Another gem and a new subscription even if I crashed whilst waiting for the live show

5:38 I'm glad you guys find this fun because I find it infuriating to have been lied to FOR YEARS. Your humor helps temper my... Anger?Indignation? Disappointment? All of the above. And it definitely helps to have both arguments side by side to correct things that had been taught to me when I was younger.

Can someone please point out that The Bible also is “just lines on a page?”

You made a big mistake, but if you take the time then Rob Carter will explain it. I hope you are humble enough to admit your blunder (because he and dr Jeanson actually do agree). Yah bless

Thanks Dr Thompson

Dan, it looks like Rob Carter made a counter video to your video. It's called Dedicated anti - creationist makes a huge blunder. It's about an hour long.

"Blogs larping as journals" lol

The evolution model has en apart in light of latest science. Sorry to break it to ya.

Uh-oh, "biblical genetics" channel made a response video.... I haven't watched it yet but I'm curious what the argument will be

Dr. Carter's response: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qn-zZIuCg82DadUsi=Nr3tj9GhoyALkBy4

OWNED. kzbin.info/www/bejne/qn-zZIuCg82DadUsi=HZf-bo60aDmYLT9s

Some trans women are women. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that some men seek the advantages of being a woman by pretending. I mean "Some like it Hot" I think other people's opinions are ridiculous, what are chances that mine are too? Pretty darn good!

I'm obviously agreed with you on this topic. Yet there's something, I'm confused about. Organism produces male or female gametes so technically, in contexts of reproduction, there are tow sexes - there are no intermediate types of sex cells between sperm- and egg cells.. There is spectrum of sexual characteristics, so it is the spectrum between or around or out of the two sexes. This is my understanding and I can't I can't tell what's wrong with it?

1:34:00 I am really glad you point this out. Although sometimes I wish I had this much power…

Ge 1:1 ¶ In the beginning God <'elohiym> created the heaven <shamayim> and the earth <'erets>. This creation had a beginning. It didn't always exist. This is not saying that it was done at this point. It is simply stating the fact that God/Elohim did it. Elohim is plural. God is not just one being. God is a team. The team is one God. Jesus said, "I and my Father are one." God said, they created the shamayim and the erets. You can see the word "mayim" in "shamayim". Shama meaning high or deep, relative to your perspective. Mayim generally means waters, but in this context, it could mean whatever fills the void of the space, something pre-matter, something spiritual. Ge 1:2 And the earth <'erets> was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit <ruwach> of God <'elohiym> moved upon the face of the waters <mayim>. The earth was unformed. It hadn't been formed yet. It was void. It didn't exist yet, but all of the ingredients to make it were there in the mayim of the shamayim, suspended in the matrix of the deep space. Darkness permeated the entire deep space of the shamayim. The Holy Spirit of God acted upon the waters/mayim. Jesus compared the Spirit to water in John 4:14 and 7:38-39. I think the original water/mayim of creation was something spiritual. This physical creation didn't come from nothing.The natural didn't come from nature itself. It came from the spiritual. Matter is supernatural. Ge 1:3 ¶ And God <'elohiym> said, Let there be <hayah> light: and there was light. God turned on the lights. This was not only the visible light that allows us to see ourselves and everything around us, but all of the energy that powers the universe/shamayim/heavens, from visible light to every wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum, including gravity, magnetism, electricity, and radio waves. This is when the atoms turned on and formed the molecular elements. This is when the earth was formed, no longer void. Ge 1:4 And God <'elohiym> saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. Again, this is not the light of the Sun, because the Sun was not lit until the fourth day of creation (Gen.1:14-18). This light is the energy that powers the universe. God flipped the light switch, turned on matter and it was good. The shamayim went from deep darkness to light or energized. Light and matter came to be in the same instant because light and matter are inseparable. Light is supernatural. Ge 1:5 And God <'elohiym> called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. God energized the darkness and called it the first day. With one command of "let there be", energy and matter came into being. Atoms are energy. Matter is made of atoms. Matter is energy, E = mc2. Mass equals energy. All objects having mass have a corresponding intrinsic energy. Light and matter came to be at the same time. The earth could only be made when matter came to be. When matter came to be, the earth was formed, no longer void. In the first day, God created the heaven and the earth. Ge 1:6 ¶ And God <'elohiym> said, Let there be a firmament <raqiya`> in the midst of the waters <mayim>, and let it divide the waters <mayim> from the waters <mayim>. firmament: <raqiya`>: an expanse, such as the sky - Today we call it the atmosphere, it has nothing to do with the word firm. The original "mayim" of creation would not be H2O, because matter did not exist before light. The mayim of the shamayim was whatever God filled the space with. The Spirit God moved upon the mayim and charged it with light; the mayim became all of the matter of the universe, including hydrogen and oxygen. God said, "let there be a firmament," or atmosphere beween the mayim of the earth and the mayim of the space. The mayim of the atmosphere we call air, but it is a mixture of gasses, including H2O. The mayim of the shamayim is the mixture of everything that is out there filling the space. Ge 1:7 And God <'elohiym> made the firmament <raqiya`>, and divided the waters <mayim> which were under the firmament <raqiya`> from the waters <mayim> which were above the firmament <raqiya`>: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament <raqiya`> Heaven <shamayim>. And the evening and the morning were the second day. God made the atmosphere around the earth and created a habitat for life. God called the firmament, Heaven. God called the atmosphere, heaven. But we find in 2 Corinthians 12:2 that there are three heavens. The first being the atmosphere/raqiya/firmament, the second being the greater universe/shamayim, and the third being the spiritual heaven, what we ususally mean when we say, Heaven. The atmosphere separates the mayim which is under the atmosphere from the mayim which is above the atmosphere. And God called it a day. Ge 1:9 ¶ And God <'elohiym> said, Let the waters <mayim> under the heaven <shamayim> be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God <'elohiym> called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. We are now talking about physical, liquid, water, H2O. The water/mayim under the sky, on the earth, collected in the lower elevations as the dry land rose to appear. The greenhouse was built, it was time to plant the garden. 11 And God <'elohiym> said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13 And the evening and the morning were the third day. God planted his garden with all things of the kinds he has in the third heaven. And God called it a day. 14 ¶ And God <'elohiym> said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. God lighted the garden. The protective space needed to be created first. God created the visible light to power photosynthesis and to be a chronometer of time. And God called it a day. Now that the habitat was created and supplied with protection from the outer shamayim, air, water, a food source, and the Sun, it was time to populate the earth.

It is so frustrating when creationists do their “observational science” / “operational science” bit. It is self-evidently nonsense and every time they do it I can’t help but think of the following. Creationists: “Observational science” is the only real science. We should only determine how the world works based on “observational science.” Einstein: Am I a joke to you?

It is so frustrating when creationists do their “observational science” bit. It is self-evidently nonsense and every time they do it I can’t help but think of the following. Creationists: “Observational science” is the only real science. We should only determine how the world works based on “observational science.” Einstein: Am I a joke to you?

Gotta love how the “logos” “research” “associates” KZbin channel explicitly prohibits reasonable discourse about the research they claim supports them, preventing anyone from associating with them and making peer review impossible.

Good Show! 😊👍

The “tradeoff” is that of all the places where modification to inhibit mutation occurs, some areas will have more of an effect on fitness than others so we predict the modification to persist in those places.

this is the dumbest thing I've seen .. and your an embarrassment to science as you continue to dig.. Male or Female is literally in the chromosomes XX vs XY... nothing one can do changes that.. you can argue till the cows come home.. you aren't convincing me at all in this anti science nonsense. No XX can have sex with another XX and make a baby nor can XY have sex with XY and make a baby. Its impossible. The sex classification exists to explain this difference. To redefine it as like some kind of how much hormones do you have construct or pretend that if some ppl have more estrogen or testosterone than others that suddenly makes them change gender is laughable.. Lets then inject dolphin hormones into humans.. perhaps that will make a person a dolphin so one can say they are one LOLLLLLLLLLLL.. no it wont.. all it will make you is a freak..

Man. Listening to your explanation of biology’s relationship with math brought back some PTSD of my experience in economics with math. That exact same dynamic is at play in economics and “mainstream” economics sadly goes with the “simplify the world down to what is analytically solvable” route instead of the “let’s start with axioms about how the economy actually works and build up from there” path

Cult-think - it prevents understanding, rejects education & renders the afflicted incapable of honest assessment of new ideas.

I was going to leave a comment on that video but I decided not because as a Christian myself, I didn't have anything really positive to say and I was rather frustrated with the creationist myself. He never addressed any of your arguments, he just swiped them away. I would love to see another round with Casey Luskin, or something who will actually engage with your arguments and give a defence. I was actually intrigued by your slides, as I am not knowledgeable on this side of the discussion. You mentioned a lizard with a placenta, I don't know what that means but if it causes controversy than that tickles my fancy. I don't feel threatened by evolution. I want to know what the hard facts are and draw up conclusions, and make adjustments as we go. It's hard for that to happen when those on my side of the fence won't actually engage in the argument. From my little exposure to evolution (change in allele frequencies over time), I can wholeheartedly accept and see that change does happen. Even if we start with a particular created kind, the speciation diversification is undeniable. It makes sense that a Creator would implement ways for creatures to adapt and change. Adapt and change, adapt and change, over and over. I don't know where to draw the line, and I honestly don't think I care to. The more we understand about biology and genes, the more we can see the beauty that is biology. I think Creationists for the most part, are just scrambling to defend their faith blindly. Which I get, but surely you'd think integrity is still important to them. For me personally, I have many reasons for belief, and evolution being "wrong" isn't one of them. Being scared of evolution I think shows a lack of their own faith and stability in what they hold to be true. But even in my own dealings with them in theological discussion, they are not responsible with their own belief in doctrine. Not many of them can defend their doctrinal beliefs or open the Bible and show me a thorough teaching (like the trinity, for example. Even atheists are pointing out it's absurdity). Maybe it's just human nature, to hold on to something and deny anything else that poses a threat instead of joining in and learning more. As for origin of life, to me personally it only dictates that naturalism can't be true. If someone would argue false dichotomy, I'm all ears. But to me I am sold. But as Dan points out, the discussion is about evolution vs design. Dan made a pretty good case for evolution, and the other guy just went with the same low effort rhetoric. Dan, I don't know why you waste your time sometimes, it was incredibly unproductive. I know you had a lot to say about the Casey Luskin debate you did, but it was incredibly more productive and thought provoking than Bergman. He at least specifically addressed your arguments. You're obviously very intelligent and knowledgeable on this subject, and it's a shame to see you sharpening your debate skills against a sponge and not something appropriate.

Above all, why would an omnipotent God go to so much trouble to wipe almost everything out on earth, only to then use really convoluted routes to put it all back together again the way it was before? Could he not think of a better way to achieve what he wanted? It makes zero sense.

Aren’t their sacred texts just “lines on paper” as well? 🤔

dear Dr Dan, I saw the complete debate on the other channel. I watched it only because of you and the information you provide. To be honest, Hats off to your patience for playing ping pong against a wall. I am pretty sure that you like to make educate people and this is your hobby. I do not think that you had any expectation to win the debate or expected that Jerry would understand any of your point. Even though I am not as educated or as intelligent as you are, I felt Jerry could never understand your argument. Since very beginning he was out of the topic of this debate, presenting the same old creationist argument. His point was that even though he did not claim that all mutations are deleterious, and some mutations may be beneficial, he never came across to any of them. He failed to understand that in scientific literature related to medical science, they only describes those mutations which are deleterious. As patients with beneficial or neutral mutation never seek for treatment (they never have to) there is no point of reporting them. Moreover, he never directly addressed any of your questions that you have asked. He could not even understand your question when you asked the definition of information of gene. He could not address the question even. This is THE problem of playing Ping Pong against a wall. I never expected you to win the debate, but it was fun listening to you. Thanks for the explanations you provided on phylogenetic trees. It clarifies the concept. Thank you for that.

I agree with so much of what you say including the majority of what you say here, there is however one thing I would question… by definition if we accept sex is non binary and if we accept that this is because as you correctly say some people have complex sex situations and may have medical procedures to become comfortable, why do we then want to force the end result back into binary terminology. Indeed saying a trans woman is a woman not a trans woman is denying that they are a trans woman. Btw the issue with your statistics is that, if the % of trans people is say 2%, then as trans people become more accepted (which is a good thing) then by definition the number of trans athletes will trend towards that same 2%.

Surely all this junk dna is where god is encoded…

Rob Carter hurt himself in confusion

No mutations in 10k years? What about lactose tolerance, which allows adult humans to consume milk and has been spreading slowly through the human race since we discovered agriculture and domesticated livestock. That's a mutation and an important one.

16:11 Very few creationists disagree with evolution being real. They just don’t like the label and the consequences of evolution being real. This is a really good reason why I like to start conversations with creationists about the Santa Fe Institute’s Artificial Stock Market (or a derivative thereof). This is a tool that makes it super easy to get creationists to agree to how the mechanics of evolutions are real (in terms of the fundamental principles) because if the ASI is a real thing, which it is, then it literally shows how the underlying concepts are theoretically valid. It leaves them with just the argument that “while evolution is theoretically possible, that’s now how the world actually works.” This doesn’t defeat the creationist argument by itself, but it greatly constrains the creationist argument to a point where creationism is even more nonsensical than it already is

Shout out for Dungeon Crawler Carl in the background

“You don’t even know what you are talking about” isn’t an ad hom. Ad homs are when making fun of someone is the argument. “You don’t even know what you are talking about” is a statement that says you are wrong in ways that demonstrate you don’t even have the information about the topic at hand. It is explicitly a substantive argument. It just also is a way to make fun of the other person. Making fun of someone is not, in and of itself, an ad hom

...just HOW does Y-Eather Dr. Carter get-away with cramming a "Low-Ball Start-Date" for Global Human agriculture of, say, the last 10K YA, while maintaining that Earth Isn't even That Old -- and that Adam & Eve's progeny couldn't have KNOWN about N. or S. America -- much less reached/populated those Continents ? Also, it's disingenuous of him to claim that majorities of mutations are "DIS-adventageous", when, from my reading, Most are "Neutral" UNTIL TESTED by Environmental Stressors.

You're a joke. Fossilized tracks, in layers, millions of years before the layers in which the actual animals' fossils are found, proves beyond any doubt millions of years neved happened to even begin to support your fraud. Leave kids alone with your bs

Great video, Dan!

Thanks Dr. Dan!

That's cute. If someone publishes chromosomal rearrangements that cause cancer, the conclusion is that any-and-all chromosomal rearrangements cause cancer. Powerful logic right there.