Naturalists hijacked legitimate science and replaced it with their illogical religious philosophies. It's abundantly clear that evolution only exists in the hearts and minds of naturalists.
Evolution is philosophical doctrine used by naturalists to promote their Godless religion.
Naturalists try to disguise their religion of Evolution as science when in reality they are enemies of science, logic, God and truth.
That first cell, is it possible that fatty acids from space went together and made a simple cell like Jack szostak's theory says ? And isn't nylonase an example of a totally new informationgaining mutation that codes for an enzyme that can digest nuclear waste? Don batten wrights an article on it, but this other guy on youtube "lays" down the genetic sequences and calls me a "liar"when I attack his theory using don battens article
Btw the probability of the first cell is 10^570 not 10^57800CONT
@xXsakkelaoXx Actually nylonase is an example of how mutations can damage something designed to operate one way and cause it to do something very interesting (like digest nylon). However, it's still a downhill, destructive change to the DNA, not something that produces an uphill, evolutionary type of change. Don Batten summarizes what scientists studying nylonase have discovered near the bottom of this page: creation.com/question-evolution
The bible may be based on history, but is not an accurate account of history. Several inconsistencies in Mark, Matthew, Luke and John's accounts exclude it from being such. Not to mention the world being a few thousand years old. Science has also been around long before Christianity was even conceived, being that many civilizations had developed scientific beliefs and methods before it. And the whole idea of evolution can be traced back to long before Blyth was born, going back to the Greeks
@harlexWTF The "inconsistencies" you mention all disappear upon deeper study. There are some articles about that here: creation.com/skeptics-bible-errors Many skeptics have undertaken a study of the Bible to "prove" that it contains errors. During their study they become Christians. :)
Science began in earnest in the 1500's. Many of the early scientists were Christians and creationists. See: creation.com/scientists-of-the-past-who-believed-in-a-creator#early
The essential problem of critiquing evolution is the fact that you're looking at it in the 5,000 year time frame. Evolution is ABSURDLY slow. Please keep this in mind. Plus, there's nothing wrong with theoretical science- it must begin in theory before it's accepted.
@slumsquirrel21 Actually, there's good evidence that adaptation can happen quickly. Here's an example: creation.com/brisk-biters Since science was born out of Christianity we also have no problem with scientific theory. Check out this article that discusses evolution, science and creation: creation.com/its-not-science
@CMIcreationstation Well here would be my question- What are the implications for more complex beings such as apes, humans, etc.? Insects have a much MUCH quicker life cycle so the room for change is shortened quite a bit, but once you move to beings with 30-80 years of life then you have an exponentially grown window in which change can happen.
@slumsquirrel21 No one is arguing that living things don't change. They do change. But the type of change that scientists observe over generations of living things does not support evolution. For details see some of the articles here: creation.com/natural-selection-questions-and-answers
Oh, and your third mistake was believing that something of incredible complexity can only be proved by faith.
You know, an apple pie was not simply conceived and made on the spot, it was created because people got some ingredients and mixed said ingredients in a ever-changing order until years later what is now known as the apple pie was made. People had to make MISTAKES (or mutations, if you will) to create the finished product. Which is why you generally don't see too many apple sandwiches.
@harlexWTF Apple pie, yum. Just curious why you would use such a good example of goal-directed intelligent design when trying to support evolution. The goal was, no doubt, to produce something that tastes good. By randomly "mutating" all the food ingredients in your kitchen you will never get apple pie. It may be helpful to the discussion if you left your faith in evolution out and just dealt with what mutations have actually been observed to do (i.e. science).
'Comments are held to uploader approval'. Don't ask a question and then filter answers to said question. Your first mistake.
I am deist by the way, meaning to me that I believe in both God and Evolution, and that everyone is right in terms of faith and no one can be wrong (unless they try and disprove or force their faith upon another). Your second mistake is arguing against science with faith, as one is based more in fact and the other in belief.
@harlexWTF Comments need to be approved because people are generally at their worst on the internet. Also, many (not all) atheists just haven't got a clue what creationists actually teach, even with more than 8000 articles at creation.com. Christianity is a faith, but not blind faith. It is a faith supported by the facts of history. Since science came from Christianity both fit together well. See: creation.com/what-a-christian-mind Evolution is a belief about the past, it's not science.
While it is true that some people are only on the web to troll, your cause is hindered regardless. We can simply not trust that our voice will be heard when it is subject to review and deletion.
To take Christianity as historical fact is wrong. The Bible itself is used to teach a set of morals (which I admit that many are good), not educate one on history.
@harlexWTF We are willing to respond to honest questions or challenges, but we are a small group and these videos are only meant to be summaries of the content on creation.com Actually, the truths that Christianity teaches are based on historical events. The morality cannot be separated from history. If the historical events didn't happen Christianity falls apart. For more info see: creation.com/genesis-history-or-mystery
@CMIcreationstation Yet Christianity is also responsible for holding science back for hundreds of years, take Galileo's treatment for example. Charles Darwin traveled great distances, analyzed certain trends with nature, and then developed a hypothesis and answer to these trends. THAT is science. Believing in a higher power based on the beauty and complexity of our surroundings is not.
@harlexWTF Science came out of Christianity. See: creation.com/biblical-roots-of-modern-science Here's some details on what happened with Galileo: creation.com/galileo-quadricentennial
@CMIcreationstation You also missed my point about the apple pie. The recipe was not simply created in one day, complete and perfect. It went through a series of trials and errors, constant reformation until somebody discovered a successful recipe. Previous recipes that did not work were thrown away.
@harlexWTF Creationists wrote on 'natural selection' many year before Darwin and we accept that organisms change genetically over time. But the type of change that scientist observe has nothing to do with 'molecules-to-man' evolution. For details see: creation.com/muddy-waters The point is: it all works IF all the genetic information is there at the beginning. Then organisms are able to survive in changing climates.
Personally, I believe that while the general theory of Evolution (not just Darwin's theory, btw) is correct, a certain higher power did in fact set the basis for existence, i.e. the fundamental Laws of Reality and Existence. I do not believe that it was the Christian God who orchestrated this however, and that to debate for or against such is folly. No one can be wrong in regards to such matters on faith, unless they force their beliefs on others.
Oh, and if you're (so I believe) saying that all this genetic material was already there, what about the grand question of homosexuality? Are you saying that the gay gene exists, and if so wouldn't it have been God who created it?
@harlexWTF Yes, the original genetic instructions for each created kind were created by God, with no mutations. Since sin entered the world those instructions have been mutating and, occasionally, as a result of that downhill process some interesting by-products are produced. For more on a 'gay gene' see: creation.com/my-genes-made-me-do-it
@CMIcreationstation When you insert sin into this debate your stance in the scientific portion is diminished. Sin is more a question of morals and ethics, and is better investigated in sociology or psychology, not by genetics.
@harlexWTF It is because this world is under the curse of sin that makes it fit so well with science, especially genetics. The Bible says that God created everything "very good" (Gen 1:31) and that the entrance of sin negatively affects His entire creation. We see mutations damaging and destroying the original genetic code. Mutations are creeping into all living things garbling their genetic information. This observation fits the Bible's account of origins well: a perfect creation marred by sin.
@CMIcreationstation While I could swear that a part of my debate has not been posted, I'll disregard it. Anyways, you didn't say anything new in your past post, more you restated that which I know you to have already referred to.Again, sin is a matter of faith. Truth is only as it is named, and what one man sees as sin another sees as natural or even good. I point again towards psychology as a more credible field in analyzing such.
@harlexWTF The entire origins debate is a debate of two views of history. One comes from the Bible the other comes from people's imagination. The big question is, which one is the truth? We look at things today (rocks, fossils, living things, etc) and try to fit them into one of those histories (both of which are held by faith). One of them is wrong. Mutations, natural selection, fossils, etc all fit very well with the Bible's history and speak volumes against evolution. That's not psychology.
@CMIcreationstation You're saying that the Bible's version does NOT come from imagination, but evolution does... You do realize that the whole deal about prophets receiving revelations from angels and Jesus having supernatural powers is much harder to define as logical, right?
And you missed my point, because I was referring to psychology in the matter of sin, not fossils and rocks and such. Fossils will not help you analyze sin as well as psychology could.
@harlexWTF What CMI is saying is that the Bible's account of history, particularly the account of the origin of the universe is supported by observations from geology, biology, genetics, astronomy, etc. That support is one kind of verification that the writers of the Bible did not just 'invent' what they wrote but were actually kept free from making errors by God. That's why Christians call the Bible "God's Word".
@CMIcreationstation How do we know it was not invented? There is no living testament that the Earth was created in 7 days. The Big Bang Theory is more credible than that. Bringing in angels and omnipotence puts Creationism well into question, since these beliefs are circumstantial and conflict with many other ideologies.
And these prophets are basically the ancient 'ghost writers' for God, or so it seems to me. And 'ghost writers' are hard to credit, much less believe.
@harlexWTF If the Bible was invented it would never have been written in the way that it was. There would be inconsistencies and demonstrable errors, yet there are none. This is powerful evidence that it is God's Word. There are other evidences that support divine authorship as well. Here are a couple articles that may help clarify this creation.com/the-authority-of-scripture creation.com/gospel-dates-and-reliability
It would be great if conservatives allowed for coments or criticism on their videos. It seems at least unresting that you hide behind comment filters and create a whole Conservapedia article calling us cowards. We are here to answer to your videos and blind assumptions. You just won't let it.
@TWSYFree We did ask. The questions are here: creation.com/15-questions Before you attempt an answer to any of them please read the answers that have already been submitted, and our responses to them. (The links are at the very bottom of that page.) BTW, the questions were initially compiled by a PhD biologist and reviewed by other PhDs some of whom used to be evolutionists. Good luck!
@CMIcreationstation Let's start with question 1. How the hell does the fact that we couldn't create a cell in lab as of yet interfere with evolution. As far as evolution is concerned, a deity could have created the first life and then such a life evolved. Evolution is not a theory on creation, but on development.
@TWSYFree at the very top of the page (creation.com/15-questions) "evolution" is defined (by an evolutionist) as "the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form". Nice attempt to dodge the question. Try again.
Naturalists hijacked legitimate science and replaced it with their illogical religious philosophies. It's abundantly clear that evolution only exists in the hearts and minds of naturalists.
Evolution is philosophical doctrine used by naturalists to promote their Godless religion.
Naturalists try to disguise their religion of Evolution as science when in reality they are enemies of science, logic, God and truth.
HolyRevelation 2 weeks ago
So, there must be some kind of atheist agenda that's pushing this evolution stuff, eh?
Frosttty 2 weeks ago
That first cell, is it possible that fatty acids from space went together and made a simple cell like Jack szostak's theory says ? And isn't nylonase an example of a totally new informationgaining mutation that codes for an enzyme that can digest nuclear waste? Don batten wrights an article on it, but this other guy on youtube "lays" down the genetic sequences and calls me a "liar"when I attack his theory using don battens article
Btw the probability of the first cell is 10^570 not 10^57800CONT
xXsakkelaoXx 2 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@xXsakkelaoXx Actually nylonase is an example of how mutations can damage something designed to operate one way and cause it to do something very interesting (like digest nylon). However, it's still a downhill, destructive change to the DNA, not something that produces an uphill, evolutionary type of change. Don Batten summarizes what scientists studying nylonase have discovered near the bottom of this page: creation.com/question-evolution
CMIcreationstation 2 weeks ago
The bible may be based on history, but is not an accurate account of history. Several inconsistencies in Mark, Matthew, Luke and John's accounts exclude it from being such. Not to mention the world being a few thousand years old. Science has also been around long before Christianity was even conceived, being that many civilizations had developed scientific beliefs and methods before it. And the whole idea of evolution can be traced back to long before Blyth was born, going back to the Greeks
harlexWTF 2 weeks ago
@harlexWTF The "inconsistencies" you mention all disappear upon deeper study. There are some articles about that here: creation.com/skeptics-bible-errors Many skeptics have undertaken a study of the Bible to "prove" that it contains errors. During their study they become Christians. :)
Science began in earnest in the 1500's. Many of the early scientists were Christians and creationists. See: creation.com/scientists-of-the-past-who-believed-in-a-creator#early
CMIcreationstation 2 weeks ago
The essential problem of critiquing evolution is the fact that you're looking at it in the 5,000 year time frame. Evolution is ABSURDLY slow. Please keep this in mind. Plus, there's nothing wrong with theoretical science- it must begin in theory before it's accepted.
slumsquirrel21 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@slumsquirrel21 Actually, there's good evidence that adaptation can happen quickly. Here's an example: creation.com/brisk-biters Since science was born out of Christianity we also have no problem with scientific theory. Check out this article that discusses evolution, science and creation: creation.com/its-not-science
CMIcreationstation 3 weeks ago
@CMIcreationstation Well here would be my question- What are the implications for more complex beings such as apes, humans, etc.? Insects have a much MUCH quicker life cycle so the room for change is shortened quite a bit, but once you move to beings with 30-80 years of life then you have an exponentially grown window in which change can happen.
slumsquirrel21 2 weeks ago
@slumsquirrel21 No one is arguing that living things don't change. They do change. But the type of change that scientists observe over generations of living things does not support evolution. For details see some of the articles here: creation.com/natural-selection-questions-and-answers
CMIcreationstation 2 weeks ago
Oh, and your third mistake was believing that something of incredible complexity can only be proved by faith.
You know, an apple pie was not simply conceived and made on the spot, it was created because people got some ingredients and mixed said ingredients in a ever-changing order until years later what is now known as the apple pie was made. People had to make MISTAKES (or mutations, if you will) to create the finished product. Which is why you generally don't see too many apple sandwiches.
harlexWTF 3 weeks ago
@harlexWTF Apple pie, yum. Just curious why you would use such a good example of goal-directed intelligent design when trying to support evolution. The goal was, no doubt, to produce something that tastes good. By randomly "mutating" all the food ingredients in your kitchen you will never get apple pie. It may be helpful to the discussion if you left your faith in evolution out and just dealt with what mutations have actually been observed to do (i.e. science).
CMIcreationstation 3 weeks ago
'Comments are held to uploader approval'. Don't ask a question and then filter answers to said question. Your first mistake.
I am deist by the way, meaning to me that I believe in both God and Evolution, and that everyone is right in terms of faith and no one can be wrong (unless they try and disprove or force their faith upon another). Your second mistake is arguing against science with faith, as one is based more in fact and the other in belief.
harlexWTF 3 weeks ago
@harlexWTF Comments need to be approved because people are generally at their worst on the internet. Also, many (not all) atheists just haven't got a clue what creationists actually teach, even with more than 8000 articles at creation.com. Christianity is a faith, but not blind faith. It is a faith supported by the facts of history. Since science came from Christianity both fit together well. See: creation.com/what-a-christian-mind Evolution is a belief about the past, it's not science.
CMIcreationstation 3 weeks ago
@CMIcreationstation
While it is true that some people are only on the web to troll, your cause is hindered regardless. We can simply not trust that our voice will be heard when it is subject to review and deletion.
To take Christianity as historical fact is wrong. The Bible itself is used to teach a set of morals (which I admit that many are good), not educate one on history.
harlexWTF 3 weeks ago
@harlexWTF We are willing to respond to honest questions or challenges, but we are a small group and these videos are only meant to be summaries of the content on creation.com Actually, the truths that Christianity teaches are based on historical events. The morality cannot be separated from history. If the historical events didn't happen Christianity falls apart. For more info see: creation.com/genesis-history-or-mystery
CMIcreationstation 3 weeks ago
@CMIcreationstation Yet Christianity is also responsible for holding science back for hundreds of years, take Galileo's treatment for example. Charles Darwin traveled great distances, analyzed certain trends with nature, and then developed a hypothesis and answer to these trends. THAT is science. Believing in a higher power based on the beauty and complexity of our surroundings is not.
harlexWTF 3 weeks ago
@harlexWTF Science came out of Christianity. See: creation.com/biblical-roots-of-modern-science Here's some details on what happened with Galileo: creation.com/galileo-quadricentennial
CMIcreationstation 3 weeks ago
@CMIcreationstation You also missed my point about the apple pie. The recipe was not simply created in one day, complete and perfect. It went through a series of trials and errors, constant reformation until somebody discovered a successful recipe. Previous recipes that did not work were thrown away.
Or in other words, 'survival of the fittest'.
harlexWTF 3 weeks ago
@harlexWTF Creationists wrote on 'natural selection' many year before Darwin and we accept that organisms change genetically over time. But the type of change that scientist observe has nothing to do with 'molecules-to-man' evolution. For details see: creation.com/muddy-waters The point is: it all works IF all the genetic information is there at the beginning. Then organisms are able to survive in changing climates.
CMIcreationstation 3 weeks ago
@CMIcreationstation
Personally, I believe that while the general theory of Evolution (not just Darwin's theory, btw) is correct, a certain higher power did in fact set the basis for existence, i.e. the fundamental Laws of Reality and Existence. I do not believe that it was the Christian God who orchestrated this however, and that to debate for or against such is folly. No one can be wrong in regards to such matters on faith, unless they force their beliefs on others.
harlexWTF 2 weeks ago
@harlexWTF For clarification: would you say that evolution needs a higher power to start life off?
CMIcreationstation 2 weeks ago
@CMIcreationstation
Oh, and if you're (so I believe) saying that all this genetic material was already there, what about the grand question of homosexuality? Are you saying that the gay gene exists, and if so wouldn't it have been God who created it?
harlexWTF 2 weeks ago
@harlexWTF Yes, the original genetic instructions for each created kind were created by God, with no mutations. Since sin entered the world those instructions have been mutating and, occasionally, as a result of that downhill process some interesting by-products are produced. For more on a 'gay gene' see: creation.com/my-genes-made-me-do-it
CMIcreationstation 2 weeks ago
@CMIcreationstation When you insert sin into this debate your stance in the scientific portion is diminished. Sin is more a question of morals and ethics, and is better investigated in sociology or psychology, not by genetics.
harlexWTF 2 weeks ago
@harlexWTF It is because this world is under the curse of sin that makes it fit so well with science, especially genetics. The Bible says that God created everything "very good" (Gen 1:31) and that the entrance of sin negatively affects His entire creation. We see mutations damaging and destroying the original genetic code. Mutations are creeping into all living things garbling their genetic information. This observation fits the Bible's account of origins well: a perfect creation marred by sin.
CMIcreationstation 2 weeks ago
@CMIcreationstation While I could swear that a part of my debate has not been posted, I'll disregard it. Anyways, you didn't say anything new in your past post, more you restated that which I know you to have already referred to.Again, sin is a matter of faith. Truth is only as it is named, and what one man sees as sin another sees as natural or even good. I point again towards psychology as a more credible field in analyzing such.
harlexWTF 2 weeks ago
@harlexWTF The entire origins debate is a debate of two views of history. One comes from the Bible the other comes from people's imagination. The big question is, which one is the truth? We look at things today (rocks, fossils, living things, etc) and try to fit them into one of those histories (both of which are held by faith). One of them is wrong. Mutations, natural selection, fossils, etc all fit very well with the Bible's history and speak volumes against evolution. That's not psychology.
CMIcreationstation 2 weeks ago
@CMIcreationstation You're saying that the Bible's version does NOT come from imagination, but evolution does... You do realize that the whole deal about prophets receiving revelations from angels and Jesus having supernatural powers is much harder to define as logical, right?
And you missed my point, because I was referring to psychology in the matter of sin, not fossils and rocks and such. Fossils will not help you analyze sin as well as psychology could.
harlexWTF 2 weeks ago
@harlexWTF What CMI is saying is that the Bible's account of history, particularly the account of the origin of the universe is supported by observations from geology, biology, genetics, astronomy, etc. That support is one kind of verification that the writers of the Bible did not just 'invent' what they wrote but were actually kept free from making errors by God. That's why Christians call the Bible "God's Word".
CMIcreationstation 2 weeks ago
@CMIcreationstation How do we know it was not invented? There is no living testament that the Earth was created in 7 days. The Big Bang Theory is more credible than that. Bringing in angels and omnipotence puts Creationism well into question, since these beliefs are circumstantial and conflict with many other ideologies.
And these prophets are basically the ancient 'ghost writers' for God, or so it seems to me. And 'ghost writers' are hard to credit, much less believe.
harlexWTF 1 week ago
@harlexWTF If the Bible was invented it would never have been written in the way that it was. There would be inconsistencies and demonstrable errors, yet there are none. This is powerful evidence that it is God's Word. There are other evidences that support divine authorship as well. Here are a couple articles that may help clarify this creation.com/the-authority-of-scripture creation.com/gospel-dates-and-reliability
CMIcreationstation 1 week ago
It would be great if conservatives allowed for coments or criticism on their videos. It seems at least unresting that you hide behind comment filters and create a whole Conservapedia article calling us cowards. We are here to answer to your videos and blind assumptions. You just won't let it.
TWSYFree 3 weeks ago 8
@TWSYFree We continue to wait for answers to these 15 questions...
CMIcreationstation 3 weeks ago
@CMIcreationstation Ask then. I'd be more than happy to answer. I don't exactly have a PhD in Biology, but I kind-of-understand evolution.
TWSYFree 3 weeks ago
@TWSYFree We did ask. The questions are here: creation.com/15-questions Before you attempt an answer to any of them please read the answers that have already been submitted, and our responses to them. (The links are at the very bottom of that page.) BTW, the questions were initially compiled by a PhD biologist and reviewed by other PhDs some of whom used to be evolutionists. Good luck!
CMIcreationstation 3 weeks ago
@CMIcreationstation Let's start with question 1. How the hell does the fact that we couldn't create a cell in lab as of yet interfere with evolution. As far as evolution is concerned, a deity could have created the first life and then such a life evolved. Evolution is not a theory on creation, but on development.
TWSYFree 3 weeks ago
@TWSYFree at the very top of the page (creation.com/15-questions) "evolution" is defined (by an evolutionist) as "the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form". Nice attempt to dodge the question. Try again.
CMIcreationstation 3 weeks ago
evolution just doesn't add up.
fellowservant34 1 month ago
Have you ever hear John Lennon, imagine? well that´s all what you´ve got to do, imagine, I´ll go one stepd forwared and say...hallucinate...
Evolution is a scientific hallucination, a heavy one, so heavy that it is almost impossible to awake any one of them
realhomosapiens 1 month ago
@realhomosapiens that is so true..you point them to how impossible evolution is but they defend it to the death so passionate in their self delusion.
chersharni 1 month ago
@chersharni Maybe you should consider that we, evolutionists, believe you are deluded. So this 'argument from delusion' is just silly.
TWSYFree 3 weeks ago 2
I'm loving this video series! Keep up the great work! :) God bless!
onceforgivennowfree 1 month ago