Thanks for the video, I think every Christian is supposed to share the gospel because everyone can reach different persons. Maybe you can especially reach highly educated people who would otherwise hide behind pseudo-science to reject God. By the way, what´s the music you have in the background? I really like it, especially the drums.
@davemakesawave You gotta be kiddin! Your imagenary friend has nothing to do with things like science and reason because it's a delusion and your claim is a contradiction. If there was logic and reason in religion there would'nt be any religion.
@kaxitaksi Okay, so I see you think highly of Dawkins paperback and that you consider yourself intellectually superior by repeating his deceptions but it’s the same old meaningless condemnation that he throws up all the time.
In fact he confuses religion which Jesus condemned frequently as evil, with relationship with God. The same God who Dr Francis Collins knows. Google Dr Francis Collins and see what he has to say about Dawkins too.
@snoberts Evolution does not deal with these matters unless that is, like Dawkins you believe in aliens and your lucky stars. This is why I don't do the Common sense vs Evolution debate; it is pointless as the two topics are not on the same page.
The Bible does deal with origin and destiny and that is why the Bible is so important.
@snoberts the main point of this vid is that life has so far only ever come from God. As for your detailed exposition of the evolution of fairy dust, you lack one thing, evidence. Beyond this I am not particulary interseted in evolution; having done it alread, I am far more interested in our origin and destiny.
Cells were not he first forms of self-replicating life dave. Cells evolved from organic chain molecules whose formation is much simpler than a cell. The likelihood of these forming is quite reasonable given the billion or so years it took to do so. Stick to your bible quotes. You are out of your depth in the real world.
@snoberts Well pardon me for not being detailed enough. So where are the fossils of these self replicating organic chain molecules, and where are the transitional fossils and why does this not continue to happen every day of the year given that with the passing of time the likelihood of such a fantasy increases? Life only comes from life; all else is a theory, or more accurately, a fantasy; a delusion.
Therefore, the creator of God could be eternal also. If God can live outside time then Gods creator also could, never growing old without a beginning or end. You ruling it out? Or, more to the point, do you have any evidence? I don't find this baffling, its very simple to understand, just incredibly unlikely/incredibly convenient and a very weak argument and one which I've heard before. Incidentally, I heard it recently word for word of what you just stated, and it still answers nout.
@juanmcl1 God was not created. The evidence for this is a collection of verified and carefully studied historical documents assembled into a very important book called the Bible. Obviously this is all we have to go on regarding whether or not God is eternal although philosophers also agree that if there is a God then he is eternal just simply by definition. Otherwise I am not aware there is scientific evidence for the evolutionary theory that life came from a space ship.
@juanmcl1 btw, please only reply once for each point, you have posted masses of comments all the same. perhaps it is because of the new YouTube format, it isn't very clear is it; I don't like it.
God is eternal. It seems that no one created God. God created time and he lives outside of time, never growing old, without beginning or end. This is a concept that materialists often find baffling so don't beat yourself up about it. Others who find it difficult to grasp this include Richard Dawkins, the biology teacher who studies creation. Please check out ppsimmons channel.
If life only comes from life, who created God? By your logic, there must be a creator of that life. The evidence for God is zero, you forgot to put that in the video. Why attribute mans ignorance to an overwhelmingly improbable man-made sky spirit idea backed by no evidence? Religion creates more questions/problems than it answers/solves.
If life only comes from life, who created God? By your logic, there must be a creator of that life. The evidence for God is zero, you forgot to put that in the video.
All so called human-ape links are actually random mutations in history that are not linked together whatsoever. They just appear to be linked because all life looks similiar to some degree.
And Human and Chimp DNA are not similiar, I believe that's a lie, because if it really was then:
1. Why are we so different?
2. All humans have around 98% similarity in DNA, and they can make babies, so why not with chimps also?
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces."Matt. 7:6
Atheist your christian friends are helping you to see the truth, but if you don't want to hear it. We have no choice.
Nebraska Man - Never accepted in the scientific community. The mistaken claim was falsified by science itself.
Piltdown - Yes, a fraud, but found to be so by evolution itself.
Heidelberg Man - Not a fake.
Neanderthal - your claim that it's just an old man with arthritis is utterly absurd. We've got many examples of the Neanderthal and they were not modern humans. They were a different species.
I merely quote the New Scientist Darwin was wrong title in the video. I am sure he was right about a few things as well. But according to the theory of evolution we have ultimately evolved from nothing. That simply is not the case, it is not possible and that is just the way it is. To ignore origins is to completely bury ones head in the sand.
So you like to delete comments that you do not like, Even when they are on point. This is not a very honest way to conduct a debate.
Perhaps you should actually read the article then merely used the front cover for a clip art. The article was refering to Darwin's "tree." And then, Darwin got most of it right.
It is not a question of accepting or denying orgins. Evolution merely does not address it. If you are going to be critical of evolution, you should at least try to learn it.
I haven't deleted any comments, so lying to try and accuse someone of lying isnt particularly clever really is it? I am sure you have impressed everyone with the word abiogenesis and you can feel very pleased with yourself about that. You are right about one thing tho, evolution fails on the point of origins and whether or not we evolved from a faked fossil is ultimately neither here nor there. There is no basis for atheism to say there is no God.
So you are impressed with the term abiogenesis. I am a firm believer of providing correct names for the various fields of science.
Evolution does not address origins, This is something which YECs have long try, but it is not true,
Fake fossils? Care to elaborate?
Faith - Yes I enjoy talking about my faith. I have news for you, I am a Christian. I prefer a theology though which is not based on lying about nature to justify a very bad interpretation of Scripture.
And I see you are also a Peter Gabriel fan as I am. Ref faked fossils, watch the vid, there are no credible transitional human fossils. Glad to hear you are a believer and I accept that some believers also believe in evolution; I did for about a further 5 years after I was born again, but I am now totally convinced that God intended the Bible to be accepted as it is written, straight forwardly. Anyway, shouldnt you be asleep at this time? It must be about 4am over there?
This is one of the points I mentioned earlier. I prefer following a denomination which does notneed to misrepresent nature to enjoy the scriptures.
Now you might disagree with how the various lineages are interpreted, but this is far removed from calling them a fake. You are going to need to do better than that.
I do have a copy of the recent Science journal talking about Ardie. I have not yet read all of the 11 articles, but so far they are interesting.
The early believers in the scriptures, Acts, writings of Paul the gospels etc all just took God at his word. He and His word are far above nature. The interpretation of science is not in authority over the word of God. Neanderthal man was not only a fake but a very deliberate lie. If you have more faith in fossils then you hold a lie above the truth. There are 2-3 transitional humanoid fossils rolled out each year and they are all dismissed within 3-6 months.
This year there are more than usual as there is a lot of Darwin hype and therefore a great opportunity to make a lot of money out of publishing. Look into Darwiniusus masillae and the sale of the TV rights. Large sums of money exchanged hands before DM was brought to light. Therefore the motivation was not science at all, it was money. No wonder it has already been dismissed and yet so many ppl still believe Neanderthal Man and Lucy etc are genuine transitional fossils.
Hype for Darwin? 2009 is the 200th birthday of Darwin and the 150th anniversary for the first edition publication of Origins. 22 years ago, I had the pleasure of visiting Westminster, where I had the opportunity to visit the graves of Newton and Darwin. It was great day.
While there was some controversy with DM, the science is sound. I am not buying your money angle.
And A. Afraensis is a genuine transitional feature. See earlier comment on homo heanderthalist.
I prefer Saint Augustine of Hippo response. Those who insist on nature conforming to a literal view of Genesis, not only got Genesis wrong, but is also making a mockery of God.
Neanderthal a fake? Based on what?
Actually we have Neanderthal DNA. The DNA studies show that homo sapians and homo neanderthalist are genetic cousins, but we did not descend from homo neanderthalists.
Oops, I meant Piltdown Man was a fraud. Neanderthal was a human. I typed that before I woke up!
What do you make of the fact that Jesus quoted Genesis chapter one and two and he said that (referring to married men and women) "at the beginning of creation God made them male and female" - Mark 10 v 6 which seems very straight forward. Jesus on whom our faith hangs took the scriptures simply as written and endorsed them. This precludes the evolution of man who was made in the image of God.
Jesus never once pointed out errors in the OT, rather he quoted it straightforwardly often adding "as the scriptures say" before quoting and leaving us a clear way to understand God, life and the universe; they are as the scriptures say which leaves no room for interpretation. Newton and Darwin are dead, they are not deities, just ppl like you and me, praps a bit cleverer and more popular but so what.
The Old Testament was not canonized until 70 years after Christ's death and ressurection. Nor were the Gospels written during or even shortly after christ lifetime. Even then the NT was not canonized until 300 years after Christs death and ressurection.
Scripture provide guidance for how we can life as good Christian stewards, but scripture does have limits and does contain errors. To deny them is to be blind and worst, deny others salvation.
The Torah (Old Testament) was around donkeys years before Christ, it is the Jewish Bible, so you are incorrect on that one and the New Testament was widely used well before it was canonised. The Bible is the word of God, utterly reliable.
Considering that you are a resident of the UK, you more than anyone should recognize the desire of some prominent politicians, scholars and writers to blindly accept Piltdown Man prior to the outbreak of the Great War. As well as the intergrity of British scientists to expose Piltdown as a fruad.
This is science at its finest. There are not many examples of fake fossils falling through the cracks because of the many checks and balances. Too bad YECs can't say the same (ie, Ica Stones).
The real heart of the matter is the origin of life. Christ was raised from the dead. No one has even disproved that fact and whether or not we accept it does not erode its authenticity. Billions of Christians, me included testify to the power of Christ in their lives and we know that God exists and it is He who is the origin of life. Life only comes from life and the theory of evolution is irrelevant in this respect.
I am not sure why you waited two months to issue a response, but you should not have bothered.
As Christians we accept the mystery of Christ's death and reserrection. This a fundamental element of our faith. It is not a matter of science to prove or disporve. This is why it is called a mystery.
Evolution is an explanation of an observed natural process. Whether it is relevant or not to the subject of faith is immaterial.
Hi, yes, sorry for the long time in replying, I am very busy and because of all the horrid comments that I get I had to close open commenting which is a bit of a nuisance. Anyway, thanks for your reply and I see that we basically agree. Have a good evening if you are in the UK, or a good day if you are the other side of the ocean.
This is not your arugment. You said Darwin was wrong because you do not accept abiogenesis. But Darwin did not propose how life began. If you are going to be critical of his theory, at least you can do is give an accurate analysis.
I merely quote the New Scientist Darwin was wrong title in the video. I am sure he was right about a few things as well. But according to the theory of evolution we have ultimately evolved from nothing. That simply is not the case, it is not possible and that is just the way it is. To ignore origins is to completely bury ones head in the sand.
Nice video i learned something today....
nickomay30 6 months ago
Thanks for the video, I think every Christian is supposed to share the gospel because everyone can reach different persons. Maybe you can especially reach highly educated people who would otherwise hide behind pseudo-science to reject God. By the way, what´s the music you have in the background? I really like it, especially the drums.
heythinkaboutit 1 year ago
@kaxitaksi It is called the God Conclusion for sound scientific and logical reasons.
davemakesawave 1 year ago
@davemakesawave You gotta be kiddin! Your imagenary friend has nothing to do with things like science and reason because it's a delusion and your claim is a contradiction. If there was logic and reason in religion there would'nt be any religion.
kaxitaksi 1 year ago
@kaxitaksi Okay, so I see you think highly of Dawkins paperback and that you consider yourself intellectually superior by repeating his deceptions but it’s the same old meaningless condemnation that he throws up all the time.
In fact he confuses religion which Jesus condemned frequently as evil, with relationship with God. The same God who Dr Francis Collins knows. Google Dr Francis Collins and see what he has to say about Dawkins too.
davemakesawave 1 year ago
@snoberts Evolution does not deal with these matters unless that is, like Dawkins you believe in aliens and your lucky stars. This is why I don't do the Common sense vs Evolution debate; it is pointless as the two topics are not on the same page.
The Bible does deal with origin and destiny and that is why the Bible is so important.
davemakesawave 1 year ago
@snoberts the main point of this vid is that life has so far only ever come from God. As for your detailed exposition of the evolution of fairy dust, you lack one thing, evidence. Beyond this I am not particulary interseted in evolution; having done it alread, I am far more interested in our origin and destiny.
davemakesawave 1 year ago
Cells were not he first forms of self-replicating life dave. Cells evolved from organic chain molecules whose formation is much simpler than a cell. The likelihood of these forming is quite reasonable given the billion or so years it took to do so. Stick to your bible quotes. You are out of your depth in the real world.
snoberts 1 year ago
@snoberts Well pardon me for not being detailed enough. So where are the fossils of these self replicating organic chain molecules, and where are the transitional fossils and why does this not continue to happen every day of the year given that with the passing of time the likelihood of such a fantasy increases? Life only comes from life; all else is a theory, or more accurately, a fantasy; a delusion.
davemakesawave 1 year ago
Therefore, the creator of God could be eternal also. If God can live outside time then Gods creator also could, never growing old without a beginning or end. You ruling it out? Or, more to the point, do you have any evidence? I don't find this baffling, its very simple to understand, just incredibly unlikely/incredibly convenient and a very weak argument and one which I've heard before. Incidentally, I heard it recently word for word of what you just stated, and it still answers nout.
juanmcl1 1 year ago
@juanmcl1 God was not created. The evidence for this is a collection of verified and carefully studied historical documents assembled into a very important book called the Bible. Obviously this is all we have to go on regarding whether or not God is eternal although philosophers also agree that if there is a God then he is eternal just simply by definition. Otherwise I am not aware there is scientific evidence for the evolutionary theory that life came from a space ship.
davemakesawave 1 year ago
@juanmcl1 btw, please only reply once for each point, you have posted masses of comments all the same. perhaps it is because of the new YouTube format, it isn't very clear is it; I don't like it.
davemakesawave 1 year ago
God is eternal. It seems that no one created God. God created time and he lives outside of time, never growing old, without beginning or end. This is a concept that materialists often find baffling so don't beat yourself up about it. Others who find it difficult to grasp this include Richard Dawkins, the biology teacher who studies creation. Please check out ppsimmons channel.
davemakesawave 1 year ago
If life only comes from life, who created God? By your logic, there must be a creator of that life. The evidence for God is zero, you forgot to put that in the video. Why attribute mans ignorance to an overwhelmingly improbable man-made sky spirit idea backed by no evidence? Religion creates more questions/problems than it answers/solves.
juanmcl1 1 year ago
If life only comes from life, who created God? By your logic, there must be a creator of that life. The evidence for God is zero, you forgot to put that in the video.
juanmcl1 1 year ago
All so called human-ape links are actually random mutations in history that are not linked together whatsoever. They just appear to be linked because all life looks similiar to some degree.
And Human and Chimp DNA are not similiar, I believe that's a lie, because if it really was then:
1. Why are we so different?
2. All humans have around 98% similarity in DNA, and they can make babies, so why not with chimps also?
TheColaGoodfellow 2 years ago
and why don't primates seek God whereas only humans made in the image of God seek God. Pretty obvious really isn't it.
davemakesawave 2 years ago
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces."Matt. 7:6
Atheist your christian friends are helping you to see the truth, but if you don't want to hear it. We have no choice.
kevinchloe10 2 years ago
nope -still athiest
goulygliu 2 years ago
Lucy - Not a fake.
Nebraska Man - Never accepted in the scientific community. The mistaken claim was falsified by science itself.
Piltdown - Yes, a fraud, but found to be so by evolution itself.
Heidelberg Man - Not a fake.
Neanderthal - your claim that it's just an old man with arthritis is utterly absurd. We've got many examples of the Neanderthal and they were not modern humans. They were a different species.
"New Guinea Man" - No such thing.
You must try harder...
RPFS2008 2 years ago
Okay, so you don't know what you are talking about; that's fine
davemakesawave 2 years ago
I merely quote the New Scientist Darwin was wrong title in the video. I am sure he was right about a few things as well. But according to the theory of evolution we have ultimately evolved from nothing. That simply is not the case, it is not possible and that is just the way it is. To ignore origins is to completely bury ones head in the sand.
davemakesawave 2 years ago
So you like to delete comments that you do not like, Even when they are on point. This is not a very honest way to conduct a debate.
Perhaps you should actually read the article then merely used the front cover for a clip art. The article was refering to Darwin's "tree." And then, Darwin got most of it right.
It is not a question of accepting or denying orgins. Evolution merely does not address it. If you are going to be critical of evolution, you should at least try to learn it.
lawilson200 2 years ago
I haven't deleted any comments, so lying to try and accuse someone of lying isnt particularly clever really is it? I am sure you have impressed everyone with the word abiogenesis and you can feel very pleased with yourself about that. You are right about one thing tho, evolution fails on the point of origins and whether or not we evolved from a faked fossil is ultimately neither here nor there. There is no basis for atheism to say there is no God.
davemakesawave 2 years ago
I apologize for that. I suspect an error on the part of you-tube.
lawilson200 2 years ago
So you are impressed with the term abiogenesis. I am a firm believer of providing correct names for the various fields of science.
Evolution does not address origins, This is something which YECs have long try, but it is not true,
Fake fossils? Care to elaborate?
Faith - Yes I enjoy talking about my faith. I have news for you, I am a Christian. I prefer a theology though which is not based on lying about nature to justify a very bad interpretation of Scripture.
lawilson200 2 years ago
And I see you are also a Peter Gabriel fan as I am. Ref faked fossils, watch the vid, there are no credible transitional human fossils. Glad to hear you are a believer and I accept that some believers also believe in evolution; I did for about a further 5 years after I was born again, but I am now totally convinced that God intended the Bible to be accepted as it is written, straight forwardly. Anyway, shouldnt you be asleep at this time? It must be about 4am over there?
davemakesawave 2 years ago
More like 1:30 AM PDT.
This is one of the points I mentioned earlier. I prefer following a denomination which does notneed to misrepresent nature to enjoy the scriptures.
Now you might disagree with how the various lineages are interpreted, but this is far removed from calling them a fake. You are going to need to do better than that.
I do have a copy of the recent Science journal talking about Ardie. I have not yet read all of the 11 articles, but so far they are interesting.
lawilson200 2 years ago
The early believers in the scriptures, Acts, writings of Paul the gospels etc all just took God at his word. He and His word are far above nature. The interpretation of science is not in authority over the word of God. Neanderthal man was not only a fake but a very deliberate lie. If you have more faith in fossils then you hold a lie above the truth. There are 2-3 transitional humanoid fossils rolled out each year and they are all dismissed within 3-6 months.
davemakesawave 2 years ago
This year there are more than usual as there is a lot of Darwin hype and therefore a great opportunity to make a lot of money out of publishing. Look into Darwiniusus masillae and the sale of the TV rights. Large sums of money exchanged hands before DM was brought to light. Therefore the motivation was not science at all, it was money. No wonder it has already been dismissed and yet so many ppl still believe Neanderthal Man and Lucy etc are genuine transitional fossils.
davemakesawave 2 years ago
Hype for Darwin? 2009 is the 200th birthday of Darwin and the 150th anniversary for the first edition publication of Origins. 22 years ago, I had the pleasure of visiting Westminster, where I had the opportunity to visit the graves of Newton and Darwin. It was great day.
While there was some controversy with DM, the science is sound. I am not buying your money angle.
And A. Afraensis is a genuine transitional feature. See earlier comment on homo heanderthalist.
lawilson200 2 years ago
I prefer Saint Augustine of Hippo response. Those who insist on nature conforming to a literal view of Genesis, not only got Genesis wrong, but is also making a mockery of God.
Neanderthal a fake? Based on what?
Actually we have Neanderthal DNA. The DNA studies show that homo sapians and homo neanderthalist are genetic cousins, but we did not descend from homo neanderthalists.
lawilson200 2 years ago
Oops, I meant Piltdown Man was a fraud. Neanderthal was a human. I typed that before I woke up!
What do you make of the fact that Jesus quoted Genesis chapter one and two and he said that (referring to married men and women) "at the beginning of creation God made them male and female" - Mark 10 v 6 which seems very straight forward. Jesus on whom our faith hangs took the scriptures simply as written and endorsed them. This precludes the evolution of man who was made in the image of God.
davemakesawave 2 years ago
Jesus never once pointed out errors in the OT, rather he quoted it straightforwardly often adding "as the scriptures say" before quoting and leaving us a clear way to understand God, life and the universe; they are as the scriptures say which leaves no room for interpretation. Newton and Darwin are dead, they are not deities, just ppl like you and me, praps a bit cleverer and more popular but so what.
davemakesawave 2 years ago
The Old Testament was not canonized until 70 years after Christ's death and ressurection. Nor were the Gospels written during or even shortly after christ lifetime. Even then the NT was not canonized until 300 years after Christs death and ressurection.
Scripture provide guidance for how we can life as good Christian stewards, but scripture does have limits and does contain errors. To deny them is to be blind and worst, deny others salvation.
lawilson200 2 years ago
The Torah (Old Testament) was around donkeys years before Christ, it is the Jewish Bible, so you are incorrect on that one and the New Testament was widely used well before it was canonised. The Bible is the word of God, utterly reliable.
davemakesawave 2 years ago
Considering that you are a resident of the UK, you more than anyone should recognize the desire of some prominent politicians, scholars and writers to blindly accept Piltdown Man prior to the outbreak of the Great War. As well as the intergrity of British scientists to expose Piltdown as a fruad.
This is science at its finest. There are not many examples of fake fossils falling through the cracks because of the many checks and balances. Too bad YECs can't say the same (ie, Ica Stones).
lawilson200 2 years ago
The real heart of the matter is the origin of life. Christ was raised from the dead. No one has even disproved that fact and whether or not we accept it does not erode its authenticity. Billions of Christians, me included testify to the power of Christ in their lives and we know that God exists and it is He who is the origin of life. Life only comes from life and the theory of evolution is irrelevant in this respect.
davemakesawave 2 years ago
I am not sure why you waited two months to issue a response, but you should not have bothered.
As Christians we accept the mystery of Christ's death and reserrection. This a fundamental element of our faith. It is not a matter of science to prove or disporve. This is why it is called a mystery.
Evolution is an explanation of an observed natural process. Whether it is relevant or not to the subject of faith is immaterial.
lawilson200 2 years ago
Hi, yes, sorry for the long time in replying, I am very busy and because of all the horrid comments that I get I had to close open commenting which is a bit of a nuisance. Anyway, thanks for your reply and I see that we basically agree. Have a good evening if you are in the UK, or a good day if you are the other side of the ocean.
davemakesawave 2 years ago
Good Day. I live on the Pacific Coast of the United States.
lawilson200 2 years ago
Oops, I meant Piltdown Man was a fraud. Neanderthal was a human. I typed that before I woke up!
davemakesawave 2 years ago
Neanderthal were not homo sapians. We have the DNA. While we share common ancestors, homo sapians and neanderthals were different species.
lawilson200 2 years ago
You think Darwin was wrong becuase there is no chance for life to have started without God?
Now that is an argument based on personal incredulity.
Actually, show me where in the Origins of Species, Darwin included abiogenesis as a part of his theory of evolution.
lawilson200 2 years ago
Whether or not Darwin included abiogenesis as a part of his theory of evolution bears no relevance to the main point that life comes from life.
Without God, there is no life.
davemakesawave 2 years ago
This is not your arugment. You said Darwin was wrong because you do not accept abiogenesis. But Darwin did not propose how life began. If you are going to be critical of his theory, at least you can do is give an accurate analysis.
lawilson200 2 years ago
I merely quote the New Scientist Darwin was wrong title in the video. I am sure he was right about a few things as well. But according to the theory of evolution we have ultimately evolved from nothing. That simply is not the case, it is not possible and that is just the way it is. To ignore origins is to completely bury ones head in the sand.
davemakesawave 2 years ago