty words and useless faith. Resting beside your infirm prayers. Mindless and empty, false and absurd. Your sleep is sheltered with willing ignorance. It is time to celebrate the serpent's choice. So enthralling is Satan's wisdom. Death to dullards with the powers of Old Nick. Open your eyes to the shadowy truth. The search for enlightenment lies with the devil.
How... A God would need an extreme amount of evidence, as it is an extreme claim, there is barely any (if any) plausible evidence of a possible creator, if so, what creator is it, Ra Isis, Osiris, Odin, Loki, Thor, Thoth, Nut, Kefnut, Yahweh, Poseidon, Zeus, Afrodites, Allah, Vishnu, Kanish. Theism alone is unrealistic, but, Monotheism is even more unrealistic, Omniscience is also a flaw, why would God give Adam and Eve the choice to eat the fruit if he knew the answer...
haha sorry dude theres to many answers but when i feel better ill try to answer some. its all in the eye of the beholder. remember its not desire that determines truth, but logic.
"it is really silly to jump to the conclusion that there is a designer." as is to jump to a conclusion that there is no designer.
To Look at the world we live on the complexity of life, not to include the vastness of space which can now be seen. one does not need to be a scientist to see that there is a designer, and our lives are more than chance, accident.
just because we dont know yet does not mean we have to jump to conclusions of design either,500 years ago people thought the world was flat, because they had no knowledge otherwise, that does not mean that it WAS flat, or any other illogical conclusions they had came to, such as"you would simply fall off"just because we cant see the vastness of space,doesnt mean it was created,its the same concept,tell me,when we do discover the reaches of space,what backpeddling excuse will christians use then?
This has been flagged as spam show
people please help me giving a like to my friends video project! their grade depends on the amount of likes they get! just search "deshidratacion hipotonica". its in spanish. views also count! thankksss
MrDaviddddddd 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
people please like my video proyect for biochemistry the one who gets more likes will be exonerated from the exam pleasee help me views also count.
just search deshidratacion ucsg, its the first one named deshidratacion hipotonica
thank you very much!
daniela1238974 1 month ago
As a biochemistry major, I'm speechless
mickmackb 2 months ago
Comment removed
mickmackb 2 months ago
This has all been debunked over and over again. How about getting something original for a change.
Trinitics 2 months ago
How the fuck did a Biochemist get by school without understanding Evolution.
OhmgrownCron 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OhmgrownCron Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!!!! atheists are MORONS! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins!
5tonyvvvv 2 weeks ago
@OhmgrownCron You are INDOCTRINATED! Yeah never question evolution and abiogenesis! You are a SHEEP!
5tonyvvvv 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OhmgrownCron You are INDOCTRINATED! Yeah never question evolution and abiogenesis! You are a SHEEP!
5tonyvvvv 2 weeks ago
This is the biggest misunderstanding in the structure-function relationship and he calls himself a scientist? It's like seeing two tress whose trunks have grown together and concluding that they were created that way to compliment one another.
squisheroni 4 months ago
This is the biggest misunderstanding I
squisheroni 4 months ago
LOL, fail!
javierchile88 4 months ago
It's too easy to trash this one, isn't it?
StrumstickJoe 8 months ago
No scientist has EVER suggested that eukaryotic cells sprang into being, eukaryotes are FAR FAR evolved from the first life which was just a self replicating molecule and we know how cell membranes can form on their own. This video is just propaganda nonsense.
Baldurthegood 8 months ago
What do the results of EVOLUTION have to do with God?
This is just a Lee Strobel video!
Anything associated with him is pure B.S..
There is a video here on YouTube where a REAL scientist spoke over a Lee Strobel video, and showed every statement he made was incorrect.
Apparently, it is not a Sin for Christians to lie, to promote their own lie.
legion1a 8 months ago 12
This has been flagged as spam show
@legion1a Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!!!! atheists are MORONS! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins!
5tonyvvvv 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@legion1a Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!!!! atheists are MORONS! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins!
5tonyvvvv 2 weeks ago
ahhhahahha...... no
antiprotonable 8 months ago
Completely misleading propaganda video.
Hufflewaffle 8 months ago
This video does not prove anything, except that its underlying philosophy desperately seeks to incorporate the credibility of science.
dialecticas 9 months ago
@toddtyszka
KITZMILLER CASE MOTHERFUCKA!!!!
konohanominato 9 months ago
I like the way this video doesn't in any way state that Biochemistry proves God exists.
AlexR4444 10 months ago 27
This has been flagged as spam show
@AlexR4444 Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!!!! atheists are MORONS! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins!
5tonyvvvv 2 weeks ago
so what are you claiming? that complexity and small-ness prove God? we actually know much of what each of these is made of. and i'm sick and tired of people saying that if evolution was what happened, we were a mistake. NATURAL SELECTION IS NOT A MISTAKE. IT IS LITERALLY SURVIVAL OF THE STRONGEST, SO WE ARE NOT RANDOM, BUT THE OFFSPRING OF THOSE BEST ADAPTED FOR THEIR ENVIRONMENTS.
TheSeantague 11 months ago
In the words of Steven Hawking, "Thanks to physics, god in unneccesary."
tumadrecabron1021 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
which god does it prove? or gods?
KyleThomasShultz 11 months ago
hi is there any cure for this diseas i've lost lots of rabbit with mixi mitosis. let me know pls.
at bukkac3@yahoo.com
nbukkac 1 year ago
If God did it he's clearly pretty dumb because he gave us plenty of genes that don't do anything. Even human engineers don't add parts that aren't necessary, let alone an all-knowing, all-powerful god.
Or as Richard Dawkins says, he must be purposely trying to deceive us. If a creator wanted us to believe in and worship him he would not give us evidence that he doesn't exist. So either he doesn't exist or he doesn't care about us.
stagedive516 1 year ago
This video is - once again- nothing more than the incredulity argument. "See how amazing this works? That just PROVES God did it!" No actually it does NOT.
1ProudFemaleAtheist 1 year ago
Yes, the cell is complex, Darwin noted statistically that for his theory of evolution to work there needed be simplicity within the cell. So the odds of evolution happening by random chance if the cells are already complex is about 1 : 10^150, impossible. There are not even that many atoms in the entire universe. Statistically speaking the odds of God causing everything to exist would be 1 : 1.
GateMessenger 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GateMessenger
"Darwin noted statistically that for his theory of evolution to work there needed be simplicity within the cell."
Where did he note that? The concept of the cell in darwin's time was little more than protoplasm, and I'm fairly certain that he never even got into the statistics of it.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@GateMessenger
"So the odds of evolution happening by random chance if the cells are already complex is about 1 : 10^150, impossible"
First of all, you have a dozen errors in this sentence. 1) "Evolution by random chance" 2) The insinuation that evolution has to do with the creation of original single cells 3) Citing an ambiguous number which cannot have any statistical basis in reality because not all of the facets of the subject are known by modern science, much less a statistician.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@GateMessenger
"Statistically speaking the odds of God causing everything to exist would be 1 : 1."
No it wouldn't because there's no precident or evidence of it, ergo you can't put a statistical value on it.
Your earlier formula has been repeated in varying levels through the creationist community, yet none of its proponents have ever shown their mathematical proofs or even divulged their parameters for calculation.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
This is the point at which somebody with a basic understanding of logic should go "Describing something complex implies the existence of your deity? Isn't that sort of a non-sequitur?"
Come on, /this doesn't prove anything/. Literally, all we have here is somebody pointing out the obvious (cells are complex), sticking their finger in the air and shouting "Yes! This means God exists!"
"The ocean is deep. That means Poseidon is real!"
Guinnesso 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Common man`s reasons why god does not exist A) total absence from from natural events, No sig of a god before, during or after natural events. B)The total absence of favoritism towards believers. Even church steeples need lightning rods for protection against god.C) The absence of any reaction, when crimes are committed in his name. D) The suffering of the innocent. One could accept suffering of the guilty, but little children
lizazoon 1 year ago
Doesn't this way of thinking lead you to ask the next question which is where did god come from? I dare say you have precisely answered nothing by invoking a god to explain the complexity of the cellular organelles.
khashayar44 1 year ago
@hotvid3 "the universal laws are the laws of God" is what I always say. I agree 100% with you.
bkzsoulja 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Exodus 21:17, KJV:
"And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hotvid3
Exodus 21:17, KJV:
"And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death."
qwertypoiu4321 1 year ago
this video in no way proves god exists. Just because something is complex doesn't mean god did it.
joeynap860 1 year ago
@joeynap860
Haha... you're a simpleton.
EllerySneed 1 year ago
@EllerySneed do you even know what a simpleton is? a person lacking intelligence or common sense A) you couldn't even remotely consider me one because of my background in the sciences and University degrees. B) You are probably a simpleton,i.e. you believe that god exists just because something is complex. this is an example of no common sense. chalking something up to "god" just cause it is hard to grasp.Derp.
joeynap860 1 year ago
@joeynap860
Oh but you are... you just think you're not because of a piece of paper hanging on your wall. Woop dee freakin doo, true knowledge exists in knowing that YOU know nothing. There is more evidence for God than against God, you just refuse to accept anything unless it points to what you want it too no matter how ridiculous your spin is.... ah well that's just how your religion of humanism works.
EllerySneed 1 year ago
@EllerySneed so tell me, what evidence is there. I am open minded and willing to hear your point of view. what evidence. show me.
joeynap860 1 year ago
@joeynap860
The problem is joey you are like every other atheist, so it really doesn't matter what I tell you, you've already come to your conclusion and everything else is shutdown.
EllerySneed 1 year ago
@EllerySneed still waiting for the evidence...
joeynap860 1 year ago
@EllerySneed
Why not provide examples of what you consider "evidence" of God, rather than just state "it exists?"
You've made up your mind that God exists and won't think otherwise as well.....talk about the pot calling the kettle black?
1ProudFemaleAtheist 1 year ago
@1ProudFemaleAtheist @joeynap860
Really?! I've made up my mind based on EVIDENCE. Atleast there's evidence, that's the difference between exposing evidence and you just shooting it down because you hate it, to not even having ANY at all like yourself. So... What proof and evidence can you provide that confirms atheism to be accurate and correct. If I'm going to abandon God, there better be some proof and evidence otherwise why would I just blindly follow the humanist religion of atheism??
EllerySneed 1 year ago
@EllerySneed
Your comment does not even make sense. Atheism does not put forth a set of beliefs that need to be proven. Atheism simply is a lack of belief in any supernatural deities - because there is NO EVIDENCE FOR THEM. What "evidence" are you saying you have? There isn't any. That's complete crap.
1ProudFemaleAtheist 1 year ago
@1ProudFemaleAtheist
You failed as it does make sense. You pretend it doesn't make sense so you have a "way out", it is indeed a belief. What proof or evidence can you provide that shows atheism to be accurate and correct. You can't be serious to believe that there is no evidence for your cause.... if there is no evidence than why are you following atheism? Just because.. maybe rebellion? ; )
There's plenty of evidence for God that you dismiss every day, so let's focus on your evidence!
EllerySneed 1 year ago
@EllerySneed
It does make sense. Name a tenet of atheism that needs to be proven? Atheism does not set forth any principles or beliefs or guidelines....period.
No, there is no evidence for God - why can't you give even one example of this "evidence" instead of just saying "it's there?"
I'm not "rebelling" against anything. Just stick to the point. What is your proof of
God?
1ProudFemaleAtheist 1 year ago
@EllerySneed
"What proof or evidence can you provide that shows atheism to be accurate and correct."
Why would you ask for proof and evidence of a position which rejects a claim? One isn't required to provide evidence for a lack of belief. Provide proof and evidence that Anti-Magic-Sandwichism is accurate and correct. Or anti-Flying-Spagetti-Monsterism is accurate and correct. Or anti-Hinduism is accurate and correct.
Tell shock to stop blocking people.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
You failed.
EllerySneed 1 year ago
@EllerySneed
Elaborate on that point, please...
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger
You provided no proof and or evidence, you can't reject something and then offer nothing with nothing to back it up. If I am to follow your way there better be a good reason for me to join the club...
EllerySneed 1 year ago
@EllerySneed
"You provided no proof and or evidence,"
1) I'm not an atheist, so I have no prerogative to "prove" atheism to you.
2) You've made the claim that a god exists, therefor if you want an atheist to believe it, the burden of proof falls on your to prove its existence, not an atheist to prove its non-existence.
3) Atheism wouldn't seek to prove non-existence of god, because its lack of belief in a claim of existence.
4) Tell shock I said hi, and he needs to unblock me.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@EllerySneed
"you can't reject something and then offer nothing with nothing to back it up."
Yes, I can, because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to prove. You can't just make a claim and declare yourself victorious if I don't provide evidence that you're absolutely wrong.
What you guys fail to realize is that the question is worded improperly. Consult your friend TogetherForPeace's vid for his thoughts about it. Also watch "The question no theist can answer".
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@EllerySneed
Here's a case study to help you understand:
I have a Bugatti Veyron in my garage. Its a 1.5 million dollar car, and I got the an accessory which also makes it invisible, untouchable, and undetectable except when it wants you to know it's there..
Provide proof and evidence that your disbelief of my claim is accurate and correct..
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger there is no way you can make a bugatti veyron invisible, and there might be such an accessory but it cannot disappear a whole car. and untouch able and undetectable. it does not have a mind of its own nor feeling so it can't let us know its there on its own. this is pure fantasy and make believe. if it were true wouldn't our military use it to attack ememies and intruders without being visible?
josephinemasih 11 months ago
@EllerySneed
Would you kindly divulge your subscriber and subscribed lists?
You look awfully Shockish...
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@EllerySneed
"What proof and evidence can you provide that confirms atheism to be accurate and correct. I"
A ShockOfGod follower, I see.
"otherwise why would I just blindly follow the humanist religion of atheism??"
Because one doesn't "Blindly follow" atheism. Atheism isn't a religion, its simply either a lack of belief, a reservation of judgment based on lack of evidence, or in some rare and extreme cases, the outright declaration of no god. Dawkins doesn't even accord to the third.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
why the guy in the description said "biblical" ???? assuming the wrong conclusion that it was intelligent design, it doesnt point to any god in particular.
And not all bacteria have flagello.
adriiPortillo 1 year ago
@hotvid3 no. it was odin. hmmm No, maybe zeus. No, its the explanation of vishnu. Nope. Maybe Xenu.
Your logic could be used to any god. Even chuck norris.
adriiPortillo 1 year ago
Michael Behe's argument that the Bacterial Flagellum is Irreducibly Complex was completely destroyed by Prof Ken Miller at the Dover vs Kitzmiller trial. Nature is incrededibly complex but Behe has yet to produce a single example of Irreducible Complexity that does not have any known precursors.
Behe = #FAIL
hexkid 1 year ago
oh lord... not JUST the idea of God but a BIBLICAL one at that. If there's one thing you can put your money and soul on it's the bible god being fictitious. And queue an angry american to reply to this comment.
cr0uchingtiger 1 year ago
@hotvid3 or the flying spaghetti monster. or any infinite number of possible scenarios. why jump to "god". I prefer the flying spaghetti monster, as it has just as much verifiable evidence for being true as yours - none.
sauronjag 1 year ago
@hotvid3 nay sir, it is the work of the magnificent flying spaghetti monster, or perhaps the tooth fairy with a touch added by santa. and equal amount of "proof" support these hypotheses.
science is used to understand reality, not mythology. please don't mix and match
sauronjag 1 year ago
I like how he states the teleological argument for creation at the end of the video. Sorry Jesus freaks but this is an opinion, not proof. Two very different things. I am not claiming that creationists or evolutionists are right, but the whole basis of the teleological argument is built on the foundation that evolution does not occur. The argument is that something so complex could not have just "happend", rather it must have been created by an intelligent being.
snowboardpnk540 1 year ago
Why can't God prove his own existence. Why is it that people always have to talk on behalf of God, why can't God speak for his own I mean has he not designed a mouth for himself to talk with ?
Poor suckers Religions and Gods are a man made culture developed over the ages.
If there where Gods we would not need religions.
Religions and churches is only a symbol for humans that they wish there where Gods.
Gods only exists when religious people open there mouth, when they shut the Gods are gone.
matforsbon 1 year ago
I love bio-molecular machines.Amazing complex designs.
Gordenacama 1 year ago
@hotvid3 I only add : 'science is the eplanation of God's work, when it is correct"..
the3dguy2 1 year ago
Indeed life is truly complex, but this is not proof for God.
Flippymoose01 1 year ago
Referencing the title:
No... it doesn't.
thesmootsays69 1 year ago
There could be a god. Make no mistake however - it is not the christian god. That bible book is the biggest crock of shit ever. I'll get a lot of flack for saying that, but anyone and everyone who has ever been truly educated on the events of biblical history knows - the bible is totally full of shit.
Perhaps there is a God, but don't just ASSUME that if there is one, it has to be the christian one. For all we know, it could be a god who has not presented itself to us in any way.
Bidon45 1 year ago
So Behe's only "evidence" is that cells are complex. Wow. FAIL.
Instead of this crap, I'd advise you watch Professor Carl Sagan on Abiogenesis, which shows how life came about, and no god was involved.
Behe = Idiot and liar.
MichaelJamesMaidment 1 year ago
If I said I believed in the tooth fairy you'd guys would call me crazy wouldn't you?
I fail to see the difference.
ruedjgtc 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
It is the beauty of imperfection which makes all things perfect as and when it all comes together as in the image of GOD.
derk1946 1 year ago
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
@Imaginefree69 excellent! The number of parasites, diseases and genetic anomalies capable of damaging human health goes far beyond 10,000!!!! If God did it, was he drunk?
Lima547 1 year ago
Its not a chance assemblage of parts. I hate it when creationists/theists make that argument because it is so blatantly false.
djk102391 1 year ago
this guy is plain and simple.. clueless
InsideReality 1 year ago
youtube is run by atheists and the illuminati
erichathy222 1 year ago
Cells of all kinds evolve to perform their functions over time. It doesn't mean they initially had these functions at all, they could have originated from absolutely nothing (e.g. big bang).
Just like how humans built technology from nothing, so life became from nothing just on the mere inclination of things to survive.
That doesn't prove any higher being's existence, it's just an irrelevant matter-of-fact description of how things progress.
JohnZobac 1 year ago
Comment removed
UnbledPassion 1 year ago
what is wrong with you, you bunch of morons.you debate knowing that you will never change your views, yet its so important for you to change others views. give it a rest. believe what you will. be resolute in your beliefs and shut the hell up about it
thomaspaine35 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The design argument does not support theism.
Science does not support theism
*End*
*of*
*story*
(to clarify, the poster of this video is a Christian pastor attempting to use science to support his theistic belief system)
torak101 1 year ago
Comment removed
torak101 1 year ago
I tried to settle this argument and typed in the equation for the law of probability to tell me the number of years to evolve from an atom to an amoeba. All my computer will say is Google Google Google its been over a week now. I think its sick.
petebax1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The very fact that christians insist upon the existence of their god
is evidence that their belief is tenuous.
I've been married for 32 years to my best friend and lover.
If someone were to tall me that she doesn't exist
I would smile, shrug, and go about my business.
That's what real belief does.
When you hear some guy going on and on
about how his wife really, really loves him
you can be certain that he's not exactly confident...
Imaginefree69 1 year ago
This is just another re-hash of the watchmaker argument. I suggest you go watch richard dawkin's "the blind watchmaker" if you think this proves god in any way or form.
rpyromaniac 1 year ago
Also, an outboard motor looks like that because it HAS to in order to be useful. if it were made any other way it would not push water and would become an abandoned boat. THINK ABOUT IT!
rpyromaniac 1 year ago
This is the most retarded video I've ever seen. Who the hell let an evangelist in the lab?
ScooterPops1214 2 years ago
its a waste of money to let religious people go to university..
very obvious !!!
robot014 2 years ago
I am studying biochem right now and it amazes me that people can look at biochemical systems and have the first thought in their head be "oh that was created by random chance". Almost as inconceivable as God is to us is what an actual cell performs in daily life. It begs for their to be a creator. Cells are infinitely more complex than any modern supercomputers we have and to think it arose from mere chance is ludicrous.
mafia67 2 years ago
its not random chance you stupid monkey.
rpyromaniac 1 year ago
what is wrong with you? Is it that hard to elucidate a thesis from someones writing? I said its not random chance. And calling people monkeys is a pretty unintelligent way of losing an argument.
mafia67 1 year ago
I wasnt aware there was an argument. Everyone's a stupid monkey. get over it.
rpyromaniac 1 year ago
The "Random Chance" fallacy again? I would advise you stop simply repeating what kent hovind told you and read a real book now and then. Evolution is NOT simpy "random chance".
Kerridor3 1 year ago
if its not random chance then that means there was design in it. Listen I believe a creator started the big bang and the parameters for science like the laws of physics. Everything came together logically. My viewpoint is hard to have because I get flack from both fundamentalists and atheists. My viewpoint is most similar to Newton and other Deists who believe in a scientific, logical "clockmaker" God. What do you guys think of my viewpoint?
mafia67 1 year ago
@ 1:22
Evolution (WTF is Darwinism?) has always expected that life could increase in complexity over time. It is not a surprise or a problem for evolution that what we see after many billions of years is hideously complex.
@ 2:11
Yep! It's not a chance assemblage of parts. It's living. Natural selection is a selective process. Selection is not random nor chance.
@ toddtyszka
Sorry, I didn't see the part where this proved God's existence or the Biblical Creation that plants came before the Sun.
rkyeun 2 years ago
Watched video, thought it was pretty neat. Read comments, LOL'D HARD because people still use youtube comments and think anyone takes them seriously. Come on people, stop caring so much, everyone thinks everyone that doesn't agree with them is stupid.
HatemasterGungbok 2 years ago
How does this video proves the Biblical Creation and the existence of God?! First it doesnt prove nothing because the organisms PROGRESSEVLY evolved. Second, God? or Ala? or Shiva? Bible? or Qur'an? or Vedas? You can't prove the existence of God. Would another person who never heard about your God come to the same conclusion? NO!! But we can't prove His non existence either. The CLOSEST we got from proving something was the Big Bang, there was nothing and then there was everything, even Time.
fabiques 2 years ago
@magick205 :: No nothing in the bible has ever been misproven, that stuff seems unbelievalbe, but nothing has acutally proved that it is not true. SO before you think you know what you're talking about check it.
tinagalarneau 2 years ago
"Misproven" isn't a word, and you're wrong anyway. The bible has over 440 direct contradictions.
Also, you're forgetting that whole Genesis part which is untrue.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
Which part of Genesis is untrue? And the bible is written over a long period of time, so things change over time, they're not contradictions.
tinagalarneau 2 years ago
The whole thing.
1) Light was not here before the sun and stars,
2) birds did not come before land animals.
4) The earth was not developed over 6 days
3) None of it happened.
Also, the genealogies are false, because the earth has been around a lot longer than 6000-10,000 years
You don't even know what contradictions its referring to, dude.
I think you should make a mental note that you just completely dispelled something without knowing its contents. You should have at least researched first.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago 2
@WeedGreenPowerRanger What if time was compressed? If the earth was created with age as if it had evolved over millions of years? What if having faith in the "conclusions" from the limited minds of humans won't give all the answers and lead to people missing truth? Is it honest that we need be aware, no matter how painful it may be to some, that our reasoning needs to be tempered by an awareness of how limited we are, how much we need help from an all knowing, omnipotent mind for direction?
Sluethy 1 year ago
@Sluethy
"What if time was compressed? "
Yes, and what if the moon were made of cheese? We could feed Africa... First you have to present evidence of your position to be taken seriously...
"If the earth was created with age as if it had evolved over millions of years?"
What if it was created 50 seconds ago when I started typing this with the same appearance?
What I find amazing is that in order to back up your position, you have to propose several breaks in the laws of physics.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@Sluethy
"What if having faith in the "conclusions" from the limited minds of humans won't give all the answers and lead to people missing truth?"
What if? What if? What if it can and will? What if the track record of history is that scientific understanding has always dispelled supernatural explanations? What if every supernatural thing in history has a scientific explanation?
Because thats what the track record has been.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@WeedGreenPowerRanger There is no track record for explaining the psi phenomena. There is no scientific explanation for how people can see glimpses into the future, precognition, before the events even take place. Some can see what will occur with 100% accuracy. How about remote viewing? Can that be explained too?
GateMessenger 1 year ago
@GateMessenger
"There is no track record for explaining the psi phenomena."
Thats because it's shoddy at best.
"There is no scientific explanation for how people can see glimpses into the future, precognition"
Because there are no falsifiable examples.
" Some can see what will occur with 100% accuracy. How about remote viewing? Can that be explained too?"
Again, you need to provide an unfalsifiable clear cut example. If this had happened, someone would have won the James Randi Challenge.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@Sluethy
"Is it honest that we need be aware, no matter how painful it may be to some, that our reasoning needs to be tempered by an awareness of how limited we are"
No, its not because it's never been an issue before, and assuming that we're wrong just so you can cling to whatever religious explanation you choose is cowardly at best, and fascist at worst.
Why do you automatically assume that we need god's help in explaining, when we're churning out TESTABLE explanations every day?
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
@Sluethy
" how much we need help from an all knowing, omnipotent mind for direction?"
What motivation would an all powerful being have in creating a universe that requires its help to understand?
As Star Trek put it: What does God want with a Star Ship?
And none of this provides any explanation on your part of why we should dispel everything we know from evidence in favor of your particular religion?
Is breaking the laws of physics the only way you can counter my points?
WeedGreenPowerRanger 1 year ago
tinagalarneau,
Yes, in fact it is a PROVEN fact that pi does not equal 3, but rather 3.1415926535.........
That is one thing that can literally be "proven" false, but as for the other things, it is not possible to "prove" that they are false, but it most certainly is possible to show that they are so improbable that they are not even worth considering to be true. For example, human flesh turning into salt. This absolutely contradicts physics and chemistry. So does the feeding of the masses.
ScientiaVeritasEtLux 2 years ago
So... "Matter can not be created nor destroyed." So how did the whole world come about, without anything being created, and we were just a big ball of water, and we're this now. hmm doesn't click.
tinagalarneau 2 years ago 2
The big bang is not the "creation" of matter. Nor is it the creation of energy. It is simply the beginning of energy and matter in the form that we see them today. I do not know how the energy got there in the first place. That's one of the problems that science is working on. It is possible that it always existed. M theory is also delving into some interesting areas that could explain it. Either way, the big *poof* described in the bible is impossible.
ScientiaVeritasEtLux 2 years ago
Reductionist naturalism is equivalent to the logic of "it's turtles all the way down". For those who don't know that story. (A naturalist was told that the Bible says, "the earth hangs on nothing". She, quipped back, "no it sits on the back of a great turtle. When asked what the turtle is on. "another". Again asked. She yelled, "it's turtles all the way down". Life can only be reduced so far and still be viable and evolvable. It would still be extremely complex.
Howie47 2 years ago
This sounds like complete insanity all the way through.
rpyromaniac 1 year ago
@tinagalarneau
They will not hear you. They put faith in themselves and the creation instead of the Creator...just like the Bible says. ;o
planterzs 2 years ago
Complexity builds on itself. Also, thee is no other explanation for homologous genes other than evolution.
Ramshobraja 2 years ago
Romans 1
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
planterzs 2 years ago
@planterzs First of all, you trying to be high speed by taking quotes out of context is folly. God will be upset with you for trying to subvert His word. After all.. you can't use presumption by fundamentalist arguments to discredit anything. You are attributing the unknown by the written words of men! Aside from quote 19, the other two are purely nonsense that you have likely practiced into meaning. Typical, I hope you will someday be more adventurous than schroedinger's kitty.
Member3285 2 years ago
@Member3285
lol I'm not taking anything about of context. You can go read the Bible yourself.
God is not completely unknown to me. For one, he wrote his laws into my heart and these laws we're refined when I accepted Jesus Christ. Second, I can look at the universe and see that everything in it was created and designed by Him.
A simple study of ALL religions and science in a sincere search for the truth will inevitably lead a person to Christianity.
planterzs 2 years ago
Did you? Did you made a simple study of All relegions? With a open Mind?
Is what you're saying statistically proven?
Just checking if you are making bland statements or not ;-P take care
fabiques 2 years ago
So because something is relatively small and complex to human sensory perception, it proves that we can perceive something infinitely absolute by the same sensory operation? Last I checked, relativity was easier to quantify than the infinite.
All this proves is that Michael is a student of probabilities to say evolution cannot happen on the scale of human bio-complexity.. yet is by ignoring specific variance that he makes his claim.
This is like a chemist disregarding isotopes.
Member3285 2 years ago
When Darwin envisioned evolution; it was believed single celled life was very simple. Just a few compounds that replicated itself. That's why he believed it would be easy for it to evolve into existence. Darwin was wrong. The simplest life known is very complex. Behe shows in this vid how complex the simplest life is. The first life had to be created. Then we mind as well assume the creation stories are true. Life started with all the major phylum.
Howie47 2 years ago
Indeed, Darwin was proven incorrect long ago, evolution was not. That does not prove creation.
The "proof" creationsists require relies on everything that "is not". For every advance in science there will be a never-ending quantity of "that which has not been figured out yet".
People will try to label it, try to understand it, and in doing so they contradict the very definition of the unknown. This is the concept of God and creation; an attempt to quantify that which has no quantity. = )
Member3285 2 years ago
yes evolution was not misproven (yet) buut, parts of evolution was, whereas nothing in the bible has ever been misproven.
tinagalarneau 2 years ago
@tinagalarneau: "whereas nothing in the bible has ever been misproven."? Really? So, bats are birds? Pi=3? Basha fighting with Judah after being dead 10 years? Please. Finding the BS in that statement is just too easy.
magick205 2 years ago
bringing up the fact that darwin was ignorant on a few matters is a cheap copout. Darwin is dead and he's been dead for over a hundred years. Modern biologists do not care about darwin any more other than as a brilliant scientists who laid the basic foundations for a very powerful Scientific Theory. Modern biologists are aware of the complexity of cells. Behe isn't pointing out something new. We've know of the complexity there. It does not disprove evolution by natural selection.
ScientiaVeritasEtLux 2 years ago
Did you (we) know that the chromosome cannot live out side the cell the nurtures and protects it. That the cell can't live with out the chromosome that maintains and causes it to reproduce! Darwin said that if any thing that is irreducibly complex was found, his theory would be proved false.
Come out of the Darkness. Read " Signature in the Cell ". If you dare! Where did the Plan for life, written on the DNA come from??????????? "God created each kind with it's seed in it". Geniuses.
Howie47 2 years ago
lol, the chromosome/cell relationship is not irreducibly complex. you're doing exactly what Behe does, and that's looking at a modern day, highly complex "symbiosis" of parts and saying "ok, if you separate them they have no function". Well you're ignoring that they haven't always been like that. They evolved from much simpler symbioses over an unbroken chain of intermediates to the present day form. Irreducible complexity proponents totally ignore evolutionary processes in their arguments.
ScientiaVeritasEtLux 2 years ago
ScientiaV: Well you're ignoring that they haven't always been like that. They evolved from much simpler symbioses over an unbroken chain of intermediates to the present day form. " That idea isn't scientific in the least. Science fiction!?
It's not observable. Not happening today. Can't be duplicated in the lab. It's pure hype. Real science relies on what we observe. Not on fairy tales like that you have provided us.
Howie47 2 years ago
that's ridiculous. Just because it happened in the past doesn't mean we can't observe it, just like we can't directly observe an asteroid hitting the earth 65 million years ago, and can't reproduce it, we can still observe it indirectly. It is extremely easy to imagine intermediate forms, for example going from simple micelles or liposomes with bits of genetic material in them, to simple bacteria with small "nucleoid regions", to eukaryotic cells with a single rudimentary chromosome, to today.
ScientiaVeritasEtLux 2 years ago
I didn't say it can't be observed. I said it isn't observed. "seen"; and imaging some thing, as you put it. Is not the same as observing it. You can use your imagination all you want. But it isn't real science until you can prove it experimentally. Not with mind experiments. But with real duplicable, laboratory, physical experiments. Other wise we're just discussing hypothetical, philosophical possibilities, that have no relevance to science.
Howie47 2 years ago
I did NOT say that the evidence is in imagining you. You intentionally warped and twisted what I said. I said that the intermediates for a cell/chromosome symbiosis exist today and can be seen to be fully functional. Just as intermediates to the bacterial flagellum can be seen to exist today and are functional. Irreducible complexity ignores intermediates and tries to look at a modern day mechanism and basically say, "wow, this is complex, no way it popped up fully formed". Ignoring evolution.
ScientiaVeritasEtLux 2 years ago
Picking parts out of a living cell, and saying they could be intermediaries of the simplest living cell, or system, is fake. You must show a simpler form of viable living cell or system. That could live long enough, or keep a system viable long enough to evolve; and do so with out having all the major parts that the simplest forms of life or essential systems are known to have. Exp: Viable life with out either, "chromosome", "code (plan of itself), a viable metabolism. That evolves.
Howie47 2 years ago
You need to take a cellular biology class. You learn all of the questions you're asking.
WeedGreenPowerRanger 2 years ago
these intermediates exist/can exist today, showing that the intermediates are feasible. Things go from simple to complex in evolution. Intermediates of obvious and simple to explain. Your argument is moot, and so is irreducible complexity.
ScientiaVeritasEtLux 2 years ago
Romans 1
19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
planterzs 2 years ago
You can find evidence for anything if your willing to rationalize from nonsense. Actual proof would be something like shaking hands or running for your life.
Piscivorus 2 years ago
Comment removed
Piscivorus 2 years ago
The ID Creationism movement is nothing more than the work of religious groups trying to gain control of public science education. Multiple court decisions have summarily trashed their claims and identified their efforts as purely religious. Do not be fooled. These people care nothing about good science. They will return the next generation of our children to the Dark Ages and make us the laughing stock of the world when it comes to science education.
charadester 2 years ago
i'd rather trust science than a book
Heezy2090 2 years ago
Things evolve all the time with new ingenious ways doesn't mean god did it, this is what people always do if you can't explain some event or life form say it must have been gods doing.
even if there is such a thing as a divine being it didn't create bacteria or elephants on purpose but merely made the snow ball roll down the hill
Devoidist 2 years ago 2
@Devoidist I'll bet ya the next t-rex/archeoptrix or trilobite found is not a fossil at a midway point but just like the ones found so far...
20t-rexes all the same stage
9 archeoptryix all the same stage
millions of trilobites
its a deck of cards w/ all 10's in it (the creation model
if evolution were true you pic a variety of numbers more than any one stage
so bet me or stop prtending evilution is true
ncwdane 1 year ago
This has all been debunked in a court of law. Micheal Behe was shown to be a fraud and a tard.
ndyt 2 years ago
sooo... because one religion doesn't have the need for self, it MUST be true, well atheism doesn't have the need of a God, does that make atheism true. Another thing, ALMOST EVERYTHING CHRISTIANITY CLAIMS HAS BEEN CLAIMED ALL BEFORE, THE 10 COMMANDMENTS WERE WRITTEN IN EGYPTIAN TOMBS BEFORE MOSES, EVERY RELIGION HAS HAD THINGS LIKE, A CHILD BORN OF A VIRGIN, 3 MEN FOLLOWING A STAR TO THE BIRTH, CHRISTIANITY IS DEJA VU
spardaking 2 years ago
Jesus is God. Romans chapter 1 is a nice chapter to read. Also Psalms chapter 2. Psalm 53. All good chapters. Repent, do not your pride of knowledge cause you to stumble. How smart are you? compared to Almighty God?
chews4life 2 years ago
These religious people jump on the band wagon of science to prove their invisible man in the sky is really there......Science does not prove the existence of god.
forensickat 2 years ago
Michael Behe has been defeated on this Irreducible Complexity argument so many times, that I'm starting to think he's just a glutton for pain and humiliation.
AHPMB 2 years ago
Indeed you are right. Behe is a psychologically interesting individual.
The flagellum might be called irreducibly complex but since the parts can also be used for extraction that is no problem for it to evolve over time. Behe seems honest so he must realize this once it has been shown to him.
Also Behe takes a very strange position as he claims intelligent design but still has the honesty to acknowledge that common descent has strong enough evidence to support it.
frilans 2 years ago
I agree. It's interesting to read different editions of Behe's textbook over-time, because he's been forced to slowly give ground to real science. It's starting to reach a point now where he's alienating his former colleagues because of what he's been forced, by the overwhelming weight of evidence to concede.
AHPMB 2 years ago
EVOLUTION IS 100% FACT!!!!!!! 100% FACT, IT HAS BEEN PROVEN, IT HAS BEEN SEEN!!!!!!!!!!!! EG. The African elephants were hunted for their tusks, elephants with bigger tusks were hunted more, so the African elephant's tusks have shrunk in size, the Asian elephants tusks are much bigger, we have seen fossils of African elephants with trunks TEN TIMES AS HEAVY, The whale has hind legs inside its body, why, because it used to be a land animal
spardaking 2 years ago
How is that proof? All they can say is that cells are complex. Complexity is NOT proof of creation.
leifey 2 years ago 3
Lee Patrick Strobel (born January 25, 1952 in Arlington Heights, Illinois) is a writer and Christian apologist and a former journalist and megachurch pastor. He only has a journalism degree, no science degree. Same degree as Palin and just as retarded. His junk has been debunked in a court of law.
ndyt 2 years ago 2
One word: Kitzmiller.
Look it up.
amoxtlacatl 2 years ago
just because there may be a designer doesn't mean its was God
rudeawakeningxxx 2 years ago
thats bullshit figure where did you find that, in your ass
stopbeingcowards 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RobertBaral365 2 years ago
what is a DNA unit? does he mean base pair? If he can't use correct terms, why believe him?
cbernier3 2 years ago 2
Friendoflord.. i couldent agree more.. god is ridiculously obvious.
badass1163 2 years ago
How... A God would need an extreme amount of evidence, as it is an extreme claim, there is barely any (if any) plausible evidence of a possible creator, if so, what creator is it, Ra Isis, Osiris, Odin, Loki, Thor, Thoth, Nut, Kefnut, Yahweh, Poseidon, Zeus, Afrodites, Allah, Vishnu, Kanish. Theism alone is unrealistic, but, Monotheism is even more unrealistic, Omniscience is also a flaw, why would God give Adam and Eve the choice to eat the fruit if he knew the answer...
spardaking 2 years ago
haha sorry dude theres to many answers but when i feel better ill try to answer some. its all in the eye of the beholder. remember its not desire that determines truth, but logic.
badass1163 2 years ago
"it is really silly to jump to the conclusion that there is a designer." as is to jump to a conclusion that there is no designer.
To Look at the world we live on the complexity of life, not to include the vastness of space which can now be seen. one does not need to be a scientist to see that there is a designer, and our lives are more than chance, accident.
Friendoflord 2 years ago
well said friend
spiritsword83 2 years ago
um no. just because there is a large diversity of things doesn't mean a supreme being created them.
acdcislaw 2 years ago
just because we dont know yet does not mean we have to jump to conclusions of design either,500 years ago people thought the world was flat, because they had no knowledge otherwise, that does not mean that it WAS flat, or any other illogical conclusions they had came to, such as"you would simply fall off"just because we cant see the vastness of space,doesnt mean it was created,its the same concept,tell me,when we do discover the reaches of space,what backpeddling excuse will christians use then?
gnigged68 2 years ago
Do you believe in aliens?
peter9106 2 years ago