@mogley52 something like 99 % of dna between chimps and humans at aligned base pairs are the same. chimps have blood, bones, eyes and all that other stuff that we have. there's even a kid in china who has "cat eyes". he has the same reflective material behind his retina that cats and dogs do. thats because humans share a common ancestor with some nocturnal animal. Reflective eyes have a benefit. these are called atavisms. /watch?v=L2XeDo8vaY8
Interesting post. Honestly, haven't followed your posts or much of youtube for a while. Would like to hear more about what convinced you the Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection is true. What were you studying/reading when the thought transition occurred? How/when did you learn about the biology of evolution? (You may recall, we talked in a discussion room years ago, I believe you were a ungrad sophmore then)
I have always understood evolution fairly well (better now than when I was younger of course). For some reason I have always had an interest in biology. It was mostly the answering of objections that I had to evolution which made me open to it. I was also reading Genesis again right before I came to accept evolution. A surprising number of things jumped out at me that made me think the conflict between evolution and creation was all in my head.
@MoveOrder That's not true. I used to believe the earth was about 6,000 years old and I reflecting on it I wouldn't consider my past self completely irrational and hopeless. There are going to be people who stick to comfort and don't put the effort to challenge their beliefs and there are those that are resistant to new ideas. But that's not true of everyone that just so happens to have a belief.
@MoveOrder Actually it does. Many Christians believe that the Bible teaches that the world has to be very young. If you know nothing about science and you already believe in magic what's the difference between billions and a few thousand years when god poofed everything into existence anyways?
@MoveOrder Yeah but you can't take all these people's beliefs in isolation and judge them simply based on those isolated beliefs. You have to look at their overall belief system and why they believe the bible must be true in the first place. I don't know if you were ever raised in a very Christian home, but Christianity is indoctrinated quite well.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
@Mogley52 I wish the Bible was compatible with evolution and it didn't teach eternal suffering, but unfortunately it does. What is also unfortunate is barely any theists put effort defending those views, so that it's always atheist vs fundamentalist and the majority of people who are somewhere in between are not heard.
If you found this through study, it is surprising that you have not found articles that explain how the Bible and Christianity evolved from earlier religions.
The everlasting torture in hell sticks in many Christians' eyes, but it is not the only thing that is wrong with the Bible.
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
@Mogley52 "UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy" if you're saying life couldn't have evolved because entropy predicts that life wouldn't evolve because life steadily increases in complexity, you'd be wrong. earth is not a closed system. the biosphere gets energy from geothermal vents and the sun.
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation. Also read my Internet article, ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH! According to a Newsweek article quoting a NASA scientist, in the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (now meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil.
The word "yom" has been used multiple times in the Bible, some referring to literal 24 hour periods, other referring to various and even very long periods of time. Even if we want to take Genesis as literal, I don't think the literal interpretation necessarily implies a young earth.
@Epydemic2020 True but when used with a numeric always denotes a 24 hour period. My problem is not with old earth but when people twist the Hebrew to fit a doctrine of old earth
I have asked that one before, I guess I didn't catch it on camera tho. I don't think my mom trusts that I am right about my starlight argument, and my Dad seemed to see the merit in that inductive argument. Neither of them are that committed to the age of the earth type arguments.
Saying God created =/= saying "God created instantaneously without using evolution". Even if you think he did create Adam and/or Eve spontaneously, that wouldn't undermine evolution either.
As to the age of the earth, the answer isn't intuitively obvious. If you haven't heard the evidence, you can't expect to come to the right conclusion.
@Epydemic2020 "that wouldn't undermine evolution either" Question: What would undermine evolution? I can't think of any way that it could be done, seeing as how it is basically unfalsifiable. A person can point to all sorts of evidence against it, but an evolutionist can always hide behind the idea that evolution wouldn't be observed in the short run, it takes a long time. It doesn't matter how unlikely evolution is, it's better than belief in God for many.
The fossile record has an order to it. At the lowest levels you find invertebrates, next up jawless fish show up, then jawed fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then early mammals, then dinosaurs, then monkeys, then modern mammals.
Find a single mammal in the first three layers and you disprove evolution.
@Epydemic2020 Fossil records cannot be used to prove or disprove evolution because they don't explain how something happened, only that it happened. What scientific method, which is observable, could be used to falsify evolution? Evolution by a combination of mutation and natural selection, that is.
Showing a mammal in one of the earlier layers would show that the mammal existed prior to when evolutionists said it must have evolved. That would indeed disprove the theory. It wouldn't show "evolution is impossible", but it would show "evolution didn't happen with that mammal on earth".
@Epydemic2020 'It wouldn't show "evolution is impossible"' I doubt evolutionists are concerned with bad odds, as long as it's possible it would still be a viable theory. If I have understood you correctly, there is really no way to disprove evolution, just force a new conception of the theory. So, to disprove the theory we would just hope to one day get lucky? That is hardly scientific.
Nope, some things would completely falsify evolution.
For instance, if a human gave birth to a dinosaur (ironically the kind of thing Creationists ask for in order to accept evolution!) or we found that humans were around before the Cambrian etc. etc. etc. The list of things which would prove evolution false is pretty much endless.
@danmeast "What scientific method, which is observable, could be used to falsify evolution?" You are confusing science with empiricism. If science were restricted only to areas where experiments could be run in real time, many fields of study,such as cosmology,astrophysics,geology and the forensic sciences, would not exist.
My parents would never sit down in front of a camera with me because my parents willingly lie to try to keep their faith and ignorance. They've actually all out told me this, I'ce shown them wrong on every point but they still say I haven't to this day. I have flash cards with references and pictures now that I keep in a handy binder in my truck whenever I visit just for the science denial sessions. It especially works well when they have company over, they don't usually try anymore now lol.
In my opinion we shouldn't have to change the word evolution just because older people don't know what it is or were givin wrong information about it. I've had this conversation with my parents as well.
I'm fascinated that people actually still read the Bible litteraly... Even the early Church Fathers like Origen or St Augustine rejected the litteral interpretation of First Genesis...
I'm also fascinated that people dont search the actual truth, they want to be comforted in their beliefs. I'm a Catholic because evidence leads me there. I would gladly admit I am wrong in the face of evidence. I don't base my views and interpretation on the prior fact of me being a believer...
I am a very open minded Christian and believe in Scientific theories. It seems the Mum and Dad need to be educated better, I'm sure they are good parents but to say the earth is 6000 years old is beyond ridiculous, there is NO biblical statement which suggests the earth is that young, and to say there is, they would be lying to themselves.
@EddieEmz26 I am an atheist. I wanted to ask you how do you reconcile the Story of Adam and Eve in the bible( and eve being created from Adam's rib) with the Theory of Evolution. In my vopinion they seem contradicting.
Whether you think of Adam and Eve's story as literal or even highly allegorical it doesn't contradict evolution. Eve could literally be made out of Adam's rib, that doesn't mean evolution doesn't work for the rest of mankind. I think it uses figurative language to tell a literal story (ie mankind coming from the dust of the ground is mankind ultimately rising from a primordial soup)
@EddieEmz26 And even if there were a verse that states the Earth is 6000 years old... it wouldn't be a good reason to believe it.
The Bible must be interpreted in the light of modern knowledge.
To simply reject obvious FACTS in order to stay within the boundaries of personnal theological interpretation in what we Catholic call the "sacrificium intellectus"... the sacrifice of the intellect.
Fides ET Ratio (Faith AND Reason)... that's our great motto :)
I'm a creationist Christian and here's a few reasons why. Mutations are to the genetic code what grammical errors are to an essay. They'll never add new information (beneficial mutations), they'll either be neutral (a negative mutation so small it doesn't make a difference) or negative. The irreducible complexity argument for certain biological mechanisms and entire living organims is also very strong. All the hoax transitional fossils don't help either. God bless you, I subbed. :)
Interesting. I hope to cover those points next time I interview a creationist that is well versed in creationist arguments.
I can perhaps understand someone arguing that beneficial mutations don't happen "often enough" for evolution to work, but I don't understand people arguing that they are all neutral or negative. There are examples to the contrary like "nylonaise" or "cecal valves" in Italian wall lizards.
@Epydemic2020 The ability to eat nylon does not indicate that there is a new species emerging from a different species. Such a fantasy is a biological impossibility for which there is absolutely no evidence, has never happened, and will never happen.
I have never heard nylonaise put forward as an argument for speciation, and that wasn't why I brought it up here. Nylonaise is just an example of a beneficial mutation.
@Epydemic2020 I understand that, but there is no evidence that the adaptation could somehow be the result of a mutation, and even if it were, that would not offer any support for darwinian mythology.
It may be too much to say that randomly mutating pre-existing genetic code could never result in an apparent benefit. Concerning cecal valves, food for thought:
pnas.org/content/105/12/4792.full.pdf
Their stomachs changed (perhaps over generations) when their diet changed; the article did mention “phenotypic plasticity and/or maternal effects” as possible alternatives to random mutation pg. 3 (after the stomach images).
Interesting article. There were many changes in the ancestral and new population. The cecal valve in particular can't be explained by maternal effects, because it is present even in the youngsters.
"phenotypic plasticity", on the other hand, is something I don't understand very well.
I think the maternal effects are those which specifically affect the traits of offspring due to effects (such as those from environmental changes) on the mother- (this term may be evolving into ‘parental effects’). This is the impression I received from the 1st 2 pages of:
“What Is an Adaptive Environmentally Induced Parental Effect?”
libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/E_Lacey_What_1998.pdf
If I interpreted it correctly, the youngsters would be affected.
To be more specific about what gave me that impression, (to save some reading) near the bottom of page 2:
“A parental effect begins when a parent genotype responds to some signal. That response induces the transmission of information along one or several transmission pathways. Both the response and transmission pathways may have genetic components…The parental effect is the end product of that transmission, the phenotypic modification of an offspring trait.”
I can also relate to keeping an open mind when considering biblical texts, whether or not certain things are literal or analogy; but what I don’t think will survive severe scrutiny (really putting the screws to it, as I’ve heard it said) is the present confidence in the power of random mutation/natural selection. I like your approach; it seems very deliberately balanced and honest. God bless :)
@Epydemic2020 The first thing is people need to understand evolution A) doesn't speak to the creation of life ( which is why I say I'm a creationist that believes in evolution, just to be throughly confusing to everyone) and B) Evolution is the end results of many processes that includes does include mutations but also more common methods (natural selection, gentic drift etc.) As you already stated, mutations not adding new information is dated bad science.
"As you already stated, mutations not adding new information is dated bad science."
I didn't say that.
What I said was that I don't understand how people can argue no mutations are beneficial. We can see examples of beneficial mutations. I think creationists ought to argue that beneficial mutations can happen, but that they don't happen often enough. I don't think that argument works, but it is better than saying no beneficial mutations ever occur.
@Epydemic2020 Well I didn't mean to put words in your mouth but you kinda did, the comment was beneficial mutations do not occur and gave clear examples that they have. My point was simply that these are regurgitated arguments that have been passed on by numerous creationist websites that expectedly do not updated as new information is learned. But I see your point that frequency of mutations is at least a more accurate argument.
@ubermechazillatron think your comparsion is actaully a semi-decent way to explain evolution. Overtime, languages-- including grammar and defintions-- do in fact change. Mutations are just one method of evolution and your claim the mutations do not add new information is simply inaccurate. I know where you're coming from, I've spent way to much time on "answersingenesis" trying to disprove evolution, hopefully eventually you'll atleast see there is not Bibical reason to.
@stevenp25100 Yes, grammar and definitions do change over time, but it's by people and not random chance. And my first post was a little sloppy. I do believe that "beneficial" mutations and adaptations can occur, but I don't believe beneficial mutations adding new information to the genome can occur. Even if a handful of examples were reported, that still wouldn't suffice in proving billions and billions and billions occured to have all living things come from one common ancestor.
@ubermechazillatron "but it's by people and not random chance" Just like evolution, it's a little of both. The most common form of evolution is Natural selection and reproductive success which is not random.
Also, pretty lame how you say You "don't believe... new information to the genome can occur" but then back track "even if a handful". Examples have already been given to you so there is no reason to keep your first "belief". Why the outright resistence to new information?
One objection is that it is observable and repeatable that when a complex, functional code is subjected to repeated random mutations/changes, the overall effect is the corruption of the code and degradation of code-dependent processes. Technically one couldn’t prove that random mutations wouldn’t eventually result in some apparent benefit, but it certainly hasn’t been proven that random mutations are the source of the wealth of functional information found in living organisms.
@stevenp25100 Neo darwinism teaches that mutations (random) can cause, in rare instances, new beneficial information to arise in the genome. Natural selection is the "quality control" of these mutations (which is also a semi-random process). I was given two examples which were flawed (I'll give you some articles). Also, two examples (even if true) would not suffice in supporting the billions and billions of mutations needed. I'm open to evidence, I just haven't got any.
So as a christian. Why do you think god made mankind in a way that they'd be more inclined to commit infanticide than to understand atomic theory. The latter which is symbolic for science, something which is absolutely indispensable in the quest to reduce human suffering.
@ForYeensSake If you're wondering. The reason why I'm asking this is because I saw you comment concerning why god didn't pass on the theory of evolution via the bible. I think you hugely belittle the suffering caused by a lack of knowledge.
I have no idea. Probably for the same reasons he didn't explain gravity, electricity, or cosmology to us. I just don't think that's the purpose of the book.
@Epydemic2020 "I just don't think that's the purpose of the book." It's the only tangible communication from Him or so-called evidence 4 His existence so u'd think it would have important, timeless, info in it. For a creator of everything, imho He lacks in communication skills & left out many things that could've avoided pain, suffering and death,
@1GodOnlyOne "Because God doesn't explain unscientific myths -- it is beneath his station." Evolution is a scientific theory and not a myth. So I guess that talking snake and that ark filled with 2 of every kind was oh so scientific? Sorry, but there's PLENTY of myth in God's Book!
I think belieiving in JC and what He did IS a "matter of opinion" as much as anything else. And we are a people who have supposedly HAD a Savior since the beginning and it hasn't helped us yet. Regardless of my disagreement, I respect the fact that u r open to varying opinions. Great parents=great kids...;)
I never understood the war between creationists and evolutionists even when I WAS a Xtian becuz there doesn't NEED to be a conflict. They can work together.
@YaleBreaker ""Work together"? Why should theologians have any say in science?" I said the THEORIES can work together not that theologians n scientists ought to...lol! A creationist can say God created evolution and an evolutionist can say IF there were a god, It created evolution.
@Epydemic2020 2 last questions with regards to your view.. how do you explain the language of the the Book of Genesis.. because a clear reading of it shows that the writers were writing a literal story not an allegory or a symbolic metaphor, so what is your view of the Book of Genesis and how do you fit evolution into that view? Also if you hold to a metaphorical/allegorical view of the Book of Genesis, how do you explain Noah's ark and the Flood?
Whether you take a literal or allegorical interpretation of Genesis, neither has to be inconsistent w/ evolution. That being said, I think there are pretty good arguments for different interpretations, which explains why people have interpreted that passage differently long before evolution ever made its way onto the scene.
Believing part of a book is allegorical does not mean you think the entire book is allegorical. For example...
Genesis has a lot of poetry in it. Even if you are a biblical literalist you can't help but realize that. It actually has an interesting pattern. It gives a narrative, then follows by poetic recap. One book, even one chapter, can have elements of poetry, allegory, narrative, etc. The Bible is like any other book in that respect.
@Epydemic2020 Interesting responses. Thank you for replying. I have one last question, how can a literal interpretation of Genesis NOT be inconsistent with evolution? Since if you believe that God literally created Adam the first man out of dust and the first women out of his rib that is strikingly different from the evolutionary view.. I believe that a literal interpretation of Genesis will always be inconsistent with evolution whether naturalistic or theistic.. how would you answer that?
You can believe that God literally created mankind, that there was literally a garden of eden, that there was literally an adam and an even without reading between the lines and position that instantaneous special creation was involved. Given the most literal view you could go with I think that only difference would be positing that Eden is a special place which is unlike the rest of the world.
@Epydemic2020 So what's your technique for distinguishing "literal" truth with "poetic" truth? Is your strategy to take statements in the Bible as literal truth until more accurate versions of those statements are given in other fields?
@1GodOnlyOne The first one I say literal, because unlike, for instance, God claims, it's a fairly reasonable statement to take literally. Shark encounters could cost arms and legs. Why not computers? Maybe you're making a joke about this by using a well-known idiom.
When you say $1,000, I say you're being figurative, since there is no computer on the market that costs $1,000.00.
@1GodOnlyOne Actually, scrap that. I have a better one:
Einstein says, "God does not play dice with the universe." Is he being literal, or figurative?
If he's being figurative, is it not possible that every mention of God in the Bible is intended figuratively as well? Is perhaps the voice of God nothing more than a poetic metaphor for the conscience or the collective unconscious?
@Epydemic2020 Since you are a theistic evolutionist, can you please explain to me where is the scientific evidence which shows that God intervened throughout the process of evolution? It seems to me you are just inferring that he intervened because of your Christian presuppositions that you hold to be true.. also do you think purposeless godless naturalistic evolution is compatible with the belief in the Chrisitan god?
I don't think God had to intervene in the process of evolution. I think that is possible, but I'd also think that a God who is omnipotent would be able to create a process where intervention wasn't necessary if He didn't want to.
I think any view that has God setting the constants that govern the universe and being omniscience entails that whatever end results come out of evolution are the ones God foresaw and intended.
The "common template" idea that you discuss with your parents is an important one, but it isn't just that the same designs have been re-used over and over in the manner of an artist trying out designs in different combinations, it is that variations can be classified into a neat family tree with more complex organisms in the outer branches rather than a criss-crossing network of similarities. This hierarchical pattern of similarities is exactly what you'd expect if this is a tree of speciation.
The problem of course is that you cannot be a Christian and believe in Evolution. A Christian follows the supposed teaching of Jesus as written down in the NT, where he repeatedly and explicitly affirms the Pentateuch as being the divinely inspired writings of Moses. So, whilst you choose to call yourself a Christian, you are in fact someone who has developed their own superstitions based loosely on the NT.
Your speculation just isn't how things actually went. It was reading Genesis on my own w/out trying to rely on the understanding of my culture that lead me to think there was no inconsistentcy w/ evolution, and only after that did I actually come to think evolution was true.
I am not rejecting the Pentateuch, and I am not basing anything having to do w/ evolution on the New Testament.
@Epydemic2020 I think you will find that the story of Noah's Ark was also supposedly written by Moses; and affirmed as such by Jesus [supposedly]. Therefore you accept the story of Noah's Ark or you put into question the whole of Genesis and the all words attributed to Jesus. I think you are playing pik-n-mix.
@mclane6553 ...and there are at least two stories in the Noah thread. You can clearly de-splice them in places and see the separate authorship. But if you want to play games then you can ask me questions. I study the bible on a continual basis as part of my own small campaign to rid society of superstitious belief systems.
@mclane6553 If you want a debate then you need to put some points across. My videos are aimed at a certain audience. I suspect I know more concerning paleontology than you do. And, whilst my geology is weaker, I am certain I have a rudimentary grasp on plate tectonics and glaciation; enough to explain mountain and valley formation.
I repeat, if you have a point to make, please do so.
To take a different tack, don't you think there is a moral inconsistency between evolution & a benevolent creator?
Remember, the algorithm of evolution is "create more offspring than will survive to adulthood, then selectively exterminate the ones who are genetically ill-equipped." In naturalism this is just a brute fact; no one is to blame. In theism + evolution, this is how the creator chose to make complex life. You can think of crueler ways to do it, but you have to be clever.
Given Christianity in specific there is a reason death and suffering every come into the picture, and that is sin. Whether Satan's sin, humanities sin.. whatever, either way suffering is a result of sin. God takes the broken and works all things together for good.
I'm confused. I was under the impression that your view was roughly "God chose to create all creatures via the process natural selection." Well, natural selection is *all about* lots and lots of death. It wouldn't work without death.
How could sin affect the method God chose to create complex life?
(Or am I misunderstanding your views on theistic evolution, or your theodicy?)
It is just a misunderstanding of my particular brand of theistic evolution. I think given bibical passages that say Satan is the prince/ruler of the earth, that suggest Satan's sin precedes mankind, that say the wages of sin is death, and that suggest "eden" is seperate from the rest of the earth, that even given a literal interpretation of events having suffering exist on "earth" before Adam's sin still makes sense.
Hm... are you saying that god set evolution in motion but satan is responsible for the suffering inherent in it? It might help to give a thumbnail summary of your view of theistic evolution.
That's certainly something I see as a viable option. I don't think the Bible attempts to explain that one for us, so there are many ways in which one could speculate.
@Huttate1 "Divinely inspired" is not synonymous "literally true". Poetry is often spoken of in spiritual terms - "inspiration" or one's "Muse" - but deals primarily in imagery and metaphor, not factual accuracy.
@YaleBreaker People rarely get slaughtered over poetry. Once literal truth is questioned for part of a work then the entire work is thrown open to question. This is the issue with the wooly 'Christians' who are content with ignoring, for instance, Jesus' blatant racism and bigotry in Mark or dismiss certain aspects of Genesis as fable but then declare that the bits they choose to believe are to be accepted as fact.
Let me play the devil's advocate here: why is your reliance on probability a sound reasoning strategy when it comes to the super-natural (gods). What reasons would one have to say: being xyz is not bond by physical laws etc., but when it comes to creation we assume the most probable explanation to be true. Mind well, that the probability of an explanation rests firmly on your knowledge of the primer. Please show me where I went wrong.
Let me play the devil's advocate here: why is your reliance on probability a sound reasoning strategy when it comes to the super-natural (gods). What reasons would one have to say: being xyz is not bond by physical laws etc., but when it comes to creation we assume the most probable explanation to be true. Mind well, that the probability of an explanation rests firmly on your knowledge of the primer. Please show me where I went wrong.
Let me play the devil's advocate here: why is your reliance on probability a sound reasoning strategy when it comes to the super-natural (gods). What reasons would one have to say: being xyz is not bond by physical laws etc., but when it comes to creation we assume the most probable explanation to be true. Mind well, that the probability of an explanation rests firmly on your knowledge of the primer. Please show me where I went wrong.
While I am an atheist, I still enjoy your chats along these lines. I think the reason is because of the gentle way you hold onto your beliefs and respect those of your interview subjects yet still challenge them on what you understand to be the best understanding from your scientific understanding of the available evidence. I am seeing some of the roots of misunderstanding about evolution and creationism through this openness.
Thanks. I think misunderstandings are usually what prevent people from accepting evolution. You can't rationally accept what you don't really fully understand.
@Epydemic2020 "You can't rationally accept what you don't really fully understand." You can rationally accept all kinds of things you don't fully understand, that is false. We accept many things, most especially God's existence, which we hardly know anything about. Many people have studied it deeply and reject evolution. I doubt you fully understand evolution, you might have a so-so understanding of it. I'm sure if you debated NephilimFree you would get an idea of this.
@YaleBreaker If an alien landed in your back yard, said hello, and promptly left, you would accept his existence, you don't need to understand everything about him. We all fall in love, and accept it, but we know little about how it works. Creation is full of signs that there is a personal Creator, and He has revealed His will, so it is quite rational to accept that He exists. Nevertheless, He is complex beyond our ability to understand and we must accept that limitation.
@danmeast But you're proving Epydemic's point. You "understand" the "fact" of God's existence, so you're rationally accepting it. But since you don't understand God's complexity, you can't rationally accept any limited view of his nature as true.
You're applying the "understand" and the "rational acceptance" processes to different things.
WOW! Thanks epy for sharing such a personal and touching moment like dinner with your family. You are a unique and complex person. An inspiration to us all.
Epy, are you familiar with the MBTI? Its usefulness as a psychological model is questioned (David Keirsey has worked to improve the model), but you give the appearance of a classic NT (search Wikipedia for "Rational Temperament" if you are curious).
@Epydemic2020 I am happy it was pleasant for you. I have been studying it again myself, and if you find the topic interesting, it may be worth your while to delve into it more deeply; Please Understand Me and Please Understand Me II are the go to sources for laymen. I would prefer the theory rested on more solid empirical grounds than it does, but it satisfies my desire for mental stimulation nicely.
How is the account of the original Paradisiacal condition compatable with evolution, with "nature red in tooth and claw," & having to fight ferociously for existence? Gen 3:17-19 says the harshness of nature followed the Fall, is disobedience's punishment & thus a just, not a natural or original, evil. If man was originally placed in harsh conditions indifferent to his fate, trust in God's care for man would look more foolish, necessity's plea against doing justly & charitably look more sound.
I'll make a video on that question, but I think it can be answered merely by asking another question which is, "why is the garden of Eden separate from the rest of the world?"
@Epydemic2020 Is not the rest of the world included in Genesis 1:29-30? "...And to every beast etc.... wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so." Might that not be part of why God saw the world was "very good" as it left his hand in the next verse? Genesis never calls the vegetation things that "have life."
for me, science is superior to Scripture, so im not clinging to Scripture because i dont want to accept science, but if what you believe is true, i'm merely ignorant of the science of it that supports what you believe.
were you a creationist and then converted to evolution scientifically speaking? if so, can you please make a video if you havent already explaining what convinced you? and if you already made it please direct me to it; thanks
the Horse and Donkey and Mule is from the same genetic family. in the Biblical sense, they are from the same kind. the horse and donkey come from a common ancestor.
@Epydemic2020 i'd be curious to see photos and or links =). send me a message.
i would suggest they are in no way related except that all life descended from one mother, mother earth. also, one should not mistake genetic features as inherent. what i mean is, some genetic features could be negative mutations. for example, it would be not a good idea to use humans with mermaid syndrome as evidence for common descent with mermaids.
so you must take some extreme liberties in your interpretation of Scripture to believe that the earth is more than 6,000 years old. also i suspect you base most of your arguments on the English rather than Hebrew. i think someone who knows all there is to know about the true Bible would know that an old earth is complete contrary to it.
Adam and Eve were born as infants not as adults. also, you make a large assumption about many things; such as the starlight issue. Geocentrism is true.
Yum
MrNDUDE16 5 days ago
@mogley52 something like 99 % of dna between chimps and humans at aligned base pairs are the same. chimps have blood, bones, eyes and all that other stuff that we have. there's even a kid in china who has "cat eyes". he has the same reflective material behind his retina that cats and dogs do. thats because humans share a common ancestor with some nocturnal animal. Reflective eyes have a benefit. these are called atavisms. /watch?v=L2XeDo8vaY8
Agnosgnosia 6 days ago
Interesting post. Honestly, haven't followed your posts or much of youtube for a while. Would like to hear more about what convinced you the Theory of Evolution via Natural Selection is true. What were you studying/reading when the thought transition occurred? How/when did you learn about the biology of evolution? (You may recall, we talked in a discussion room years ago, I believe you were a ungrad sophmore then)
ChooseThisLife 6 days ago
@ChooseThisLife
I have always understood evolution fairly well (better now than when I was younger of course). For some reason I have always had an interest in biology. It was mostly the answering of objections that I had to evolution which made me open to it. I was also reading Genesis again right before I came to accept evolution. A surprising number of things jumped out at me that made me think the conflict between evolution and creation was all in my head.
Epydemic2020 6 days ago
If one believes that the age of the universe is 6000 years, you're so detached from reality that there is no more to talk about.
By the way, biological evolution is not something you believe in. Either you accept the scientific evidence or not.
MoveOrder 2 weeks ago
I agree, though I did enjoy this video. Sometimes it seemed like everybody was really tense lol.
yuothineyesasian 6 days ago
@MoveOrder That's not true. I used to believe the earth was about 6,000 years old and I reflecting on it I wouldn't consider my past self completely irrational and hopeless. There are going to be people who stick to comfort and don't put the effort to challenge their beliefs and there are those that are resistant to new ideas. But that's not true of everyone that just so happens to have a belief.
RuinSonic 1 day ago
@RuinSonic
I do not understand what you are saying.
One can be wrong in various degrees. But to think that the universe is 6000 years old is so misguided that it's laughable.
This has nothing to do with how a person feels when he is indoctrinated into Christianity.
MoveOrder 1 day ago
@MoveOrder Actually it does. Many Christians believe that the Bible teaches that the world has to be very young. If you know nothing about science and you already believe in magic what's the difference between billions and a few thousand years when god poofed everything into existence anyways?
RuinSonic 1 day ago
@RuinSonic
The truth?
MoveOrder 21 hours ago
@MoveOrder Yeah but you can't take all these people's beliefs in isolation and judge them simply based on those isolated beliefs. You have to look at their overall belief system and why they believe the bible must be true in the first place. I don't know if you were ever raised in a very Christian home, but Christianity is indoctrinated quite well.
RuinSonic 20 hours ago
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 3 weeks ago
@Mogley52 I wish the Bible was compatible with evolution and it didn't teach eternal suffering, but unfortunately it does. What is also unfortunate is barely any theists put effort defending those views, so that it's always atheist vs fundamentalist and the majority of people who are somewhere in between are not heard.
RuinSonic 1 day ago
@Mogley52
If you found this through study, it is surprising that you have not found articles that explain how the Bible and Christianity evolved from earlier religions.
The everlasting torture in hell sticks in many Christians' eyes, but it is not the only thing that is wrong with the Bible.
MoveOrder 1 day ago
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 3 weeks ago
@Mogley52 "UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy" if you're saying life couldn't have evolved because entropy predicts that life wouldn't evolve because life steadily increases in complexity, you'd be wrong. earth is not a closed system. the biosphere gets energy from geothermal vents and the sun.
Agnosgnosia 6 days ago
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 3 weeks ago
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How did species survive if their vital tissues, organs, reproductive systems were still evolving? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic and biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 3 weeks ago
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 3 weeks ago
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life or the universe works doesn't mean there was no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete, living cell then the genetic code/mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells, but how did the cell naturally originate when no directing code/mechanisms existed in nature?
Mogley52 3 weeks ago
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select" traits, not produce them. If a variation survives, that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 3 weeks ago
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION (Google this title to access the site). The site presents a collage of evidences from science supporting creation. Also read my Internet article, ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH! According to a Newsweek article quoting a NASA scientist, in the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (now meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions of tons of Earth soil.
Mogley52 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
based on the battle between evolution and creation, check out our new sci fi movie EVOLUTION CREEK decide for yourself!
chauncyhead 3 weeks ago
Questions most wouldn't dare even talk about. Love that you were able to have a open discussion with your parents during dinner like that.
kepter1 3 weeks ago
@kepter1
Thanks :)
Epydemic2020 3 weeks ago
@kepter1 Take pointers from cool people like Epy on how to get it done!!!
This guy can talk to people who absolutely disagree with him and hate his beliefs and go to the beach with them afterwords to play volley ball.
RuinSonic 1 day ago
Comment removed
xStrelok 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
xStrelok 4 weeks ago
Hey Epydemic2020 could you give me any justification for your interpretation of yom?
Onetruthrgv 1 month ago
@Onetruthrgv
The word "yom" has been used multiple times in the Bible, some referring to literal 24 hour periods, other referring to various and even very long periods of time. Even if we want to take Genesis as literal, I don't think the literal interpretation necessarily implies a young earth.
Epydemic2020 3 weeks ago
@Epydemic2020 True but when used with a numeric always denotes a 24 hour period. My problem is not with old earth but when people twist the Hebrew to fit a doctrine of old earth
Onetruthrgv 3 weeks ago
I would have asked your parents why do they think God would trick/lie to everyone (re: age of the earth)
RPFS2008 1 month ago
@RPFS2008
I have asked that one before, I guess I didn't catch it on camera tho. I don't think my mom trusts that I am right about my starlight argument, and my Dad seemed to see the merit in that inductive argument. Neither of them are that committed to the age of the earth type arguments.
Epydemic2020 1 month ago
eatting in front of us? :-|
marsh84722 1 month ago
I appreciate the fact that you are destroyiny the story on which the whole Bible and the gospel are based. Good job!
carcabe 1 month ago
@carcabe
People have interpreted Genesis in a way not inconsistent with evolution long before evolution ever became known about.
Epydemic2020 1 month ago
how can you believe in God and rely on Evolution theory, they don't really work bro ha
shaftyfingers 1 month ago
@shaftyfingers
What leads you to that conclusion?
Epydemic2020 1 month ago
@Epydemic2020 well the fact of the adam and eve story and evolution don't work, and parents are crazy if they think the world is 6000 years old
shaftyfingers 1 month ago
@shaftyfingers
Saying God created =/= saying "God created instantaneously without using evolution". Even if you think he did create Adam and/or Eve spontaneously, that wouldn't undermine evolution either.
As to the age of the earth, the answer isn't intuitively obvious. If you haven't heard the evidence, you can't expect to come to the right conclusion.
Epydemic2020 1 month ago
@Epydemic2020 "that wouldn't undermine evolution either" Question: What would undermine evolution? I can't think of any way that it could be done, seeing as how it is basically unfalsifiable. A person can point to all sorts of evidence against it, but an evolutionist can always hide behind the idea that evolution wouldn't be observed in the short run, it takes a long time. It doesn't matter how unlikely evolution is, it's better than belief in God for many.
danmeast 1 month ago
@danmeast
The fossile record has an order to it. At the lowest levels you find invertebrates, next up jawless fish show up, then jawed fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then early mammals, then dinosaurs, then monkeys, then modern mammals.
Find a single mammal in the first three layers and you disprove evolution.
Epydemic2020 1 month ago
@Epydemic2020 Fossil records cannot be used to prove or disprove evolution because they don't explain how something happened, only that it happened. What scientific method, which is observable, could be used to falsify evolution? Evolution by a combination of mutation and natural selection, that is.
danmeast 1 month ago
@danmeast
Showing a mammal in one of the earlier layers would show that the mammal existed prior to when evolutionists said it must have evolved. That would indeed disprove the theory. It wouldn't show "evolution is impossible", but it would show "evolution didn't happen with that mammal on earth".
Epydemic2020 1 month ago
@Epydemic2020 'It wouldn't show "evolution is impossible"' I doubt evolutionists are concerned with bad odds, as long as it's possible it would still be a viable theory. If I have understood you correctly, there is really no way to disprove evolution, just force a new conception of the theory. So, to disprove the theory we would just hope to one day get lucky? That is hardly scientific.
danmeast 1 month ago
@danmeast
You don't have to show something is impossible to show it didn't happen on earth.
Epydemic2020 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@danmeast "So, to disprove the theory we would just hope to one day get lucky? That is hardly scientific. "
Wrong. There are 4 postulates that are testable (aka "science")
1: there is variation among individuals
2: some of the variation is heritable
3: some individuals vary in success at surviving to reproduction capability
4: survival is a non random selection process (in other words, selection pressures act on phenotypes to increase allelic frequency.
Agnosgnosia 1 month ago
@danmeast
Nope, some things would completely falsify evolution.
For instance, if a human gave birth to a dinosaur (ironically the kind of thing Creationists ask for in order to accept evolution!) or we found that humans were around before the Cambrian etc. etc. etc. The list of things which would prove evolution false is pretty much endless.
RPFS2008 1 month ago
@danmeast "What scientific method, which is observable, could be used to falsify evolution?" You are confusing science with empiricism. If science were restricted only to areas where experiments could be run in real time, many fields of study,such as cosmology,astrophysics,geology and the forensic sciences, would not exist.
ryan84160 1 month ago
@danmeast Non-coding nipple DNA in protists.
WannabeTesla 1 month ago
your parents are morons lol
shaftyfingers 1 month ago
My parents would never sit down in front of a camera with me because my parents willingly lie to try to keep their faith and ignorance. They've actually all out told me this, I'ce shown them wrong on every point but they still say I haven't to this day. I have flash cards with references and pictures now that I keep in a handy binder in my truck whenever I visit just for the science denial sessions. It especially works well when they have company over, they don't usually try anymore now lol.
Feralus69 1 month ago
In my opinion we shouldn't have to change the word evolution just because older people don't know what it is or were givin wrong information about it. I've had this conversation with my parents as well.
Feralus69 1 month ago
I'm fascinated that people actually still read the Bible litteraly... Even the early Church Fathers like Origen or St Augustine rejected the litteral interpretation of First Genesis...
I'm also fascinated that people dont search the actual truth, they want to be comforted in their beliefs. I'm a Catholic because evidence leads me there. I would gladly admit I am wrong in the face of evidence. I don't base my views and interpretation on the prior fact of me being a believer...
Gazdo01 1 month ago
I am a very open minded Christian and believe in Scientific theories. It seems the Mum and Dad need to be educated better, I'm sure they are good parents but to say the earth is 6000 years old is beyond ridiculous, there is NO biblical statement which suggests the earth is that young, and to say there is, they would be lying to themselves.
EddieEmz26 1 month ago
@EddieEmz26 I am an atheist. I wanted to ask you how do you reconcile the Story of Adam and Eve in the bible( and eve being created from Adam's rib) with the Theory of Evolution. In my vopinion they seem contradicting.
GhostlyRebellion 1 month ago
@GhostlyRebellion
Whether you think of Adam and Eve's story as literal or even highly allegorical it doesn't contradict evolution. Eve could literally be made out of Adam's rib, that doesn't mean evolution doesn't work for the rest of mankind. I think it uses figurative language to tell a literal story (ie mankind coming from the dust of the ground is mankind ultimately rising from a primordial soup)
Epydemic2020 1 month ago
@EddieEmz26 And even if there were a verse that states the Earth is 6000 years old... it wouldn't be a good reason to believe it.
The Bible must be interpreted in the light of modern knowledge.
To simply reject obvious FACTS in order to stay within the boundaries of personnal theological interpretation in what we Catholic call the "sacrificium intellectus"... the sacrifice of the intellect.
Fides ET Ratio (Faith AND Reason)... that's our great motto :)
Gazdo01 1 month ago
This is an awkward conversation but they seem cool
MriBackup 1 month ago
System theory totally debunks evolution!
dannywizz 1 month ago
I'm a creationist Christian and here's a few reasons why. Mutations are to the genetic code what grammical errors are to an essay. They'll never add new information (beneficial mutations), they'll either be neutral (a negative mutation so small it doesn't make a difference) or negative. The irreducible complexity argument for certain biological mechanisms and entire living organims is also very strong. All the hoax transitional fossils don't help either. God bless you, I subbed. :)
ubermechazillatron 1 month ago
@ubermechazillatron
Interesting. I hope to cover those points next time I interview a creationist that is well versed in creationist arguments.
I can perhaps understand someone arguing that beneficial mutations don't happen "often enough" for evolution to work, but I don't understand people arguing that they are all neutral or negative. There are examples to the contrary like "nylonaise" or "cecal valves" in Italian wall lizards.
Epydemic2020 1 month ago
@Epydemic2020 The ability to eat nylon does not indicate that there is a new species emerging from a different species. Such a fantasy is a biological impossibility for which there is absolutely no evidence, has never happened, and will never happen.
1GodOnlyOne 1 month ago 2
@1GodOnlyOne
I have never heard nylonaise put forward as an argument for speciation, and that wasn't why I brought it up here. Nylonaise is just an example of a beneficial mutation.
Epydemic2020 1 month ago
@Epydemic2020 I understand that, but there is no evidence that the adaptation could somehow be the result of a mutation, and even if it were, that would not offer any support for darwinian mythology.
1GodOnlyOne 1 month ago
@Epydemic2020
It may be too much to say that randomly mutating pre-existing genetic code could never result in an apparent benefit. Concerning cecal valves, food for thought:
pnas.org/content/105/12/4792.full.pdf
Their stomachs changed (perhaps over generations) when their diet changed; the article did mention “phenotypic plasticity and/or maternal effects” as possible alternatives to random mutation pg. 3 (after the stomach images).
weseeinpart 1 month ago
@weseeinpart
Interesting article. There were many changes in the ancestral and new population. The cecal valve in particular can't be explained by maternal effects, because it is present even in the youngsters.
"phenotypic plasticity", on the other hand, is something I don't understand very well.
Epydemic2020 1 month ago
@Epydemic2020
I think the maternal effects are those which specifically affect the traits of offspring due to effects (such as those from environmental changes) on the mother- (this term may be evolving into ‘parental effects’). This is the impression I received from the 1st 2 pages of:
“What Is an Adaptive Environmentally Induced Parental Effect?”
libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/E_Lacey_What_1998.pdf
If I interpreted it correctly, the youngsters would be affected.
weseeinpart 1 month ago
@Epydemic2020
To be more specific about what gave me that impression, (to save some reading) near the bottom of page 2:
“A parental effect begins when a parent genotype responds to some signal. That response induces the transmission of information along one or several transmission pathways. Both the response and transmission pathways may have genetic components…The parental effect is the end product of that transmission, the phenotypic modification of an offspring trait.”
weseeinpart 1 month ago
@Epydemic2020
I can also relate to keeping an open mind when considering biblical texts, whether or not certain things are literal or analogy; but what I don’t think will survive severe scrutiny (really putting the screws to it, as I’ve heard it said) is the present confidence in the power of random mutation/natural selection. I like your approach; it seems very deliberately balanced and honest. God bless :)
weseeinpart 1 month ago
@Epydemic2020 The first thing is people need to understand evolution A) doesn't speak to the creation of life ( which is why I say I'm a creationist that believes in evolution, just to be throughly confusing to everyone) and B) Evolution is the end results of many processes that includes does include mutations but also more common methods (natural selection, gentic drift etc.) As you already stated, mutations not adding new information is dated bad science.
stevenp25100 1 month ago
@stevenp25100
"As you already stated, mutations not adding new information is dated bad science."
I didn't say that.
What I said was that I don't understand how people can argue no mutations are beneficial. We can see examples of beneficial mutations. I think creationists ought to argue that beneficial mutations can happen, but that they don't happen often enough. I don't think that argument works, but it is better than saying no beneficial mutations ever occur.
Epydemic2020 1 month ago
@Epydemic2020 Well I didn't mean to put words in your mouth but you kinda did, the comment was beneficial mutations do not occur and gave clear examples that they have. My point was simply that these are regurgitated arguments that have been passed on by numerous creationist websites that expectedly do not updated as new information is learned. But I see your point that frequency of mutations is at least a more accurate argument.
stevenp25100 1 month ago
Comment removed
stevenp25100 1 month ago
@ubermechazillatron think your comparsion is actaully a semi-decent way to explain evolution. Overtime, languages-- including grammar and defintions-- do in fact change. Mutations are just one method of evolution and your claim the mutations do not add new information is simply inaccurate. I know where you're coming from, I've spent way to much time on "answersingenesis" trying to disprove evolution, hopefully eventually you'll atleast see there is not Bibical reason to.
stevenp25100 1 month ago
@stevenp25100 Yes, grammar and definitions do change over time, but it's by people and not random chance. And my first post was a little sloppy. I do believe that "beneficial" mutations and adaptations can occur, but I don't believe beneficial mutations adding new information to the genome can occur. Even if a handful of examples were reported, that still wouldn't suffice in proving billions and billions and billions occured to have all living things come from one common ancestor.
ubermechazillatron 1 month ago
@ubermechazillatron "but it's by people and not random chance" Just like evolution, it's a little of both. The most common form of evolution is Natural selection and reproductive success which is not random.
Also, pretty lame how you say You "don't believe... new information to the genome can occur" but then back track "even if a handful". Examples have already been given to you so there is no reason to keep your first "belief". Why the outright resistence to new information?
stevenp25100 1 month ago
@stevenp25100
One objection is that it is observable and repeatable that when a complex, functional code is subjected to repeated random mutations/changes, the overall effect is the corruption of the code and degradation of code-dependent processes. Technically one couldn’t prove that random mutations wouldn’t eventually result in some apparent benefit, but it certainly hasn’t been proven that random mutations are the source of the wealth of functional information found in living organisms.
weseeinpart 1 month ago
@stevenp25100 Neo darwinism teaches that mutations (random) can cause, in rare instances, new beneficial information to arise in the genome. Natural selection is the "quality control" of these mutations (which is also a semi-random process). I was given two examples which were flawed (I'll give you some articles). Also, two examples (even if true) would not suffice in supporting the billions and billions of mutations needed. I'm open to evidence, I just haven't got any.
ubermechazillatron 1 month ago
So as a christian. Why do you think god made mankind in a way that they'd be more inclined to commit infanticide than to understand atomic theory. The latter which is symbolic for science, something which is absolutely indispensable in the quest to reduce human suffering.
ForYeensSake 1 month ago
@ForYeensSake If you're wondering. The reason why I'm asking this is because I saw you comment concerning why god didn't pass on the theory of evolution via the bible. I think you hugely belittle the suffering caused by a lack of knowledge.
ForYeensSake 1 month ago
Y do u suppose god created diseases?
julzabro 1 month ago
@julzabro There is no verse in any of God's scriptures that state that he "created" diseases.
Did you just make it up?
1GodOnlyOne 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1GodOnlyOne "There is no verse in any of God's scriptures that state that he "created" diseases. Did you just make it up?"
I was ASKING WHY God made diseases. And if you don't think He DID create those, who do u suppose did?
julzabro 1 month ago
The Bible ALSO doesn't say how Noah fit 2 of EVERY animal on the ark either! ;)
julzabro 1 month ago
Y do u suppose that god didnt' just explain evolution to us?
julzabro 1 month ago
@julzabro
I have no idea. Probably for the same reasons he didn't explain gravity, electricity, or cosmology to us. I just don't think that's the purpose of the book.
Epydemic2020 1 month ago
@Epydemic2020 "I just don't think that's the purpose of the book." It's the only tangible communication from Him or so-called evidence 4 His existence so u'd think it would have important, timeless, info in it. For a creator of everything, imho He lacks in communication skills & left out many things that could've avoided pain, suffering and death,
julzabro 1 month ago
@julzabro Because God doesn't explain unscientific myths -- it is beneath his station.
1GodOnlyOne 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1GodOnlyOne "Because God doesn't explain unscientific myths -- it is beneath his station." Evolution is a scientific theory and not a myth. So I guess that talking snake and that ark filled with 2 of every kind was oh so scientific? Sorry, but there's PLENTY of myth in God's Book!
julzabro 1 month ago
I think belieiving in JC and what He did IS a "matter of opinion" as much as anything else. And we are a people who have supposedly HAD a Savior since the beginning and it hasn't helped us yet. Regardless of my disagreement, I respect the fact that u r open to varying opinions. Great parents=great kids...;)
julzabro 1 month ago
In a sense tho, Adam was like a child when he was created becuz his eyes were closed.
julzabro 1 month ago
I never understood the war between creationists and evolutionists even when I WAS a Xtian becuz there doesn't NEED to be a conflict. They can work together.
julzabro 1 month ago
@julzabro "Work together"? Why should theologians have any say in science?
YaleBreaker 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@YaleBreaker ""Work together"? Why should theologians have any say in science?" I said the THEORIES can work together not that theologians n scientists ought to...lol! A creationist can say God created evolution and an evolutionist can say IF there were a god, It created evolution.
julzabro 1 month ago
@Epydemic2020 2 last questions with regards to your view.. how do you explain the language of the the Book of Genesis.. because a clear reading of it shows that the writers were writing a literal story not an allegory or a symbolic metaphor, so what is your view of the Book of Genesis and how do you fit evolution into that view? Also if you hold to a metaphorical/allegorical view of the Book of Genesis, how do you explain Noah's ark and the Flood?
oliver2k94 1 month ago
@oliver2k94
Whether you take a literal or allegorical interpretation of Genesis, neither has to be inconsistent w/ evolution. That being said, I think there are pretty good arguments for different interpretations, which explains why people have interpreted that passage differently long before evolution ever made its way onto the scene.
Believing part of a book is allegorical does not mean you think the entire book is allegorical. For example...
Epydemic2020 1 month ago
for example...
Genesis has a lot of poetry in it. Even if you are a biblical literalist you can't help but realize that. It actually has an interesting pattern. It gives a narrative, then follows by poetic recap. One book, even one chapter, can have elements of poetry, allegory, narrative, etc. The Bible is like any other book in that respect.
Epydemic2020 1 month ago
@Epydemic2020 Interesting responses. Thank you for replying. I have one last question, how can a literal interpretation of Genesis NOT be inconsistent with evolution? Since if you believe that God literally created Adam the first man out of dust and the first women out of his rib that is strikingly different from the evolutionary view.. I believe that a literal interpretation of Genesis will always be inconsistent with evolution whether naturalistic or theistic.. how would you answer that?
oliver2k94 1 month ago
@oliver2k94
You can believe that God literally created mankind, that there was literally a garden of eden, that there was literally an adam and an even without reading between the lines and position that instantaneous special creation was involved. Given the most literal view you could go with I think that only difference would be positing that Eden is a special place which is unlike the rest of the world.
Epydemic2020 1 month ago
@Epydemic2020 So what's your technique for distinguishing "literal" truth with "poetic" truth? Is your strategy to take statements in the Bible as literal truth until more accurate versions of those statements are given in other fields?
YaleBreaker 1 month ago
@YaleBreaker If I say to you that my computer cost me an arm and a leg, do you think I meant that literally or figuratively.
If you think it's figurative, how did you come to that conclusion?
If I say it cost $1,000.00, and you decide that's literal, how did you come to that conclusion.
We use the same method in determining the intention of scriptural passages. It's actually very simple.
1GodOnlyOne 1 month ago
@1GodOnlyOne The first one I say literal, because unlike, for instance, God claims, it's a fairly reasonable statement to take literally. Shark encounters could cost arms and legs. Why not computers? Maybe you're making a joke about this by using a well-known idiom.
When you say $1,000, I say you're being figurative, since there is no computer on the market that costs $1,000.00.
So it sounds like your method is "guessing".
YaleBreaker 1 month ago
@1GodOnlyOne Actually, scrap that. I have a better one:
Einstein says, "God does not play dice with the universe." Is he being literal, or figurative?
If he's being figurative, is it not possible that every mention of God in the Bible is intended figuratively as well? Is perhaps the voice of God nothing more than a poetic metaphor for the conscience or the collective unconscious?
YaleBreaker 1 month ago
@Epydemic2020 Since you are a theistic evolutionist, can you please explain to me where is the scientific evidence which shows that God intervened throughout the process of evolution? It seems to me you are just inferring that he intervened because of your Christian presuppositions that you hold to be true.. also do you think purposeless godless naturalistic evolution is compatible with the belief in the Chrisitan god?
oliver2k94 1 month ago
@oliver2k94
I don't think God had to intervene in the process of evolution. I think that is possible, but I'd also think that a God who is omnipotent would be able to create a process where intervention wasn't necessary if He didn't want to.
I think any view that has God setting the constants that govern the universe and being omniscience entails that whatever end results come out of evolution are the ones God foresaw and intended.
Epydemic2020 1 month ago
nice video. "test everything, keep the good" WIN
wearestarstuffsagan 1 month ago
The "common template" idea that you discuss with your parents is an important one, but it isn't just that the same designs have been re-used over and over in the manner of an artist trying out designs in different combinations, it is that variations can be classified into a neat family tree with more complex organisms in the outer branches rather than a criss-crossing network of similarities. This hierarchical pattern of similarities is exactly what you'd expect if this is a tree of speciation.
cavalrycome 1 month ago
From what I've seen so far, anything that doesn't fit into their view of creation, boils down to this.
Magic Man made it seem like everything is old (therefore, GOD LIED)
AtheistToothFairy 1 month ago
The problem of course is that you cannot be a Christian and believe in Evolution. A Christian follows the supposed teaching of Jesus as written down in the NT, where he repeatedly and explicitly affirms the Pentateuch as being the divinely inspired writings of Moses. So, whilst you choose to call yourself a Christian, you are in fact someone who has developed their own superstitions based loosely on the NT.
Huttate1 1 month ago
@Huttate1
Your speculation just isn't how things actually went. It was reading Genesis on my own w/out trying to rely on the understanding of my culture that lead me to think there was no inconsistentcy w/ evolution, and only after that did I actually come to think evolution was true.
I am not rejecting the Pentateuch, and I am not basing anything having to do w/ evolution on the New Testament.
Epydemic2020 1 month ago
@Epydemic2020 I think you will find that the story of Noah's Ark was also supposedly written by Moses; and affirmed as such by Jesus [supposedly]. Therefore you accept the story of Noah's Ark or you put into question the whole of Genesis and the all words attributed to Jesus. I think you are playing pik-n-mix.
Huttate1 1 month ago
@Huttate1 tell me the noahs ark story? i know what it says but i would like to know if you do?
mclane6553 1 month ago
@mclane6553 I have produced a video on it.
Huttate1 1 month ago
@mclane6553 ...and there are at least two stories in the Noah thread. You can clearly de-splice them in places and see the separate authorship. But if you want to play games then you can ask me questions. I study the bible on a continual basis as part of my own small campaign to rid society of superstitious belief systems.
Huttate1 1 month ago
@Huttate1 haha what.
1) you made your own story to it as well.
2) do a bit more research on fossils.
3) try looking at design on mountains and valleys a little more.(and earth itself).
4) and the bible was written in Hebrew originally.
your video was interesting but i cart see how that is study, to be honest.
mclane6553 1 month ago
@mclane6553 If you want a debate then you need to put some points across. My videos are aimed at a certain audience. I suspect I know more concerning paleontology than you do. And, whilst my geology is weaker, I am certain I have a rudimentary grasp on plate tectonics and glaciation; enough to explain mountain and valley formation.
I repeat, if you have a point to make, please do so.
Huttate1 1 month ago
@Epydemic2020
Interesting video.
I just can't imagine this happening in a British household (I'm English) as religion over here is on it's deathbed, thank goodness.
It's a shame that your mum and dad have been brainwashed by misinformation about the age of the world.
I hope you lead them gently to the scientific facts.
Hopefully you might check the veracity of Christianity with an open mind while you're at it.
Pigdowndog 1 month ago
@Epydemic2020
To take a different tack, don't you think there is a moral inconsistency between evolution & a benevolent creator?
Remember, the algorithm of evolution is "create more offspring than will survive to adulthood, then selectively exterminate the ones who are genetically ill-equipped." In naturalism this is just a brute fact; no one is to blame. In theism + evolution, this is how the creator chose to make complex life. You can think of crueler ways to do it, but you have to be clever.
simplic1000 1 month ago
@simplic1000
Given Christianity in specific there is a reason death and suffering every come into the picture, and that is sin. Whether Satan's sin, humanities sin.. whatever, either way suffering is a result of sin. God takes the broken and works all things together for good.
Epydemic2020 1 month ago
I'm confused. I was under the impression that your view was roughly "God chose to create all creatures via the process natural selection." Well, natural selection is *all about* lots and lots of death. It wouldn't work without death.
How could sin affect the method God chose to create complex life?
(Or am I misunderstanding your views on theistic evolution, or your theodicy?)
simplic1000 1 month ago
@simplic1000
It is just a misunderstanding of my particular brand of theistic evolution. I think given bibical passages that say Satan is the prince/ruler of the earth, that suggest Satan's sin precedes mankind, that say the wages of sin is death, and that suggest "eden" is seperate from the rest of the earth, that even given a literal interpretation of events having suffering exist on "earth" before Adam's sin still makes sense.
Epydemic2020 1 month ago
@Epydemic2020
Hm... are you saying that god set evolution in motion but satan is responsible for the suffering inherent in it? It might help to give a thumbnail summary of your view of theistic evolution.
simplic1000 1 month ago
@simplic1000
That's certainly something I see as a viable option. I don't think the Bible attempts to explain that one for us, so there are many ways in which one could speculate.
Epydemic2020 1 month ago
@Huttate1 "Divinely inspired" is not synonymous "literally true". Poetry is often spoken of in spiritual terms - "inspiration" or one's "Muse" - but deals primarily in imagery and metaphor, not factual accuracy.
(Secular humanist, by the way.)
YaleBreaker 1 month ago
@YaleBreaker People rarely get slaughtered over poetry. Once literal truth is questioned for part of a work then the entire work is thrown open to question. This is the issue with the wooly 'Christians' who are content with ignoring, for instance, Jesus' blatant racism and bigotry in Mark or dismiss certain aspects of Genesis as fable but then declare that the bits they choose to believe are to be accepted as fact.
Huttate1 1 month ago
@Huttate1 "People rarely get slaughtered over poetry."
Only because the Bible isn't a poem - which is somewhat debatable.
YaleBreaker 1 month ago
So THESE are the filthy rich....err.....I mean "job creators." And why don't these dumbasses EVER have any views that are actually based on reality?
PompousPreacher 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Let me play the devil's advocate here: why is your reliance on probability a sound reasoning strategy when it comes to the super-natural (gods). What reasons would one have to say: being xyz is not bond by physical laws etc., but when it comes to creation we assume the most probable explanation to be true. Mind well, that the probability of an explanation rests firmly on your knowledge of the primer. Please show me where I went wrong.
timeofwonder2009 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Let me play the devil's advocate here: why is your reliance on probability a sound reasoning strategy when it comes to the super-natural (gods). What reasons would one have to say: being xyz is not bond by physical laws etc., but when it comes to creation we assume the most probable explanation to be true. Mind well, that the probability of an explanation rests firmly on your knowledge of the primer. Please show me where I went wrong.
timeofwonder2009 1 month ago
Let me play the devil's advocate here: why is your reliance on probability a sound reasoning strategy when it comes to the super-natural (gods). What reasons would one have to say: being xyz is not bond by physical laws etc., but when it comes to creation we assume the most probable explanation to be true. Mind well, that the probability of an explanation rests firmly on your knowledge of the primer. Please show me where I went wrong.
timeofwonder2009 1 month ago
@Epydemic2020
While I am an atheist, I still enjoy your chats along these lines. I think the reason is because of the gentle way you hold onto your beliefs and respect those of your interview subjects yet still challenge them on what you understand to be the best understanding from your scientific understanding of the available evidence. I am seeing some of the roots of misunderstanding about evolution and creationism through this openness.
Thanks for another thoughtful interview. Peace.
0gods 1 month ago
@0gods
Thanks. I think misunderstandings are usually what prevent people from accepting evolution. You can't rationally accept what you don't really fully understand.
Epydemic2020 1 month ago
@Epydemic2020 "You can't rationally accept what you don't really fully understand." You can rationally accept all kinds of things you don't fully understand, that is false. We accept many things, most especially God's existence, which we hardly know anything about. Many people have studied it deeply and reject evolution. I doubt you fully understand evolution, you might have a so-so understanding of it. I'm sure if you debated NephilimFree you would get an idea of this.
danmeast 1 month ago
@danmeast If you hardly know anything about God's existence, how can you rationally accept it?
YaleBreaker 1 month ago
@YaleBreaker If an alien landed in your back yard, said hello, and promptly left, you would accept his existence, you don't need to understand everything about him. We all fall in love, and accept it, but we know little about how it works. Creation is full of signs that there is a personal Creator, and He has revealed His will, so it is quite rational to accept that He exists. Nevertheless, He is complex beyond our ability to understand and we must accept that limitation.
danmeast 1 month ago
@danmeast But you're proving Epydemic's point. You "understand" the "fact" of God's existence, so you're rationally accepting it. But since you don't understand God's complexity, you can't rationally accept any limited view of his nature as true.
You're applying the "understand" and the "rational acceptance" processes to different things.
YaleBreaker 1 month ago
WOW! Thanks epy for sharing such a personal and touching moment like dinner with your family. You are a unique and complex person. An inspiration to us all.
CMrace 1 month ago
@CMrace
Thanks man. I had a feeling you might like this video. You seem to be the type to like to understand other people psychologically.
Epydemic2020 1 month ago
Epy, are you familiar with the MBTI? Its usefulness as a psychological model is questioned (David Keirsey has worked to improve the model), but you give the appearance of a classic NT (search Wikipedia for "Rational Temperament" if you are curious).
WannabeTesla 1 month ago
@WannabeTesla
I think I was an ENTJ, but I took that test a couple of years ago. I remember being right on the border between E and I.
And wow, that wiki page described me quite well. I am glad you mentioned that, I hadn't thought about MBTI in forever.
Epydemic2020 1 month ago
@Epydemic2020 I am happy it was pleasant for you. I have been studying it again myself, and if you find the topic interesting, it may be worth your while to delve into it more deeply; Please Understand Me and Please Understand Me II are the go to sources for laymen. I would prefer the theory rested on more solid empirical grounds than it does, but it satisfies my desire for mental stimulation nicely.
WannabeTesla 1 month ago
Enchiladas and orange juice? That's a pretty fierce combination.
WannabeTesla 1 month ago
@WannabeTesla
It was mango juice. Bet you didn't see that one coming.
Epydemic2020 1 month ago
@Epydemic2020 That...is actually worse.
WannabeTesla 1 month ago
I love your videos!
HateDoctor 1 month ago
@HateDoctor
Thanks, I will try to make some more along these lines.
Epydemic2020 1 month ago
love it lmao
TheJohnVandivier 2 months ago
@TheJohnVandivier
I'm glad. I hope to do Some more of these once I think of some more questions.
Epydemic2020 2 months ago
Where the hell is MY enchilada?
OrthodoxDarwinist 2 months ago
How is the account of the original Paradisiacal condition compatable with evolution, with "nature red in tooth and claw," & having to fight ferociously for existence? Gen 3:17-19 says the harshness of nature followed the Fall, is disobedience's punishment & thus a just, not a natural or original, evil. If man was originally placed in harsh conditions indifferent to his fate, trust in God's care for man would look more foolish, necessity's plea against doing justly & charitably look more sound.
FoliesdEspangne 2 months ago
@FoliesdEspangne
I'll make a video on that question, but I think it can be answered merely by asking another question which is, "why is the garden of Eden separate from the rest of the world?"
Epydemic2020 2 months ago
@Epydemic2020 Is not the rest of the world included in Genesis 1:29-30? "...And to every beast etc.... wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so." Might that not be part of why God saw the world was "very good" as it left his hand in the next verse? Genesis never calls the vegetation things that "have life."
FoliesdEspangne 2 months ago
for me, science is superior to Scripture, so im not clinging to Scripture because i dont want to accept science, but if what you believe is true, i'm merely ignorant of the science of it that supports what you believe.
carlsonap16 2 months ago
were you a creationist and then converted to evolution scientifically speaking? if so, can you please make a video if you havent already explaining what convinced you? and if you already made it please direct me to it; thanks
carlsonap16 2 months ago
@carlsonap16
That vid is definitely on my agenda.
Epydemic2020 2 months ago
@Epydemic2020 =)
carlsonap16 2 months ago
the Horse and Donkey and Mule is from the same genetic family. in the Biblical sense, they are from the same kind. the horse and donkey come from a common ancestor.
carlsonap16 2 months ago
@carlsonap16
What about the manatee and elephant?
Epydemic2020 2 months ago
@Epydemic2020 i'd be curious to see photos and or links =). send me a message.
i would suggest they are in no way related except that all life descended from one mother, mother earth. also, one should not mistake genetic features as inherent. what i mean is, some genetic features could be negative mutations. for example, it would be not a good idea to use humans with mermaid syndrome as evidence for common descent with mermaids.
carlsonap16 2 months ago
so you must take some extreme liberties in your interpretation of Scripture to believe that the earth is more than 6,000 years old. also i suspect you base most of your arguments on the English rather than Hebrew. i think someone who knows all there is to know about the true Bible would know that an old earth is complete contrary to it.
Adam and Eve were born as infants not as adults. also, you make a large assumption about many things; such as the starlight issue. Geocentrism is true.
carlsonap16 2 months ago
I think it is great you can have a civil conversation with your parents (Or really anyone) who believe in creationism.
DebateCreation 2 months ago
@DebateCreation
Thanks :) I hope to make more as I think of stuff to talk about.
Epydemic2020