The Truth About Evolution and Religion

[JungleJargon]

Evolution is impossible.

watch?v=lEledPONpkQ

[alianchild]

@JungleJargon Stop lying!

[JungleJargon]

@alianchild Mutations never accumulate into anything and the variation of species is by design and you cannot use design as evidence of no design.

It is evolution that is based entirely on lies.

[alianchild]

@JungleJargon Read a real science book you fucking moron.

[JungleJargon]

@alianchild Science confirms Creation because no other ordered functions ever exist without having a maker.

Read the Bible and learn something.

[alianchild]

@JungleJargon I have read it. Have you? How do you explain all the horrific things your god commands? How do you explain all the inaccuracies and outright lies in it? What about all the contradictions? You just accept it because you dont know any better. I still have never seen you site any scientific, peer reviewed source for your claims. Is that because there aren't any? This would make sense.And you have presented no evidence that the bible is true at all.

[JungleJargon]

@alianchild Read it again because you obviously didn't read it all the first time.

You did not show me another ordered function that does not have a maker.

Ordered functions of most of the most common elements obeying a preexisting word written in and with the functions that the elements were made to have working inside of you require a Maker.

Face and address the issues. All other lesser functions have a maker and there is no reason to think that much greater functions do not have a Maker.

[alianchild]

@JungleJargon You must prove that your claim is true, you have provided no evidence, you just keep making the claim. I win. SITE YOUR SOURCE.

[JungleJargon]

@alianchild Address an issue because you are not saying or proving anything.

At some point you have to realize that the papers that scientists lose debates over do not prove anything.

[psychosavant]

@JungleJargon

Your statement is circular reasoning and begging the question. In order to believe that "no other ordered function ever existed without having a maker", you must first assume that the universe had a maker. Clearly, if the universe doesn't have a maker, then the universe and its contents are examples of a ordered functions that lacks one. Furthermore, by your reasoning, your maker is also an ordered function and thereby also requires a maker.

[JungleJargon]

@psychosavant There is no evidence of any other maker. You are making things up.

There is no assumption. Ordered function always requires a maker, if not you would be able to show me another ordered function that does not have a maker, if not, you are still making things up.

No one has ever seen objects make anything without being ordered to make something.

[psychosavant]

@JungleJargon

When water freezes it forms an ordered hexagonal grid. That didn't have a maker.

And you're right, there is no evidence for any other maker and to imply so would be making something up. But that is also true for the maker of the Bible. He has no evidence, and he's made up.

We see millions of chemicals form ordered crystals. We see gravity and solar systems form ordered orbits. I could go on and on. None of it is evidence for a maker unless you assume a maker in the first place.

[JungleJargon]

@psychosavant It is not about order, it is about function that is ordered.

The Maker addressed in the Bible is the same Maker of the ordered functions that hydrogen has in life forms.

Again, it is not about order, it is about function that is ordered.

[psychosavant]

@JungleJargon

I never said there is any other maker. I simply said that if you assume that ordered function requires a maker, assuming that there is a maker of the universe is inadequate, as having a maker implies that it is ordered, thereby requiring a maker itself.

Science makes no such assumptions. It simply draws a conclusion based on evidence and the observations thereof, but otherwise acknowledging ignorance. Religion takes that one step further, by assuming there must be a maker.

[psychosavant]

@psychosavant Examples of order in nature that don't have any known maker of intelligent origin: Spiral galaxies with young stars in between arms and old stars in the center. Waves that spread from a drop of water. Consistency of supermassive black holes in the center of galaxies. Binary stars. Crystal formation of minerals. Carbon fullerenes Amino acids Saturn's rings Granularity of sedimentary layers Geological erosion patterns Layers of earth Biological life

[JungleJargon]

@psychosavant It is not about order, it is about function that is ordered.

Function always requires a maker and the ordered functions in life forms require a very great Maker.

[JungleJargon]

@psychosavant You are assuming that ordered functions do not require a maker so show me another ordered function that does not have a maker.

Ordered functions do not come about by objects ordering anything. You believe objects made you what you are and you have no proof of such a fantasy belief.

It is not scientific to say that objects made you what you are.

Seeing observable evidence of a very great Maker is not assuming anything. It is following the rules of science.

[psychosavant]

@JungleJargon

I'm not assuming ordered functions don't require a maker. It's shown, and I've given you a list of a ton of them and that's barely scratching the surface. What you see is not observable evidence of a great maker unless you ASSUME that there is a maker in the first place. I never stated that objects made me, but I shouldn't have to since clearly we are all simply a collection of objects that are no different than the collection that makes up otherwise non intelligent objects.

[JungleJargon]

@psychosavant The functions that are ordered in life forms prove there is a very great Maker.

Even all simple functions never exist without being ordered by a maker.

Even so, you prefer to believe that objects ordered your existence and that is a baseless belief.

Can I make it any more clear?

[psychosavant]

@JungleJargon

There is absolutely no reason you have to suggest that everything has a maker. I, along with science, which you apparently have no understanding of if you use it to back up your claim, do not object to the existence of a maker. It is simply stated that we don't know how everything started. But we don't make assumptions. We observe, and we leave the unknown unknown until we have reasonable evidence to suggest how to fill that gap. Assuming that there is a maker is NOT evidence.

[JungleJargon]

@psychosavant What you believe about objects making you what you are is entirely an assumption, with no basis.

The function of hydrogen in life forms is observable and it proves we have a Maker billions of times over.

[psychosavant]

@JungleJargon

Examples of order in nature that don't have any known maker of intelligent origin: Spiral galaxies with young stars in between arms and old stars in the center. Waves that spread from a drop of water. Consistency of supermassive black holes in the center of galaxies. Binary stars. Crystal formation of minerals. Carbon fullerenes. Amino acids. Saturn's rings. Granularity of sedimentary layers. Geological erosion patterns. Layers of earth. Biological life.

[JungleJargon]

@psychosavant It has to be *another* ordered function. Biological life is ordered because it has a Maker.

It is not about order, it is about function that exists because it is ordered.

[TacoBurgher327]

@JungleJargon Wow, just take your illogical nonsense from one video to another.... there's a word for people like you..... begins with a t.... anyways, i'll be back on the other video where nearly everyone has already combated the SAME arguments you're using here.

You think its hard for people to see just how many videos you've commented on, and how you use circular reasoning. You have a presupposition, and ANYONE can see that if they click your name.... You lose...

[JungleJargon]

@TacoBurgher327 There is nothing circular about objects not being able to do anything on their own without being ordered to do something. Whenever there is ordered function, there is a maker. That is science, reality and it is the truth.

You failed to find an ordered function that does not have a maker.

[TacoBurgher327]

@JungleJargon "There is nothing circular about objects not being able to do anything on their own without being ordered to do something."

Ya nothing circular about a CLAIM that needs proof, yet since your such an ignorant fuck, you don't think you need to provide ANYTHING, so when people call you out on it, you DON'T provide proof and continue spewing lies or unconfirmed bullshit. That's called CIRCULAR REASONING, meaning we are just going in fucking circles with you.

[TacoBurgher327]

@JungleJargon "it is about function that exists because it is ordered."

Yes, and psychosavant and myself have already named MORE THEN ENOUGH examples of FUNCTION in the universe without a maker. You seem to think that just because something isn't alive and on planet earth, it can't serve a function. I have challenged you to name ANYTHING in the universe that has "ordered function" which, i must point out, is a term YOU MADE UP. You can't... again, you lose...

[JungleJargon]

@TacoBurgher327 You showed order, you did not show any functions that do not have a maker.

You don't even know what the point is. Your argument is incoherent. Something only serves as a function when someone or some created thing assigns it a function or orders its function and that always requires intent from a maker.

An example of a simple function that requires a maker is an arrowhead.

[TacoBurgher327]

@JungleJargon "Something only serves as a function when someone or some created thing assigns it a function or orders its function "

BULLLLLLLLLSHIT. Are you saying the EARTH doesn't serve a function??

[TacoBurgher327]

@JungleJargon Take your illogical notion that "things with a function MUST have been created" and blow it out your ass. You're literally going from one video to another, arguing, and getting the same responses from everyone else. And not just one person, MANY people have told you this OVER and OVER again. At this point, a LOGICAL mind says "maybe it's me."

Of course, you NEVER think that, because as I have pointed out MANY times before, you have a presupposition...

[JungleJargon]

@TacoBurgher327 Objects never order anything without being ordered. That is the way according to science. It is not a presupposition. The only way to get an ordered function is for there to be a maker. There is no other way in the real world.

[psychosavant]

@psychosavant

It is absolutely scientific to say we came from objects because we observe it. The atoms that make us up are not in any way different than the atoms that make up a rock or an astroid, or a star. They all follow the same laws of physics and require no intelligent intervention to do so. Everything that occurs, happens exactly as we expect it to, with unwavering and unsympathetic order, as if there were no intelligence to guide it. And that IS observable.

[JungleJargon]

@psychosavant You observe that we consist of elements.

You do not observe that we are ordered by elements.

You observe that we are ordered by preexisting directives in the genome.

You do not observe mutations ordering anything.

You do not observe other insertions not already compatible with the genome ordering anything.

You do observe a preexisting word in the genome ordering our existence.

Objects never get the credit for doing anything without being ordered.

Don't confuse youreself.

[alejandronoe]

spreading lies!! please don't call it education!!

[naomikislasi]

This is interesting.

[hairyreasoner]

This is pretty confused.

[daarco2]

Why does some people try and dumb down science? Ask a parent or something, dont make a video claiming we lack the last hundred years of collected knowledge!

It will only make you look stupid. Mkay?

[davidfsnyder]

What is your Ph.D. in? Rhetoric? Your concluding slide is in error. Darwinian evolution absolutely does predict a common ancestor and the evidence for it is in the fossil records, our current gene pool, and vestigial organs. The laws of physics aren't random, yet you imply that they are: molecules aren't just a bunch of legos being placed together randomly, they aren't just bumping about randomly (electrons seek out protons, for example).

[kingseho]

@davidfsnyder There are no vestigial organs, they are not random yet you claim everything came by chance. There are no transitional fossils, i have videos of evolutionists saying there's none, darwin even stated there isn't any. If evolution occurred then 99% of fossils would be transitional yet we find none, only complete species. Evolution is impossible, you idiots rely on lies and assumptions for proof, there is no proof, there are no answers, you just bullshit.

[davidkroemer]

Very good point. Likewise, it does not matter whether God is a mental being or a real being. What we have to make a decision about is whether or not God has communicated himself to mankind. If God has not revealed himself, but is a real being, so what?

[Yakslipper]

I can't believe you are still talking in circles.

"If God has not revealed himself, but is a real being, so what?"

Do you sit back and admire comments like that? It doesn't mean anything.

By the way, is there one soul or two in conjoined twins?

[davidkroemer]

Is a conjoined twin one being or two beings?

[Yakslipper]

Connected at the brain? They are one. I can't wait for your evidence-based response.

[davidkroemer]

Evidence is a term associated with science, which is based on sense observations. Free will, the conscious knowledge of humans, and mental beings are not scientific concepts. We can comprehend humans, but we can't explicate or define what a human being is. Form (soul) and matter (body) are metaphysical concepts, as the video explains by quoting Stephen Jay Gould.

[Yakslipper]

Quoting Gould doesn't validate your claims. So, one brain, conjoined twins. How many souls?

[davidkroemer]

Quoting Gould does prove that humans have souls as far as science is concerned because Gould is an atheist/humanist and an eminent scientist.

[Yakslipper]

No it doesn't. Gould does not "beleive" in souls in any religious or metaphysical sense. His NOMA proposition is tactical and does not validate any aspect of religious belief...just puts it in a box separate from science. You use of the word "prove" is also ridiculous. So, the fact that science can't detect souls, which Gould clearly states, is evidence for their existence?

So, one brain, conjoined twins. How many souls?

[davidkroemer]

I bet noodles321321 lives his life as if he had free will. He feels guilty when he does something wrong and he promises not to do it again. It is only when discussing religion that free will is an illusion.

[davidkroemer]

My interpretation of the quote was that Gould was speaking out of both sides of his mouth. What is your concept of the soul? My review of Dawkins's latest book discusses this topic. It is on my website. Most biologist, showing their ignorance and irrationality, think of the soul as some kind of explanation for free will and conscious knowledge. Nothing could be more wrong.

[gaboentropy]

@davidkroemer Then, apparently, you did not read the book, only the quote. Since I don't have the context either, all I can say is that in appearance Gould is describing what catholics might believe, not what he believes necessarily. There is no reason to think that Gould was speaking from both sides of his mouth just like I cannot conclude that you talk from both sides of your mouth when you describe what you think that atheists believe.

[velobretagne]

self awareness ......... didn't skynet become self aware (after learning at a geometric rate) and then launch judgment day? So then the Terminators are human and part of God's design? LOL

[davidkroemer]

It is a matter of common sense that humans have free will and are embodied spirits. The "soul" is not a separate being or substance. It is a metaphysical principle that correlates with the "body." Biology includes the study of the bodies of humans, not their souls.

[kkostel01]

Actually, common sense could have nothing at all to say about us being "embodied spirits" any more than it could tell us anything relevant about any other piece of speculation or superstition. Saying something is true without proof is called faith.

[davidkroemer]

Faith means knowing something is true because God reveals it to us. Reason means knowing something is true because you can see the truth of it. It is a matter of reason, not faith, that humans have free will.

[kkostel01]

That's a very limited (and self-serving) definition. The broader meaning is to believe something without material proof. Like the belief of god to begin with, for instance. You can reason anything into existence by "seeing" the "truth" in it. Witness homeopathy and medicine based on examination of the humors. All arrived at by reason by reasonable men. All quackery.

[davidkroemer]

Do we have material proof that humans have free will?

[noodles321321]

@davidkroemer,

It is also a matter of common sense that the the sun goes around the earth. The obvious flaw lies in the realisation that it would look that way even if something completely different were true. You are trying to say that it is common sense that we have free will, but what you fail to realise is that that is what you think even if you didn't have free will.

And BTW, the Big Bang theory does NOT state that God created the universe from nothing. That's an ass pull.

[Yakslipper]

@davidkroemer - what is the evidential basis of the "soul" as defined by you? Sounds to me that you are looking for a space into which you can insert your religious projection...hardly scientific.

[davidkroemer]

The "soul" is a concept in metaphysics, not science. Form and matter are the more general concepts. Metaphysics is based on common sense, not science. According to common sense, humans have free will and conscious knowledge. There is no evidence we have free will. We know we have free will because we can make ourselves the subject of our own knowledge. Since we can't define free will and human rationality, humans are embodied spirits.

[Yakslipper]

@davidkroemer - OK. Please provide a workable, testable and repeatable definition of "common sense." The rest of your post is meaningless drivel unless you define your terms. "There is no evidence we have free will." I thought god gave it to us...it must be true.

[davidkroemer]

Common sense consists of things that we know are true, but are not based on observations. We know the sky is blue because we can see it. That humans dream at night and create other types of mental beings is a matter of common sense.

[Yakslipper]

@davidkroemer - Oh dear! If you really see things as simply as this then there is no wonder you take religion hook, line and sinker. The sky is blue? Really? You are simply arguing logical fallacies...ad populum in this case. Are dreams "common sense"? Do you mean that fact that so many people have them, or that we can explain them? Sounds to me that you define "common sense" as things that are readily understood or seen by you. Is communing with god common sense? Gyroscopic motion?

[davidkroemer]

I believe in religion for three reasons: 1) The historical Jesus. 2) The proof of God's existence. 3) People who don't believe give bad reasons for not believing. In your case, you avoided admitting that humans are embodied spirits by asking me to define "common sense."

[Yakslipper]

@davidkroemer - I've no interest in why you believe in religion. Given your faulty reasoning regarding "common sense" I dread to think the contortions you go through to justify your fantasies whilst proclaiming a scientific background. As for "embodied spirits" I haven't the first clue what that means, nor its relationship to common sense. I just noted you didn't define it...which is strange from someone claiming scientific credibility. I hope the kids you teach don't read this.

[Yakslipper]

@davidkroemer - does god talk to you? Are you able to experience god as a part of your consciousness? If so, how is that different from the imaginary character I just created within my mind and whom I can hear speaking to me right now?

[davidkroemer]

Watch the video again. I explain what is meant by "embodied spirits." I also explain why God exists and why humans have souls.

[Yakslipper]

@davidkroemer - I watched your video. I'm sorry I did. The claims you make, coming from someone with a scientific background are, quite frankly, embarassing. Empty, meaningless assertion, punctuated with bible verses does not amount to an argument or falsifiable proposition. You are simultaneously guilty of projection and confirmation bias and are so blinded to the truth you've succeeded only in convincing yourself. It's pitiful. You're in NY but everything about you suggests Lynchburg.

[Thommadura]

Sorry - but truth remains something that can be PROVEN to be true by ANYONE regardless of their beliefs -

There remains no proof a soul exists - and YOU have yet to provide any

THere also is NO religious story of creation that has not already been falsified based on actual error PROVEN TO BE WRONG in the stories . Note - creation is not a single story - there are thousands of different religious creation stories - and ALL of them are falsified.

[MomoTheBellyDancer]

Wow. Just ... wow. I have no words for the sheer stupidity of this.

[BellyBionic]

Wow, you're a flaming moron. Do you have a wear a helmet and a drool bib?

[Desertphile]

Crock of shit detected; viewing terminated.

[teaboyaudio]

I just got a lot dumber watching this nonsense. But I sure did get the greatest laugh of my life.

[dhampir11]

My IQ and scientific knowledge dropped after watching this, it's riddled with fallacy and outright lies.