Lee Strobel FAIL - Fossil Record Proves Creation - Team Rebutall

[AmericanCryer]

It depends on the context of evolution. I believe that there is a creator. A conscious that permeates throughout the universe. It is not he nor she. It just is. And with that creative intelligence evolution has it's place. However, I do not feel that the scientific community has it 100% right on the subject. At the same time, I do not believe the Earth was created in 7 days. I often wonder IF we were engineered and enhanced to our current state. Makes one wonder.

[xxxLaurenKBxxx]

I LOVE GOD! THE CREATOR OF ALL!

THE LEAP OF FAITH TO BELIEVE THE WHOLE WORLD WAS BY CHANCE OR COINCIDENCE IS SO MUCH GREATER THAN TO ACCEPT THAT INDEED THERE IS AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR. LORD GOD FORGIVE THEM FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO.

- and you are disrespectful in your approach. btw. yuck

[lglp3]

you have a wolf on your t shirt



[Feredir28]

@lglp3 I have a wolf on 90% of all my shirts ;)

[Casshyr]

Lee, please make a public apology for the scientific errors you have made. Jesus would want you to do it.

[audiotrax2000]

It seems to me that Strobel is relying on "sloganism" to make his case. Which works if you are an old time preacher in the 1930's making sweeping statements to a bunch of farmers in the Gospel tent, but nowdays even kid's know better. They have this thing called the Internet which allows them to call up information and check what you said with facts. If you lie - they will catch you at it.

[barrett314]

You guys--rock! Strobel is a total hack. The biggest problem with all his arguments is that he takes (false) evidence *against* evolution as evidence *for* a god. It would be like saying "Grass is not blue and this proves concrete is gray." Sadly many people with 8+ of post-secondary education share his views and (as mentioned previously) make several dollars off ill-informed sheeple.

[seanstrnad]

Nice work guys. Lee Strobel doesn't reject evolution because he has looked at the evidence (otherwise he'd agree with 99% of scientists), he rejects it because he probably sleeps better at night believing in his space god, and probably to make tons of money off uneducated people.

[mejc2]

This was pretty funny. You Guys don't know anything. you have been indoctrinated and don't know anything.

[Feredir28]

@mejc2 the funny part is your pathetic projection of your intellectual underachievement unto us.

[mejc2]

@Feredir28

how do you achieve intellectually? What is intellectual achievement?

[altmanblaudio]

I do have one question. If I were to give a scientist a fresh piece of magma...fresh enough that I could hold it, how old would it be...according the the scientific way of identifying how old something is?

[Naiant]

The actual biologists who signed that statement think that natural selection isn't the only engine that drives evolution, that other things such as genetic drift and genetic recombination are also factors. So they were agreeing with the statement that natural selection alone isn't enough, not that evolution doesn't take place.

[ageofbraids]

This man Lee Strobel is, unfortunatley for him, and idiot. Nice video. Check my videos out (read the descriptions on them)

[Muffinman3670]

Did you realize that if you change what he said about micro evolution and put it to what he said about macro evolution and put what he said about macro evolution and put it to micro evolution you have an answer. Get pwned by a 14 year old with a 99 percent in bio when you round up.

[Feredir28]

@Muffinman3670 If you listen closely, based on his lack of understanding of the two, he deceives people of what micro and macro evolution really is.

If you switch macro and micro evolution, that even makes it sound dumber. Macro evolution is speciation above the species level, not beneath it.

[Muffinman3670]

JESUS pwns all I win.

[swisscheesepotatochi]

anything would prove creation...lol

[swisscheesepotatochi]

what exactly are these evidence?

[Kpmuelle]

so says the non-scientist . . cool man good luck

[Feredir28]

@Kpmuelle CS2, RyuOni and I are much closer to scientists than Strobel.

[Kpmuelle]

i am embarrassed for these guys . . . a dissent from darwinism (highly educated professors)

feredir28, Ryuoni1989, Chattiestpike2 - self proclaimed scientific debaters

direct quote from Ryuoni1989 - "[Strobel] was very close to saying species, but he corrects himself because if he said that he would just destroy his whole point ." Really! No way. I guess that is why he didn't say it. No matter how many loops you do with your fingers, it still makes your point a waste of time. Very biased.

[Feredir28]

@Kpmuelle Over 80% of those professors are not biologists. About 99% of those biologists demanded to have their names removed since they were lied to.

watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM

Dont forget Project Steve, a list of highly educated biologists who signed a paper supporting evolution, and that list is almost four times longer than the dissent (and they are all named Steve or Stephanie).

We, unlike Strobel, back up our claims and do not twist the data or use apologetic fallacies to fool our viewers.

[Kpmuelle]

@Feredir28 - sweet statistics bro! 80% of all 35% of 20% of all statistics are made up. Get some real statistics are you kidding me. You think I am like you, I don't just take random numbers and say, "oh okay it must be true". I will continue to look for unbiased and honest people to answer the questions Strobel has left me wondering. Good luck on finding sheep and keep working the hand-gestures when you talk. . I really adds something to your debate.

[Feredir28]

@Kpmuelle

Your denial of actual stats will not change the fact of evolution. You are quick to deny Project Steve, and fool yourself to ignore the fact that most of the signers of ID's list are not even scientists.

"I will continue to look for unbiased and honest people"... religion is a biased, which is why is relies on propaganda. Science is objective and testable. Strobel is far from honest and relies on twisting data to support his biased view.

[Hastabajote]

Technically right on a large scale? Huge scale, God. An intelligent design HAS to come from an intelligent mind. Think about it. GBY

[Cyrathil]

@Hastabajote

The problem is there isn't really an intelligent design. You might be able to show there is a design, but it's not exactly all that intelligent of one...

[Feredir28]

@Cyrathil

That depends how we define design (which IDers are too vague), since we are only familiar with human artificial design. Also, a snowflake may look designed, but we all know it came about through natural means. You can look at several landscapes that came about through natural ways that look designed.

[Cyrathil]

@Feredir28 I actually have to disagree. Because we clarified design with "intelligent" we're specifically referring back to something which would be akin, albeit on a more "supreme level" (that's definitely where the haziness comes in...) to our designs, and my point was just that that's not really seen in anything. There are some things which seem to fit in just as well, but they are overshadowed by the vast majority of things which are there for almost no reason, or are completely detrimental.

[SonofJaphet]

Its funny to see non scientists trying to act like ones

[patrickledford420]

lol bats and whales have a common ancestor we would expect millions of fossils lol we are all related we all share a common ancestor and bats and whales are seperated by millions and millions and millions of years shit so much fucking ignorance

[zillatamer]

@patrickledford420, there cant be that many, not everything fossilizes idiot!! their common ancestor was the same as ours, and we have found houndreds of the transitions, just not every single one. The chances of something fossilizeing are less than 1 million to one. Shithead.

[flysoup]

Not a convincing argument. I don't think you guys debunked anything. But nice music choice for your little video!

[MaximusDelta]

2 gay guys

[Cyrathil]

I'm waiting for the creationists to catch onto the fact that they can't accept "micro-evolution" without accepting macro, considering there is no known method of separating the two.

If micro-evolution is occurring macro-evolution is as well! There isn't a genetic identifier of your "kind"/species. There isn't a single piece of any DNA which has all the information needed to be a part of your "kind", and in any sense that it does exist, it's susceptible to mutation!

[Cyrathil]

"[Accepting evolution] required a leap of faith that I was not able to make"

Well, considering his religion says that those who believe on faith are the best people, it shows this guy is definitely hell bound, by his own standards, if he can't muster up enough faith to believe in evolution, what with none being required...

[zillatamer]

@Cyrathil, evolution does not ask for faith, or blind belief, like christianity, it asserts itself with proof, not a fantasy story.

[patrickledford420]

@Cyrathil no no no thats not it u think that u can walk 1 mile means that u could walk for 10 miles that insane lol jk these creationist are fucking idiots

[zillatamer]

@Cyrathil, yep, in science there is no exact boundary between 2 species, unlike what creationists believe.

[TransitionalApe]

On finishing the video, a couple things to add. Cambrian Explosion is usually described as 30-80 (30 being the most common number) million years and some stages were 5-10 million years.

No one called the idiot on his suggestion that there should be transitional fossils between bats and whales. Bats didn't become whales, nor the reverse. He even says 'shared a common ancestor' then says there should be transitional fossils between them. You guys still nailed the debunking.

[SPACKlick]

@TransitionalApe

There are transitional fossils between Cetacea and Chiroptera. They are both in Ferungulata. Which splits into Cetartiodactyla-->Cetacea (WHALES)

And into Pegasoferae--->Chiroptera (BATS)

Transitions in this region are well understood

[TransitionalApe]

Well done gents. On the subject of speciation, my favorite example is always Ensatina eschscholtzi. I prefer to give examples other than just saying ring species. It has a bigger impact on the argument to show specific examples. Just my preference and suggestion, take it or leave it.

[TheDarwinman]

You guys have clearly exposed Lee Strobel's arguments for its pathetic sophistry. This man's agenda has nothing to do with telling the truth for I guarantee you that he himself actually believes much of what he says.

[tattooskin72]

Oh those idiots in his audience... let's all nod in agreement because we are stupid sheeple that have no understanding of science!

Excellent group rebuttal. I really liked this :)

[EssentialPedagogy]

Kind = whatever they need to say to move the goalpost.