Even TOP Evolutionists Won’t Deny This Evidence for God

Not even TOP evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins will deny this evidence for God… In this video, Calvin Smith discusses the incredible complexity seen all throughout creation that cannot be explained without God.
Subscribe to us for more high-quality biblical videos every week.
Love our content? Help us to continue to proclaim the gospel and the authority of the Bible-from the very first verse-without compromise using apologetics by partnering with us here: answersingenes...
_____________
🔹 DIGGING DEEPER: Want deeper answers to your theological questions? Visit answersingenes...
🔹 BLOG: See Calvin Smith’s weekly apologetics articles here: answersingenes...
🔹 FREE e-BOOK: Sign up for our email newsletter and get a free copy of Calvin’s eBook, “Fellow Biblical Creationists! - STOP Doing These 3 Things…” answersingenes...
🔹ANSWERS TV: Get equipped to defend the gospel of Jesus Christ and the truth of God’s Word with live and on-demand video content from Answers in Genesis, the Ark Encounter, Creation Museum, and other Ministries worldwide. Start your free trial today at www.answers.tv
_____________
SOCIAL MEDIA
🔹 Facebook: / answerscanada
🔹 Calvin Smith: / aigcalvinsmith
🔹 Instagram: / answerscanada
🔹 X (formerly Twitter): x.com/AnswersC...
🔹 TikTok: / answersingenesisca
_____________
Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from The ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

[@avgejoeschmoe2027]

Richard Dawkins is quoted as saying, “There cannot have been intermediate stages that were not beneficial. There’s no room in natural selection for the sort of foresight argument…"It doesn’t happen like that. There’s got to be a series of advantages all the way…" If you can’t think of one, then that’s your problem, not natural selection’s problem.” So Dawkins is saying that groups of organisms hang onto useless mutations, for millions of years, until a group of previously useless mutations just happen to work as a feather, scale, working ear, eye, heart, nose, reproductive system, immune system, healing system???? Dawkins suggestion is beyond absurd, evolution is the greatest sham of a fairy tale every beleived.

[@jockyoung4491]

Dawkins was saying they were NOT useless, so what are you talking about?

[@avgejoeschmoe2027]

@@jockyoung4491 read it closely. He is implying that ALL mutations are BENEFICIAL and will eventually become something greater. Can that be observed scientifically ???? NO !!! Do we see most mutations as beneficial?? NO !!! Mutations are a LOSS of DNA information, and NOT BENEFICIAL THATS the ridiculousness of evolution!

[@tims5268]

Your summation of Dawkins is the opposite of the quote you provided 😂

[@TacoBel]

@@jockyoung4491 ​ @jockyoung4491 Looking back you can see that they are not useless. But we are supposed to accept that not only does the organism know that the mutation is not beneficial but it holds onto it in case it IS beneficial later on? This isn't a problem of looking back and seeing that the process had a good guess at what was going to come. But looking at the already impossible theory that everything can arise from genetic mutations but also seeing that it has FORESIGHT to know to SAVE mutations it deems bad at the time. Looking back to say that the supposed mutations were actually good is not an issue. It takes BLIND FAITH to believe that a developing organism can know a good mutation from a bad one and have the ability and knowledge to save the 'bad' mutations in case they help later on.

[@Vernon-Chitlen]

Abiogenesis is exactly comparable to claiming blankets and baskets weave themselves. Ergo: Certain elements out of 98, on a perfectly sterile prebiotic earth arranged, organized themselves into a cell capable of evolving, having 42 million proteins. With only the 20 specific amino acids as letters spelling protein words. Of billions of choices, 16.8 billion of these specific 20 out of 500 kinds end up spelling correctly the thousands of different of 42 million protein words. So if you believe there was a "primitive cell" of much less? 1/10th? Nobody in their lifetime, having no clue what the "spelling" was and having to choose totally randomly. How far could you get before the "lights" came on, indicating a functional protein? How could even one protein give any indication it's a keeper and keep long enough exposed to water and O2 to account for anything? Abiogenesis is so absurd. Romans 1:18-22 describes it's advocates very well.

[@joels310]

When asked for an example of mutation which adds information that benifits the organism you get crickets from any evolutionist. Yes we can artificially improve yields and nutritional value in crops but corn never becomes a tree nor bamboo wheat. However even when we modify organisms it is intentional, with forethought and using information and materials provided by God.

[@jockyoung4491]

Point mutations add infomation to the species, not the individual. Other mutations like gene duplication do both.

[@tims5268]

Point mutations. Read a book

[@billcook4768]

Actually, that’s not true. Biologists will point out tons of mutations that are beneficial. Please stop spreading mistruths, it makes Christians look bad.

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

​​@@tims5268 point mutations (AIG) Point mutations are mutations where one letter changes on the DNA sequence. A point mutation in our example could cause “car” in the second sentence to be read “cat”: The car was red. The red cat had one key. The key has one eye and one tip. With this point mutation, we lost the information for one word (car) as well as changed the meaning of the sentence. We did gain one word (cat), but we lost one word (car) and lost the meaning of one phrase. So the overall result was a loss of information .

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

​@@jockyoung4491 But many times, point mutations won’t produce another word. Take for instance another point mutation, which changes “car” not to “cat” but to “caa”: The car was red. The red caa had one key. The key has one eye and one tip. With this point mutation, we lost the information for one word (car) as well as the meaning. We did not gain any new words, and we lost one word and lost the meaning of one phrase. So again, the overall result of this point mutation was a loss of information, but even more so this time. (AIG)

[@Bridgeburner4477]

what a load of shit. nothing but logical fallacies. Top evolutionist have already debunked this crap.

[@dimensionninja4929]

love how you respond with hatred and foul language.

[@Bridgeburner4477]

@@dimensionninja4929 got plenty of it for you. want more?

[@Firearcher4]

Yes they have. This video is BS. Very old and tired argument from delusional people who believe in sky fairies

[@johnsmit5999]

Why angry if you are secure with your logical foundation. Certainly you should expect ignorance in a godless world.

[@dimensionninja4929]

@@Bridgeburner4477 sure, but I got none for you though. wanna hear a message?

[@MatthewJ.Francis]

Baffles me that the “smartest” people are actually just fools. Praise Jesus for eyes that see and ears that hear!

[@wingednut2283]

Maybe instead of being baffled attempt to understand the smartest peoples thought processes

[@jockyoung4491]

Either that or they know something you don't.

[@rubiks6]

_Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:_ _"You will indeed hear but never understand,_ _and you will indeed see but never perceive.”_ _For this people's heart has grown dull,_ _and with their ears they can barely hear,_ _and their eyes they have closed,_ _lest they should see with their eyes_ _and hear with their ears_ _and understand with their heart_ _and turn, and I would heal them."_ _But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear._ - Matthew 13.14 - 16 (ESV)

[@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440]

Buddy, people are smart because they are rational, and don't believe in things without evidence.

[@gravity_well5627]

Romans 1:22

[@IAMhassentyou]

For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Hebrews 4:12 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path. Psalm 119:105

[@LesActive]

Ah, circular, excellent. Good job,

[@janna7003]

@IAMhassentyou Faith is ,the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. That quote came from Hebrews 11:1

[@wmthewyld]

@@janna7003 So? Do you have a point?

[@janna7003]

@@wmthewyld Yes, I do lets see the statement again from @IAMhassentyou "For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Hebrews 4:12 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path. Psalm 119:105" And yet, There are thousands ( Approx 45000 ) of Christian Denominations and were willing to kill each other not to long a time ago And if Mike Johnson and his ilk have there way, We would return to a form of Theocracy Faith can be extremely dangerous Think where we could have been if the dark ages had not occured Etc,Etc,Etc I fear no "God" Because there is no "God" ( my opinion ) But by "God" I do so fear his/her/it messengers From any religion whatsoever

[@IAMhassentyou]

@@janna7003 amen sister

[@avgejoeschmoe2027]

“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist,” Werner Heisenberg, the winner of the 1932 Nobel Prize in Physics for the creation of quantum mechanics, stated. “But at the bottom of the glass, God is waiting for you.”

[@richardgregory3684]

Which god?

[@markduell2468]

Which God?

[@billcook4768]

Heisenberg? The guy who tried to build atomic bombs for Hitler?

[@Vernon-Chitlen]

@@richardgregory3684 The one who inspired Psalm 139:14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well. All 200 different types of the 37 trillion cells arranged so specifically in my body. bearing witness to Him. The instructions for their formation in their order and sequences on a single strand of dna, inside an egg smaller than this sentences period. The same sized that the 100 quadrillion cells of an adult blue whale develops. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Ex 3:15

[@DefeatTheWokeEstablishment]

@@richardgregory3684 The one and only creator God, but I'm guessing you already knew that.😂

[@IAMhassentyou]

Acts 4:12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.” John 14:6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. Titus 3:5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,

[@Firearcher4]

so what. Who cares. Words written centuries ago . I can write those same words. So can you.

[@philhart4849]

Why should I give any credence to the Bible?

[@poundtrader1414]

Amen, the evil is working overtime.

[@user-on3wh6wu9n]

@@poundtrader1414 "Amen, the evil is working overtime." Agreed. It is the evil of the delusion commonly referred to as "religion".

[@IAMhassentyou]

@@poundtrader1414 amen 🙏

[@user-zl1qk6pb7o]

Oh my gosh I'm losing more faith in humanity by the second. Seriously. Take your evidence against evolution, and go collect your Noble prize. Go on, do it.

[@l.m.892]

How much does the NCSE pay you to post?

[@refuse2bdcvd324]

Darwin's theory fails daily. Genesis 1 produces reliable results every moment of every day.

[@tims5268]

How?

[@markduell2468]

It really doesn't. You have been conditioned to believe it does.

[@jockyoung4491]

Biological evolution is not "Darwin's theory". I doubt you know what either one is.

[@Vernon-Chitlen]

​@@tims5268It's fails every day because nobody can demonstrate the process of 6 elements out of 98 assembling, organized themselves into a single protein or gene in a reasonable simulation of a perfectly sterile, prebiotic earth.

[@Vernon-Chitlen]

​@@jockyoung4491Why did Darwin speculate about proteins being able to form in a warm little pond? In a letter to Joseph Hooker, Feb 1871. Nobody has yet to demonstrate how carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and sulfur could form all 20 specific amino acids in their 100% left handed forms (except glycine) in a reasonable simulation of his prebiotic, warm little pond.

[@GershomSeventyEight]

Thank you for this discussion!

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

Thank you AIG, once again for a great video. Very informative and helpful ☺️🙏🕊️✝️

[@mirandahotspring4019]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

​@@mirandahotspring4019hello Miranda 👋🙂 God bless you

[@mirandahotspring4019]

@@newcreationinchrist1423 Why?

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

​@@mirandahotspring4019 why pray for you? Because we care

[@maliquesmith2311]

@@newcreationinchrist1423 amen❤❤

[@razark9]

There's only one area in which creationists completely dominate everyone else on the planet on and that's their ability to spit out lies and misrepresentations. It would be amazing if it weren't so repulsive.

[@jimsnipes1203]

Please point out just one lie or misrepresentation in this video, thank you.

[@razark9]

@@jimsnipes1203 Okay. There are no 'evolutionists'. There are people who understand science and there are flat earthers and creationists. Understanding or accepting science doesn't necessarily mean you can't believe in god which is a false dichotomy AiG presents regularly, in this video as well. Also, Richard Dawkins goes on to explain how we don't need a god to explain anything in nature. Deliberately misconstruing his words to mean he actually agrees with creationists is disingenuos.

[@jimsnipes1203]

My mistake, I was referring to this video only and I will admit that the title is misleading. To me it doesn't say evolutionists don't deny God, to me it says that evolutionists don't deny the evidence of design. Science is discovery. As more discoveries are made, the understood laws of science are altered and theories are made and altered. Then science tries to prove or disprove those theories. Evolution is a theory. Creation is a theory. There are arguments for both sides. This video shows design in nature that evolutionists agree exists and infers a design requires a designer. Evolutionists have to take the position that design does not require a designer. That's what I got out of it. I don't see that as misleading or disingenuous. So, where is one lie or misrepresentation? (My original question which you have failed to answer.)

[@razark9]

@@jimsnipes1203 You agree the title is misleading? Lol. Just their title? I was talking about this video too, but the rest of AiG's library is no better. Their content is as dishonest and disingenuous as it gets. And bad misleading titles is just one small part of the same problem. And no. You're wrong. Science can disprove, but not prove. And evolution is a scientific theory, creation is not. And no. It's presupposing design.

[@razark9]

@@jimsnipes1203 It's not just the title that is misleading. Here are some problems. Firstly you are presupposing design and you seem to think creation is a theory when it is not .Creation is not even a hypothesis. I already gave you examples.

[@ernesthastie-gg7kn]

1f everything needs a createor then who or what made a god and which one

[@calvinsmith7575]

Wrong argument. Everything which had a beginning needs a creator. God is eternal. Ask yourself, if matter and energy is all that there is, where did matter come from? Either God is eternal and creates or matter is eternal and creates. God has a mind...

[@therick363]

@@calvinsmith7575so energy is eternal. No god needed.

[@joshuakohlmann9731]

​@@calvinsmith7575Here's the thing. Eternity is the thing we're trying to explain away. The universe can't be eternal, therefore it had to be created. We ask: where did the creator come from, then? and you reply "the creator is eternal". Your "explanation" appeals to the very quality it was trying to explain, which makes it circular and useless. I put "explanation" in quotes because saying "God did it" really isn't an explanation. It doesn't explain _how_ God did it, it doesn't explain what we don't know in terms of what we do know, it doesn't show its superiority over other possible competing explanations, and it doesn't demonstrate that it even _is_ a possible explanation beyond the fact that gods are an accepted cultural norm. How is saying "God did it" distinguishable from saying "it was magic"?

[@calvinsmith7575]

@@joshuakohlmann9731 So where did matter come from? Something has to be eternal : )

[@joshuakohlmann9731]

@calvinsmith7575 Perhaps it is and perhaps it isn't. But if you're implicitly accepting that eternity can be taken for granted (which you seem to be), then no creator is necessary.

[@garrygraham7901]

Quality presentation. Thank you! Bless you!

[@charlesharris2749]

As a fan of science, I like quoting mathematician John Lennox and geneticist Francis Collins (Faith, Science, and Francis Collins - New Yorker article) to atheist friends. What I wonder is what Collins, who seems to be both a devout Christian and a devout Darwinist would say about these apparently preemptive designs? Or perhaps he's addressed them already.

[@NightmareRex6]

just remember to read the albert pike document, ww3 will be started by christain VS athiest, according to the albert pike letter that predicted WW1 WW2, and now WW3, can add to it that it will be left vs right, it will be male vs female, black vs white. and so on so fourth.

[@charlesharris2749]

Pro-slavery Masons? I think I'll pass, but good luck with that. @@NightmareRex6

[@amaizenblue44]

He wrote a whole book discussing intelligent design. In short, he thinks god created a fine-tuned universe, but does not see a need for god to have tinkered with the origin and evolution of life. IOW, it is the nature he created that was his method for forming life.

[@nathancook2852]

John Lennox is a fool who knows nothing about science. Much like all the people on this channel.

[@fritula6200]

YOU CANNOT BE A DARWINIST AND CHRISTIAN..... THEY CLASH... CHRISTIANITY PROVES DARWIN WRONG.. That's why Darwinists "hate" Christ ! Therefore tha Darwinists want to be the "Elite"..... there in lies their Vanity... Christ gets in the way... must get rid of Christianity:

[@razark9]

You cannot, I repeat you cannot be a creationist without being a compulsive liar, scientifically illiterate or both. This applies to all creationist channels and sites as well as their zealous unquestioning followers.

[@thomashawthorne1542]

nothing created everything, by accident. that's what you expect me to believe?

[@razark9]

@@thomashawthorne1542 Not really, no. That's what your christian anti-science propaganda told you I wanted you to 'believe'. And what is the creationist obsession with the word 'accident' when it hardly ever applies?

[@jockyoung4491]

@@thomashawthorne1542 Biological evolution most definitely did NOT happen by "accident"

[@steveharrison3007]

​@@thomashawthorne1542and God made everything with a Word, out of nothing? And made a mudman, yes, you are dirt.

[@Bomtombadi1]

@@thomashawthorne1542as taxation said, you can’t be a creationist without being a compulsive liar. You are case in point.

[@SunnyAquamarine2]

Wow! I love this! Thank you!

[@philipgrobler7253]

Talk to a theologian Have you ever noticed that when you read the Bible, it often makes no sense? For example, you can read Matthew 17:20 and Jesus clearly says, "Nothing will be impossible for you." And yet, you know for a fact that that statement is wrong. Lots of things are impossible for you. If you ask a Christian about this discrepancy, the Christian will say, "Ah, you see, you are not interpreting the Bible correctly. You need to talk to a theologian. He will set you straight." Isn't it odd that the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, perfect creator of the universe has written a book, but he was unable to write clearly, so we need human theologians to interpret it for us? Why would a perfect god say "Nothing will be impossible for you" unless he meant "Nothing will be impossible for you?" Surely God knows how humans interpret sentences. So why didn't he speak the truth? The reason why God speaks so unclearly, and why God fails to speak the truth so often in the Bible, and the reason why we need theologians, is because God is imaginary. You can see that in the following dialog with a theologian: Norm: Hello Chris, it is nice to meet you. I understand that you are a theologian with a PhD in theology. Chris: Yes, I am a trained theologian. How may I help you? Norm: Can you answer a question for me: Does God answer prayers? Chris: Yes, certainly. He has answered hundreds of my prayers. Norm: Pray for him to put $10,000 in my pocket right now. Chris: It does not work that way. I said God answers prayers, not that he is a cosmic genie. Norm: So, in Mark 11:24, when Jesus says, "Whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours," what did he mean? That sounds like you can have whatever you pray for. Chris: He means that you pray for something, and if it is his will then you shall receive it. Jesus is under no obligation to answer any prayer. Nor is he obligated to provide the answer that you expect. There are thousands of ways for Jesus to answer a prayer indirectly. Norm: If it is his will, aren't I going to get it anyway? Why pray? Chris: Ask, and you shall receive. You have to ask... Norm: ...and then you should receive. Jesus does not say, "Ask, and you might receive if it is my will." His statement has no conditions. Chris: He meant that. It is implied. You need to see Jesus in the context of the rabbinical doctrine in the early fist century AD. Norm: OK, why does God never answer impossible prayers? For example, if I pray to fly like superman, or to restore my friends amputated limb, why will it never happen? Chris: It is not God's will. It would eliminate faith in God if God answered an impossible prayer as you are suggesting. Our God is a God of faith. That is his intention and is clearly stated throughout the Bible. Norm: So why did God part the Red Sea? Surely that took away faith. Chris: You clearly have no understanding of God's intentions or purposes in the Bible. At the time of Genesis, under Mosaic law, God's relationship with mankind was completely different than it is today. Norm: I see. So in Matthew 17:20, when Jesus says, "nothing will be impossible to you," why isn't flying-like-superman or $10,000-in-my-pocket-right-now part of that? Chris: Quite clearly you have never bothered with any sort of exegetical understanding of the Bible's promises on prayer. God is under no obligation to answer any prayer. Norm: So when Jesus uses the example of moving a mountain, which is clearly impossible, what did he mean? Chris: Jesus clearly was speaking metaphorically, as was common in the first century. Norm: So when Jesus said "anyone with faith can move a mountain," what he actually meant was, "No one with faith can move a mountain." Chris: No. Norm: Then, who can move a mountain? Chris: God can move a mountain. Norm: But he never does. Chris: It is not his will. And keep in mind that God must remain hidden. Norm: Let me make sure I have this straight. Here is what Jesus said in Matthew 17:20: You will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you. But here is what you think he meant: You will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you, as long as it is possible and as long as it is my will. Is that right? Chris: You are completely clueless, and an idiot besides. No biblical commentary, and no Christian denominational body agrees with any of your interpretations of these passages, nor do I. Norm: Answer the question. Is that what he meant? Chris: This is irrelevant to the conversation. Norm: Here's what I do not understand. What Jesus said in the Bible is obviously wrong. If God is perfect, there is no reason why God would put something that is completely wrong in the Bible. Why do we need human beings like you to interpret and massage and explain what God might have meant in the Bible? Why wouldn't an omnipotent, all-knowing, perfect God have written it the way he meant it, in an understandable, clear, unambiguous, truthful, correct way? There isn't anything vague about, "Nothing will be impossible for you" or, "Ask, and you shall receive." Yet, it is completely wrong. Explain that to me. Chris: You are completely missing the point. And so on... Most people can see the problem that is apparent in this conversation. There is no reason why an all-knowing, perfect God would write down, "you can move mountains" or, "nothing will be impossible for you" or, "Ask, and you shall receive" unless he meant that. Unfortunately, the reality is that no one can move mountains, and thousands of things will be impossible for you. Not even Jesus moved a mountain. In fact, not one of Jesus' supposed miracles left any evidence for us to examine today. Why would Jesus, who is supposedly the son of God, say, "Love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven," in Matthew 5:44-45, but then say "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be damned [to hell]" in Mark 16:16? Why doesn't Jesus love his enemies? A theologian can explain it, even though the explanation makes absolutely no sense. Why does the Bible tell us that we need to murder half of the citizens of the United States? A theologian can explain it, even though the explanation makes absolutely no sense. Why is God a complete sexist in the Bible, and a champion of slavery? A theologian can explain it, even though the explanation makes absolutely no sense. Why would an omniscient God write a creation story in the Bible that is acknowledged to be complete nonsense by tens of thousands of clergy members? A theologian can explain it, even though the explanation makes absolutely no sense. The reason why you can't read the Bible yourself, and the reason why only "trained theologians" can "interpret" a book written by God, and the reason why the Bible is actually, concretely incorrect in so many places (despite any interpretation) is because God is imaginary. If God were real, and if God had actually written a book, the book would be brilliant and inspiring. The book would say things that are actually true. Prayer would work as it is actually described by the Bible. People would be left in awe by what they read the Bible. That is what "being perfect" is all about.

[@philipgrobler7253]

@@Who_IsLike_God "What's the difference between a cult and a religion? In a cult, there's someone at the top who knows it's all bs. In a religion, that person has died long time ago."

[@pcpssp3xr-_-270]

this entire comment and even the theologian have this entire thing wrong. God always answers prayers in a manner of three responses: yes, no, wait. but just because God says yes doesn’t mean it’s just given to you, the “yes” response is actually the following of the “wait” response which means you have to put effort into it. As you try to use the asking of 10,000 dollars in your pocket, you haven’t put the effort, which is the foundation for ego and the feeling superiority over others. Because if God actually just gave you the 10,000 dollars he’d basically be saying he favors you over the rest and since God is fair and Just, that giving of 10,000 dollars would get a “wait” response, but instead he would put trials in front of you and have you work for it, which he leaves to you one question, how willing are you to reach your goal?

[@philipgrobler7253]

@@pcpssp3xr-_-270 Understand that religion is superstition Let's say that you were to create a far-flung news network, and you somehow had the capacity to observe all of the inexplicable tragedy that occurs on Earth each day: all of the murders, all of the car wrecks all of the rapes all of the mutilations all of the torture all the miscarriages and stillbirths all of the disease all of the starvation all of the destruction all of the terrorism Let's say you had a news feed that delivered this all to you in real time. Just ten minutes with this news feed would be unbearable. Thousands of tragic, heartwrenching events would impinge themselves upon you every minute. It would make you vomit over and over and over again until you passed out in exhaustion and despair. In other words, the amount of gut-wrenching, anguished tragedy in our world is unspeakable. Meanwhile, there is a housewife in Pasadena who firmly believes that God answered her prayer this morning to remove the mustard stain from her favorite blouse. She prayed to God to help with the stain, and after she washed it the stain was gone. Praise Jesus! There are tens of millions of people in the United States who firmly believe that God is personally helping them each day with their trivial prayers like this. They believe that they have a personal relationship with God, that God hears their prayers each day, and that God has time to reach down and remove the mustard molecules one by one. They believe it with all of their hearts. It makes you wonder: If God has the time and the will to answer these trivial prayers, then why does he have no time for the millions of other massively serious problems that arise on earth every day? Simply look at the world we live in. All around us we have murderers, rapists, robbers, child molesters and terrorists. How do they do their deeds? If God is all-knowing and God answers prayers, then we have to believe that: God watches them as they murder, rape, molest and terrorize other people millions of times a day, but he does nothing to stop them. God watches the victims as they are being murdered, raped, molested and terrorized, but he does nothing to help them. God completely ignores the prayers of the planet to eliminate murder, rape, child molestation and terrorism and allows all these atrocities to continue unabated. According to the Standard Model of God, God is an omniscient, all-powerful, all-loving being who answers prayers. Imagine God sitting on his magnificent throne in heaven looking down upon Earth, seeing every detail. God speaks: "Look at all of those praying people getting tortured in that death camp. Excellent! I won't do anything to stop that. And look at that little girl down there being raped and murdered. Perfect! She is praying like mad, and so is her mother, but I won't do anything to stop that. And there are three terrorists preparing to blow up a church and kill 1,500 people who are saying the Lord's Prayer to me right now. Outstanding! I won't do anything to stop that. How wonderful it is that 1,000 prayerful people will die of starvation today in Ethiopia. I love it! I won't do anything to stop that. Oh and there's little Suzy Jankins praying that I remove that pimple from her nose for her big date with Chad tomorrow. Let me go help Suzy right now" Do you believe in a God who acts like this? Of course not. If you believe that God is specifically reaching down from heaven to answer your trivial prayer to remove a zit or to wash out a mustard stain or to help you find your lost keys, while at the same time God is allowing 27,000 children to die of starvation each day by specifically ignoring their prayers, then your God is insane. If you are a typical Christian, however, you are just like our Pasadena housewife. You say dozens of little prayers every day. You may pray for 20 trivial things today: Pray for your car to start in the morning. Pray for traffic to be light so you get to work on time. Pray that you don't get fired for the mistake you made yesterday. Pray that the coffee stain on your purse comes out. Pray that it doesn't rain. Pray that the price of a stock has gone up. Pray that your computer doesn't crash. Pray that your son got a decent grade on his math test. Pray that there's enough money in your checking account. Pray that the guy you went out with on Saturday calls you. Pray that your mother in law cancels her trip for the weekend. Pray for there to be an available washing machine at the Laundromat when you get there. Pray that your car passes inspection. Pray that they have your size in the shoes you are thinking about buying at the mall. Pray that the envelope you are opening contains a check rather than a bill. Pray that your cat didn't pee on the new sofa. Pray for your baby not to wake you up tonight screaming so you can get some sleep. Pray that you have the winning bid for that camera on EBay. Pray that they have the video you want at the video store tonight. Pray that your team wins the game on Sunday. What happens? Some of your prayers would get "answered," some would not. If you are a believer, you handle each little prayer in the following way: If something nice happens, you attribute that to God -- he answered your prayer and is "looking out" for you. If you pray for something and it does not happen, or if something bad happens, you rationalize that it is part of "God's plan" . It is "his will" that this bad event happens. We demonstrated that God's Plan is ridiculous. So what is actually happening? An unbiased observer looks at the same good and bad events and sees them for what they are -- random events. God has nothing to do with them. To an unbiased observer, it is obvious that religion is nothing but superstition. If you are a believer, you can prove to yourself that they are random events. Tomorrow, instead of praying about everything, simply watch 20 trivial things happen without praying. Some will work out, some will not. There will be no difference. The act of praying about them does not change the outcome in any way. If you were to statistically analyse your prayers, it would become obvious to you that every "answered prayer" is a coincidence. The belief in prayer is just like any superstition. Walking under a ladder is not "bad luck". Neither is breaking a mirror. Neither is seeing a black cat. Statistics prove that a broken mirror has zero effect on your life. In the same way, statistics prove that God never answers prayers. The dictionary defines the word "superstition" in this way: An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome. Prayer is rank superstition, nothing more. People who believe in the power of prayer are no different than people who believe in the power of crystal balls, horoscopes or lucky rabbits feet. Prayer is scientifically proven to be meaningless. The reason why there is so much suffering in this world, and the reason why a statistical analysis of your trivial prayers always shows them to be complete coincidences, is because God is imaginary. The belief in God is pure superstition.

[@philipgrobler7253]

@@pcpssp3xr-_-270 Excuses, excuses, excuses, ones I made myself for this god at a time in my life when I was also delusional, semi-comatose, indoctrinated and completely out of touch with reality, until I realised, it makes ZERO sense! to keep stupid excuses for an uttterly stupid, impotent, deaf, dumb, mute and dead god. Can't theists come up with anything new? Seriously? I also believed myself to be "born again" whatever the hell that meant, however that BELIEF, born out of sheer self-centered arrogance and self-deception, as I learned later, also did not silence any of my doubts, that I am just lying to myself, because when I started to use my BRAIN to think with instead of my feelings and emotions, all that religious BS began to make less and less and less sense!!!

[@somerandom3247]

You asuming that a god designed nature isnt evidence of a god. We know that a watch has a designer because it is made from materials that dont naturally form, arranged in a way that nature cant replicate.

[@nonononononono8532]

It’s simply just a logical fallacy. Just because two things are alike in one regard doesn’t mean they are in another. For instance, life is complex and watches are complex, however it doesn’t mean that because the watch has an intelligent maker, therefore life also has a maker. In fact, we have evidence that suggests life doesn’t come from a sentient maker (abiogenesis and evolution).

[@TacoBel]

@@nonononononono8532 " In fact, we have evidence that suggests life doesn’t come from a sentient maker (abiogenesis and evolution)." First off. Abiogenesis DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS SCIENTIFIC LAW!!! Second. There has not been a single observed case (ie not a historical guess(let's put that aside)) of a creature evolving into another kind of creature. NOT ONE!!! Adaptation is the variation of atributes within the same set of Genetic Information Evolution is the happening of NEW GENETIC INFORMATION I dont care if you state theat Adaptation is Part of Evolution, Adaptation is not in and of itself Evolution. Come on, Dogs came from Wolves but there is not a shred of evidence for New Genetic information having evolved. Other than of course the evolutionary assumption.

[@nonononononono8532]

@@TacoBel first off how does abiogenesis directly contradict scientific law? If you mean the often conflated spontaneous generation theory then yes that has been proven false, since complex living organisms do not spontaneously form from non-living matter. If you mean abiogenesis as in molecules forming complex polymers, which form self replicating polymers which form cells then no that has not been disproven and evidence suggests this is the case. Additionally, you seem to misunderstand criteria of evidence. No, we haven’t observed it in the wild, since it is remarkably rare, and now, any such opportunity would be squashed by already living organisms. We do, however, have evidence which shows this is the case. Amino acids, nucleus acids, fats and carbohydrates have been observed in space, suggesting a natural formation of these molecules which are essential for life. Additionally, the miller-Urey experiment showed how more complex organic molecules (amino acids) can form under pre-biotic Earth conditions (hot and lots of lightning) from less complex ones (water, methane, ammonia, hydrogen gas) So yes, while we don’t watch it happen under a microscope, this doesn’t mean we don’t have evidence for it. Limited evidence, sure, but more than “God did it” or otherwise associated God of the Gaps fallacies. Additionally, yes, we don’t have evidence of a creature evolving into another kind of creature not one. Because this is not how evolution works. Firstly, in due to mutation (errors in DNA replication or exposure to mutagens like UV light, viruses or harmful chemicals), there occurs a mutation. Some mutations have no impact on the encoding protein, some have detrimental effects and some have beneficial effects. Those with detrimental mutations, code for proteins that negatively affect the organisms fitness, as they are impaired their regular functioning, hence they die out before they reproduce to pass on their genetic makeup. Those with neutral mutations have no difference. Those with beneficial mutations survive in greater frequencies, thus they reproduce more. This shifts the genetic makeup of populations (microevolution). Now say two populations of the same species where physically isolated in different environments, there would be a change in both populations genetic makeup, since different mutations are beneficial, neutral or detrimental (as observed with Darwin’s finches and other countless examples). Hence, as they continue to develop ever-growing differences in their genetic makeup, they eventually become so different that they cannot reproduce and produce viable offspring and thus are different species (macro evolution). Now macro evolution has not been directly observed, true, because it takes place over many generations. However, again, just because we cannot see it happen does not mean we don’t have evidence for it. For instance, we don’t see quantum particles, does this mean quantum physics is false? Of course not. We can see through the fossil record, genetic testing and comparative anatomy what occurred in the evolutionary history (although with some blurriness but which again is better evidence than any God of the Gaps fallacies). I don’t know how you’re defining kind, however, so this could be confusing to your point. Additionally, adaptation is literally the bedrock of evolution, both micro and macro.

[@Firearcher4]

@@TacoBel Actually you are wrong. Moths in Britain in the 1800's were observed evolving over a few years. They changed from White to black due to the pollution caused by the Industrial Revolution. But most evolution as you know unfolds over hundreds of thousands of years. FYI Debunking evolution does not prove God is real.

[@l.m.892]

@@nonononononono8532 No.

[@hippocampus3358]

You use the discoveries of science. In one word, they cannot be rejected, millions of tons of evidence and data would have to be refuted one after the other. This does not apply to the story of God. God exists in only one place, in the brains of some people.

[@iyad0102]

Why do u think that there's no God?

[@hippocampus3358]

There is just as much evidence for god as there is for fairies. God is a harmful tale that muddies the human mind.

[@iyad0102]

@@hippocampus3358 alright, what do you mean by evidence? And what kind of evidence are you demanding?

[@hippocampus3358]

All data that comes from observations and measurements and not from people's psychotic imaginations.

[@iyad0102]

@@hippocampus3358 great, do u wanna have a discussion on Instagram or discord?

[@razark9]

There's no such thing as an evolutionist. There are people capable of grasping and/or accepting science and then there are flat earthers and creationists who think a good story is more important than truth.

[@jimmycricket5366]

Why do you bundle "flat earthers" with Christians? The Bible supports an earth of circular form. Stop constantly perverting the truth.

[@dooglitas]

Your statement is worthy of ridicule.

[@TRUTHandLIGHT4809]

Science is creation. Evolution is fable. Science= life produces after its own kind. The fable teaches the lie, which is the opposite of truth. Name 1 thing that has you convince in the fable. Don't be afraid

[@razark9]

@@dooglitas So is every single sentence about science uttered by anti-science creationists who think 'nuh-uh' changes science.

[@razark9]

@@TRUTHandLIGHT4809 So science is a religion, but your religion is science? I don't play the creationist games of reversing everything. I don't believe in fables. I accept the overwhelming scientific consensus and will always follow the evidence wherever it leads. You deny and handwave dismiss whenever the facts become inconvenient to your beliefs in talking snakes and bushes.

[@2012grayhound]

I used to collect arrowheads out in the desert. They always stood out among the rocks and dirt. Obviously designed by intelligence. Completely understood. God bless, thank you.

[@wingednut2283]

Created by Native Americans who believed in a different creator from you.

[@Legendendear]

​@@wingednut2283 I believe in god, you believe in random chance. Where's the difference? And what do I gain by converting to your belief system?

[@wingednut2283]

@@Legendendear the difference is random chance is observable and the supernatural is not. Making yours a belief and mine a fact 🤷‍♂️. I dont have a belief system for you to join and if you find benefit in your beliefs eg you dont want to murder than by all means keep it.

[@Legendendear]

@@wingednut2283 So you find random words written in the sand at the beach?

[@wingednut2283]

@@Legendendear the chances are possible and sometimes a cloud might look like something else in cloud form also possible.

[@addersrinseandclean]

Thank you for this video

[@markrademaker5875]

Calvin, will you do an episode on Irreducible Complexity and Theistic Evolution; do they think there is such a reality? Thanks; I enjoy your material. 1 John 4:10,11

[@sergiomoreno8775]

Theres several videos that were uploaded lately about that subject. I think the title is "Designed assisted evolution a response to Rope Kojonen" and the other is "The problems with Kojonens theistic evolution model".

[@markrademaker5875]

@@sergiomoreno8775 Thanks; i will try to look at those.

[@mangotanianmovies2538]

Another KZbin channel called inspiring philosophy has some. He argues a more structured evolution

[@richardgregory3684]

Irreducible complexity is bullshit

[@Reclaimer77]

Irreducable complexity has been disproved so many times. You people just don't have a clue.

[@sgt.grinch3299]

Thank you

[@tonysheerness2427]

There is no waste in the world everything is reused and recycled, all living creatures are food for other creatures and organisms. You can not waste food only money, food will break down if not eaten by animals and become plant food. What a design no waste.

[@tims5268]

Forest fires waste huge amounts of energy.

[@tonysheerness2427]

​@@tims5268 They release co2 in the air for other trees to grow and new forests grow from the ashes. .

[@tims5268]

@@tonysheerness2427 but a huge amount of energy is still wasted as heat and light. Not an effective transfer of energy for life.

[@tonysheerness2427]

@@tims5268Most forest fires are created by arsonists very few are done by lightening strikes.

[@tims5268]

@@tonysheerness2427 doesn’t matter. There is still natural waste.

[@mattbrook-lee7732]

All examples of so called irreducible complexity were man made (eg watch, bicycle). No natural examples given

[@philhart4849]

Also known as the logical fallacy of false analogy.

[@mattbrook-lee7732]

@philhart4849 I agree. I would argue that neither bikes or watches are irreducibly complex anyway. But definitely neither have the ability to reproduce. The whole section is one fallacy after another

[@johnsmit5999]

Bacterial flagellum.

[@user-on3wh6wu9n]

@@johnsmit5999 How is bacterial flagellum an example of irreducible complexity?

[@mattbrook-lee7732]

@johnsmit5999 I don't think he mentioned the bacterial flagellum. Could be wrong and I'm not sitting through it again. Either way the bacterial flagellum is not irreducibly complex

[@CaptainFantastic222]

The watchmaker argument from ignorance…. Okay… We know how watches are design and made. We can observe how watches are made. There are no examples of watches forming by the themselves. We don’t know how universes are made or if they are made. If you could go to a universe factory and observe how universes are started then the analogy would work

[@johnsmit5999]

There are biological clocks as part of our physiology. That is where the analogy comes in.

[@davidhynd4435]

Reliance on "selection" completely falls apart at the cellular level. There are so many complex machines within cells, all of which must be present and fully functional for the cell to carry out its role. Without all of these machines performing their many roles within the cell, the organism will not survive long enough for any selection of "superior" cells to take place. Besides which, selection can only select from pre-existing information. Selection is not able to create new information. Richard Dawkins, like so many atheistic evolutionists, is a purveyor of "just so" stories. He inisists that his blind watchmaker is unable to have purpose, yet knowledge gained in the last 100 years has shown us that every component of cells is purposeful. Every role that those cells play is purposeful. Every organ of which they cells are a part is purposeful. Indeed, we see purpose in the natural world from the tiniest cell to the largest organism. God's signature is everywhere, and it takes a special kind of ignorance to fail to see it.

[@OgdenCrimmcramer8162]

"This is SOOOO complex and I don't understand it so it must be GODMAGIC!!" The excuse never changes....

[@Pyr0Ben]

@@OgdenCrimmcramer8162 On the contrary, friend :) It's SOOO complex, natural processes and chance can't begin to account for it!

[@mattbrook-lee7732]

@Pyr0Ben it didn't start out that complex. That is the point. The most basic bacteria today has undergone billions of years of evolution. No-one is claiming that early life forms were anything like as complex as even an amoeba

[@Pyr0Ben]

@@mattbrook-lee7732 But that's just a story. We've observed thousands of generations of bacteria and not once have mutations produced any kind of new information, only break things that were already there.

[@OgdenCrimmcramer8162]

@@Pyr0Ben Thanks for sharing your argument based on ignorance and personal incredulity. Anything else?

[@telesniper2]

Irreducible complexity is irrefutable. We can use evolutionary models in computer programming in machine learning. Even though we can use these techniques much faster than they supposedly act in nature, we hit the wall and find out that evolutionary techniques don't offer any solutions to many problems that remain uncomputable. And these problems which evolutionary algorithms cannot solve are much simpler problems than what evolutionary biologists claim evolution solved in nature.

[@hansdemos6510]

Contrary to what Mr. Smith claims, no examples of "irreducible complexity" have yet been found in nature. It is possible that on a conceptual level, the search for any "irreducibly complex" example may be futile. One of the reasons why it is unlikely that any such example will be found, is that in essence, all life consists of chemicals interacting with each other, so all organic compounds consist of reusable components. That means that when you get down to the molecular level, *_no_* organic functions are irreducibly complex (because the individual molecules and atoms can always be used for a different function).

[@johnsmit5999]

The bacterial flagellum and cilium are a couple of examples for irreducible complexity.

[@hansdemos6510]

​@@johnsmit5999 You said: _"The bacterial flagellum and cilium are a couple of examples for irreducible complexity."_ Neither has been demonstrated to be "irreducibly complex". The irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum can even be thought of as having been rejected by a court of law (Dover case). If you disagree, please support your claim with your favorite piece of evidence so we can discuss it.

[@johnsmit5999]

@@hansdemos6510A judge has no business making a judgment on a scientific theory which he hasn't even studied, claiming there are no peer-reviewed articles published in scientific journals. Why are evolutionists so afraid that they bring attorneys from the ACLU to render judgment on ID? Scientific theories are confirmed or denied as they are tested in the real world not precluded from investigation by a court case. A system is irreducibly complex in N components if its function F ceases with N - 1 components.

[@adamray9857]

What atomic functions are organic?

[@hansdemos6510]

@@adamray9857 You said: _"What atomic functions are organic?"_ I am sorry, but I don't understand what you mean. A hydrogen atom all on its lonesome is not "organic", but as part of a molecule in an organism, it is.

[@kenvanwyck7362]

(2 Corinthians 4:3-5 ESV) 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake.

[@thedubwhisperer2157]

What made you decide to follow the Christian religion over, say, Buddhism? Were you brought up in that particular religion in a country where it is the predominant one?

[@kenvanwyck7362]

@@thedubwhisperer2157 What made you follow the religion of Atheism if Christianity is the pro dominant religion in your country? Why didn’t you follow Islam? Regardless of a person claiming to be Christian most truly aren’t there just culture Christians ,never go to Church or read Gods word! Like people proclaiming to be Catholic but never go to mass or affiliate with it. Country of origin has nothing to do with it.

[@thedubwhisperer2157]

@@kenvanwyck7362 Aside from completely deflecting my question, I would be interested to know how not believing in something is a religion!

[@Cdizz11e]

I've always had in my heart that I be an apalogist... being a hs drop out, getting a GED, and now getting my clinical doctorate, also being a former boxer, I love your logical and rational videos ! They are food for the lamen and the intellectual adept alike, me being the former ❤

[@larrycarter3765]

apalogist?

[@majmage]

Watchmakers arguments make a mistake called "false analogy fallacy". That's where Thing A is compared to Thing B to make an argument about Thing B, but the two don't actually share a key similarity that makes that argument reasonable. _Why_ is it reasonable to assume a human watchmaker? Well it's going to sound really obvious: _evidence of humans making watches._ What if it isn't a watch? What about the very first cellphone? Well it appeared extremely similar in design/function to all the existing things we know humans make, and leveraged technologies we know humans had discovered. So it would still have been reasonable. _What about universes?_ We have no evidence of gods causing those. So that's why it's a false analogy: it's missing the key thing that actually causes the assumption to be reasonable. It lacks reason. By being a false analogy, it isn't evidence of a god. What would it take to prove a god caused a universe? Evidence a god (a) exists and (b) caused a universe. See the problem? The problem is this argument couldn't be evidence of a god unless you already had some _other, different_ evidence of a god! (But sure, if you had both A and B then the watchmaker's argument would in fact hold up. We don't have A and B though, so the watchmaker's argument fails.)

[@calvinsmith7575]

Just watch the video before you comment...

[@OgdenCrimmcramer8162]

@@calvinsmith7575 Why waste the time? You've been telling the same old stale creationist lies for a decade. They don't get any better or any less false with your telling.

[@calvinsmith7575]

@@OgdenCrimmcramer8162 There you go : ). Arguing against what you aren't even aware of : ) Thanks for your algorithmic contribution.

[@majmage]

@@calvinsmith7575 Watching the video is why I was able to identify the central mistake it makes. After all, did they present evidence a god (A) exists and (B) was responsible for the various biology-related topics they mentioned? No. So it's a false analogy exactly as I described. So while I don't seem to have ignored what this video said at all, you did ignore the clear mistake I'd described. One of us is engaging with the topic. The other ignoring it.

[@johnsmit5999]

We actually have biological clocks/circadian rhythms analogous to and much more complex than watches. They are controlled by our genetic code which is complex specified information and we know that that kind of information only arises by mind. This may not prove God but is proves a designer.

[@alextowers3564]

This video basically boils down to: 1. "The watchmaker argument has never been debunked, I promise, but I'm not actually going to explain HOW complexity implies intelligent design." 2. "If this thing that debunks evolution exists (irreducible complexity), then evolution is debunked. I'm not going to provide any examples though but it does exist loads, trust me bro." 3. Here's a vast oversimplification of a fresh scientific breakthrough I don't fully understand, but here, take MY explanation of it, not the experts'."

[@kathleennorton2228]

Speaking of computers, hell is the place to quarantine highly destructive viruses.

[@pdurham2458]

Imagine believing in a mythical being that is so loving and so caring that it will forgive each and every one of us for our imperfections (as if we require forgiveness after death)... except for one - NOT BELIEVING IN IT. There is NO FORGIVENESS for not believing the fairy tales and you will suffer eternal damnation for not accepting Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends. Let that sink in for a minute. 🤣The very definition of a cult.

[@fritula6200]

There is no such mythical being: We do require forgiveness after death: WE equire forgiveness while we are alive, why.... examine your conscience, and realise how many people you hurt in ONE WEEK! how about in one day: Do you think you require forgiveness for hurting others: Think of the pain you gave others: Why you need forgiveness ... ??? NOT BEING AWARE OF HOW YOU HURT EVERBODY, SECONDLY IF YOU DID KNOW..... YOU DON'T CARE: 3rd thing, you enjoyed hurting others. Let that sink in for a moment. This attitude is an EVIL CULT:

[@johnsmit5999]

You forgot the part about Him sending His Son to live and die on earth under Pilate. God has actually become one of us. He was no myth. He rose again the 3rd day. It is almost Easter.

[@dimensionninja4929]

it's reactins like this that make me want to keep going at it against the atheist agenda, glad I left for quite some time now

[@pdurham2458]

@@dimensionninja4929It's ironic when a cult member refers to atheism as an "agenda". No agenda here, just rationale and observation. Either you see what you are part of or you don't, it's that simple.

[@hans-joachimbierwirth4727]

By definition patterns are expressions of probability, and probability is no evidence of design.

[@calvinsmith7575]

So, the sequence of letters in your comment are simply expressions of probability (not evidence of design)?

[@hans-joachimbierwirth4727]

The sequence of letters in my comment is identifiable by an improbable amount of redundancy securing its meaning, which is ab element not occuring in genetics. @@calvinsmith7575

[@johnsmit5999]

SETI believes otherwise as they use knowledge of complex specified information to search for ET. They can predict one kinds of signals would arise by intelligence vs nature. These same principles can be applied to examine our genomes.

[@hans-joachimbierwirth4727]

You don't understand what i said. There is no intelligent signal in genes. @@johnsmit5999

[@dimensionninja4929]

so me planning out a 3 story apartment with concise places on where I'd put the tv and the bathtub is just probability?

[@TV-xm4ps]

If you have to misquote people your point is weak. But it is fun to see so many scientifically challenged people gathered in the comments.

[@ronbyrd1616]

Then watch the "scientifically challenged" experts in the rather recent doc film "Darwins Dilemma". This dozen or so tenured, published experts present facts, evidence, and geologic data from the Cambrian explosion of life which completely debunks darwins "species jumping" . Be forewarned, it's not for the faint-hearted evolutionist.

[@jockyoung4491]

@@ronbyrd1616 Darwin had no theory of "species jumping". I'm not aware of him ever using such a term or having any reason to.

[@ronbyrd1616]

@@jockyoung4491 Already been translated for you.

[@ploppysonofploppy6066]

Nothing unusual here. If you can’t understand how this fits into evolutionary theory then you don't understand evolutionary theory. It's obvious what selects the successful mutation. Success! It's really simple. God isn't here.

[@johnsmit5999]

You have to have a system through which mutations occur before they can be useful. Where did that system come from?

[@ploppysonofploppy6066]

@@johnsmit5999 Not really. Mutations occur naturally as a result of mismatched DNA or background radiation. Mutations are entirely random. Selection of successful ones is entirely due to whether they fit their environment. Hence the "survival of the fittest " synonym. That's what "Fit" means in this context. No guiding hand is needed.

[@johnsmit5999]

@@ploppysonofploppy6066Natural selection can explain why certain peppered moths survive, but it doesn't explain the origin of color, wings, etc.

[@ploppysonofploppy6066]

@@johnsmit5999 No, it explains everything. Mutations are random, successful ones are selected and proliferates, unsuccessful ones die off.

[@johnsmit5999]

@@ploppysonofploppy6066There is no way for mutations to build irreducibly complex systems for blood clotting, immunity, circulatory, reproduction. All the parts have to be in place before these systems work. Mutations may be beneficial but often break/degrade genes/proteins.(Lenski's E. coli experiments) This is what Michael Behe explores in his book Darwin Devolves.

[@gravity_well5627]

The implications of a plant fixing it's DNA without the source code is insane. Where is your source? I would love to learn more.

[@jockyoung4491]

I'm pretty sure he was misrepresenting the study.

[@Mike_Wilson_KJV]

Creation is Self Evident to anyone with an Honest Logical Mind.

[@razark9]

What you mean is that one has to believe it without question first, and then it becomes self evident? It is not evident nor apparent in any way.

[@CaptainFantastic222]

Logic? Are religions not faith based belief system?

[@dooglitas]

@@razark9 Sorry, but the OP statement is correct. It is indeed self-evident to an HONEST AND LOGICAL MIND. There is abundant evidence of a Creator. It is a logical impossibility to find any evidence that there is no Creator. You are the one who believes your naturalistic belief system without question.

[@dooglitas]

@@CaptainFantastic222 He didn't say anything about a religion. But Christianity is based on faith, but it is a REASONED faith. Atheism is a faith-based belief system, as are naturalism and materialism.

[@610huskymoto]

​@@dooglitas Just like not believing in Bigfoot or the loch Ness monster is a faith based belief system.😂

[@WorldView-cq5ue]

"So often we wish to see the evidence first, and in doing so, that makes us magnet to wish to see evidence. Which inherently means we are keeping ourselves away from the evidence that already exists. So what if instead we could simply trust. We can feel it within us as the first and greatest evidence there is, that love our truth. We can feel it within us, let's make it envelop us completely while we still have breath." The Father's(God) Love is the Greatest Love There is.

[@Torby4096]

As a retired software engineer, I would look for an error correcting code.

[@TheBrandgineer]

That is "if" God can make an error, lol.

[@Torby4096]

@@TheBrandgineer He did not. We did🤔

[@xXstevilleXx]

You are referring to Adinkra codes (symbols) right? If so I postulate that this supports the argument of a Creator. I mean if our experience is that of simulation/hologram then these laws in physics and their bounds are as result of design not evolution. I am also a software engineer (classic and quantum). You might have retired Sir, but I assure you though we may never fully understand physics dealing with supersymmetry, I agree with you although as mentioned the quantum computing I deal with is primitive still.

[@carlosgaspar8447]

nice visual breakdown of the bicycle.

[@mattbrook-lee7732]

Nothing about a bicycle is irreducibly complex. Every component could have some alternative function

[@carlosgaspar8447]

@@mattbrook-lee7732 and yet, it's still very difficult to describe the forces that keep a bike upright in motion.

[@mattbrook-lee7732]

@carlosgaspar8447 no that's really easy. But also not relevant to my point

[@carlosgaspar8447]

@@mattbrook-lee7732 i've read many books on bike mechanics, and didn't find any of it easy. maybe your point is lost in subtleties.

[@mattbrook-lee7732]

@carlosgaspar8447 my point is that a bicycle is not irreducibly complex. For that matter neither is a watch

[@thedubwhisperer2157]

In the Beginning, Man made Gods...

[@thedubwhisperer2157]

@@Who_IsLike_God How did you determine your god is the correct one, and how can I test your claim? Quoting words from an old book might have cut it in medieval times, but not today...

[@thedubwhisperer2157]

@@Who_IsLike_God Because they are so many different gods and, to date, none have been shown to exist except in humans' minds. What would your chosen god tell you to say to convince me of its existence?

[@thedubwhisperer2157]

@@Who_IsLike_God Tried it. Nothing...

[@jimthomas1989]

​@@thedubwhisperer2157 , The Planet Earth is proof of God's existence ! If you say Not , then whom Tilted it 23° degrees, then started it Rotating and added Water ?

[@thedubwhisperer2157]

@@jimthomas1989 The Flying Spaghetti Monster of course.

[@FRN2013]

Why do antitheist trolls harass people so eagerly and persistently? They certainly are not altruistic. They should know we saints do far more good than they do, and they should know we are happier than they are. I think it seems to be ego-driven sadism. What are your motives, trolls? (I don’t expect you to be honest. You even deceive yourselves, which is why you all are anti-theist.)

[@wingednut2283]

Medical science does far more good than any thoughts or prayers you can offer. First off i dont see you as creationist more like flat earthers. My motives are to enjoy your misrepresentation of Science and answer anything you get wrong.

[@HangrySaturn]

I do it because I enjoy trolling. It's just good fun!

[@TacoBel]

@@HangrySaturn I agree, it can be quite easy to start trolling people we disagree with. The hard part is to keep it respectful. And yes, I am a Christian saying this.

[@flyingtime5501]

​@@wingednut2283funny story...you will bow down in the end, like it or not. Truth doesn't depend on your opinion. You will regret your blasphemy!

[@wingednut2283]

@@flyingtime5501 okay friend

[@ellisrowe363]

Anything but the Living God no matter how ridiculous it sounds go with it.

[@mattbrook-lee7732]

The section about thales cress is pure misrepresentation. I suggest people read the actual paper and not the spin

[@lepterfirefall]

Care to explain it to us then?

[@mattbrook-lee7732]

@lepterfirefall not especially no. The paper is called Mutation bias reflects natural selection in Arabidopsis thaliana. Go read it. Or believe this clowns misrepresentation of it. Its up to you

[@mattbrook-lee7732]

@@lepterfirefall go read the paper. It's freely available. Or believe this muppet. You've got a brain. Use it

[@lepterfirefall]

@@mattbrook-lee7732 abuse...sign of a winning argument.

[@mattbrook-lee7732]

​@lepterfirefall so not going to read the paper then. Can't help you then

[@AtaraxiA0001]

No proof of god presented here.

[@thedubwhisperer2157]

And never will there be - there are so many, which is why I, at seven years old, concluded that they are man-made. In the Beginning, Man Made Gods.

[@Zaydennn]

In the beginning, God created Man! Only the few find out the lies that have been told since thousands of years

[@thedubwhisperer2157]

@@Zaydennn Which god, and how did you determine it was the 'One True' god?

[@Zaydennn]

@@thedubwhisperer2157 The one and only God, Jesus Christ of Nazareth! And yes, I didn't have to determine anything! Read the Bible with an open heart not with open eyes and I'm sure you'll feel it too. And yes, tho you may disagree and disapprove of His existence, He still loves you. Remember that

[@thedubwhisperer2157]

@@Zaydennn God is true because of the bible?

[@razark9]

When are creationists going to start doing science? Any science whatsoever to confirm or valdiate their beliefs? When are they going to publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals as opposed to just screaming about and misrepresenting the current consensus?

[@dooglitas]

They have been doing that for years. You simply have been ignoring their work.

[@OgdenCrimmcramer8162]

@@dooglitas Please cite some published peer-reviewed creation science in the professional scientific literature.

[@razark9]

@@dooglitas Work such as? Where can I find it?

[@therick363]

@@dooglitastheir work is “ignored” because they cherry pick parts of science and ignore what they don’t like. As such when there’s that kind of dishonesty their work deserves to be ignored

[@dooglitas]

@@therick363 Your accusation is not founded upon any actual facts. You are simply making stuff up. If evolutionist scientists ignore the work of creationists, how do they KNOW that they "cherry-pick parts of science and ignore what they don't like"? If they don't look at the work of creationists, they cannot possibly know anything about it. Making accusations about something you know nothing about is dishonest, at best. It is also irrational behavior. There is plenty of dishonesty among evolution-believing scientists.

[@rubiks6]

_Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:_ _"You will indeed hear but never understand,_ _and you will indeed see but never perceive.”_ _For this people's heart has grown dull,_ _and with their ears they can barely hear,_ _and their eyes they have closed,_ _lest they should see with their eyes_ _and hear with their ears_ _and understand with their heart_ _and turn, and I would heal them."_ _But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear._ - Matthew 13.14 - 16 (ESV)

[@neilovadyahu3771]

HalleluYah!🙌🙌

[@Finckelstein]

Let me translate: "My book of myths, fantasy and other nonsense says that there will be people who don't believe in myths, fantasy and other nonsense. That proves my book of myths, fantasy and other nonsense is true!" Or the TL;DR version: Don't question it, just believe! Christianity is a cult.

[@rubiks6]

@@Finckelstein - Any dumbass can be a scoffer.

[@switchie1987]

"Understand with their heart"; Yeah, that's not how human cognition works *at all*.

[@rubiks6]

@@switchie1987 - Oftentimesn that's exactly _"how human cognition works."_

[@philipgrobler7253]

If there is a SUPER INTELLIGENT DESIGNER that is more intelligent than everything else, why did this designer "create" such a sadly flawed design as the human body, the claimed "crown" of this designer? In fact the "design" is so flawed that the designed are intelligent enough to point out the flaws in their own alleged (super intelligent) design!!!

[@dimensionninja4929]

why is the printer created the way it is? Why is the computer created the way it is? Or the book and so on. By that logic all have flawed designs they can break, they can burn. The human body has eyes that can see, a mind to think, hands that can work, legs that can walk and when we get even deeper you have the dopamine that allows you to enjoy things, you get the dna that tells everything you are and you got the finger prints that no other human in the world has an exact same one you do. Simply put if a design had absolutely no flaws, we would've won at the very beginning of life. Simply put there won't be a point to doing anything if your standard is so high. Yet we have the only thing no other living being in the whole world has. Potential... that intelligent designer gave us the concept of potential...

[@philipgrobler7253]

@@dimensionninja4929 What "potential" did the Super Intelligent Creator have in mind for the Malaria bearing mosquito, or the tapeworm, or the Flu virus, or the Black Mamba, or the flea, or the cockroach, or the Puff Adder? All of you claim intelligent design where there is none. Would you want to wear a watch that functioned like a human body? I bet you would just love that, won't you? ROFLMAO!!!

[@docsmith9915]

The thing I see is that these apologists are using man-made engineering as comparison. They say an organism can’t differentiate between good and bad mutations, but that isn’t how nature works and the fact that we are dealing with billions of years, then these things can be fixed. DNA is not a computer code. It is merely analogous to one, but we can’t confine DNA or RNA to predetermined code. The fact is, we don’t know how these things came about and that’s all right.

[@calvinsmith7575]

No, we do know how foresight programming comes about- by an intelligent mind deciding to do so. And evolutionists like Dawkins and the Voices of Oxford have admitted DNA is a coded language system, describing it as digital...

[@docsmith9915]

@@calvinsmith7575 They are grossly mistaken. This is what happens when we try to be analogous to something we understand. DNA is “similar” to digital code, but it isn’t exactly digital code and it didn’t come about in the same way. DNA and RNA use triplets to generate amino acids, not a digital sequence. That one change alone accounts for at least 59049 combinations and that’s only for 10 throws. Therefore, with billions of years to try out all these combinations, one can easily see how successful strands of RNA or DNA would be repeated so that the organism can successfully build and then adapt to the environment. No designer came up with the code. Scientists discovered how the sequence works, they only invented a way to understand what the code provides, not how it started. We don’t have that information.

[@thedubwhisperer2157]

@@docsmith9915 Funny, isn't it, that apologetics only started using DNA as an argument for god after scientists discovered it...

[@docsmith9915]

@@calvinsmith7575 They are describing it wrongly. DNA is a code, yes. It is SIMILAR to computer code, yes. However, it is NOT DIGITAL because it isn’t binary, it’s ternary. Dawkins can no more state that DNA is a coded language system than Hawkins can. Neither have enough knowledge of language, or computer coding, to state an absolute on what DNA is .

[@calvinsmith7575]

So, it operates just like any other code we've ever seen except it is far more sophisticated? You are staring at evidence of design square in the face (as Romans 1:20 states) and punting to 'we don't know'. But we do know where codes come from. What you are doing is called denial- so you don't have to admit you are a creature who will be held responsible to your creator. You will have absolutely no excuse when you face God.

[@taylorthetunafish5737]

Attacking science you don't understand isn't evidence for god. So where's the evidence? The bogus watchmaker argument? You can do better.

[@m0x910]

Here is some science you may or may not understand: 👉🏾The evidence: DNA. (It is empirical) 1.) DNA is semiotic information. 2.) Every instance of semiotic information existing is always the result of an intellect, no exceptions exist. 3.) There is no known natural phenomenon or mechanism that could compose semiotic information (that is to imbue meaning into an arbitrary, specifically complex sequence) 4.) DNA is therefore the product of an intellect. 5.) The discovery of DNA and its semiotic nature is irrefutable proof of the existence of at least one supreme intellect before life began (as we know it) on earth. Falsifiability?: YES. Method: Observe and/or demonstrate experimentally how natural processes compose semiotic information.

[@therick363]

@@m0x9105-nope. You made a claim as proof but didn’t prove it. Fail. You then pulled god of the gaps.

[@somerandom3247]

@@m0x910 1 is false. DNA isn't symbols, its molecules. But if we were to grant it, 2 would be false, as we know how dna forms and no part of it requires an intelegent designer. 3 would also be false as dna would now be an example against it. 4 as your premises are false, your have no basis for this conclusion.

[@m0x910]

@@somerandom3247 You misunderstood the argument. I am referring to how DNA first existed. Yes we know how already living organisms create more DNA. But there is no plausible naturalistic theory on how the first strand of DNA came into existence (from supposedly non living matter). Also point 1 is not false because: Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is the medium in which the genetic code of life is programmed. The information storage and relay system of DNA, mRNA and animo acids can be simulated in a standard semiotic triad. In this triad: the Sign (S)=gene/codon, the Interpreter (I)=the cell, the Object (O)=amino acids. 👉🏾The Interpreter translating the meaning of the sign in codons via translation then transcription with utilisation of ribosomes and mRNA etc. The Interpreter responds with manufacture of the object in terms of the meaning conveyed by the signs it reads. Signs symbolically represent the object. 👉🏾The components of the ‘symbols’/genes A,C,T and G are arbitrary; They have nothing to do with the function of the instructions encoded by them. 👉🏾The invention/creation or emergence of this semiotic system (a necessary component of the origin of life) cannot be accomplished by purely natural processes or phenomenon because conceptualisation is essential for such systems to become extant. 👉🏾Conceptualisation is not possible for a molecules or proto-cell. Conceptualisation can only be accomplished by a conscious mind; to assign meaning that can vary depending on context to a particular sign/sequence of bases (e.g. Base sequence ATA is one of the codes for the amino acid Isoleucine but in vertebrate mitochondrial DNA (another context) ATA codes for the amino acid, methionine.) 👉🏾Only after conceptualisation can the coding system be formed along with rules for interpretation, so the meaning/information is not lost or confused in translation. Then a suitable medium is selected and used to encode/store said information.👉🏾With a mind (or several minds) these elements are easily and almost simultaneously established with little effort. However a true miracle is required to actualise these using only natural processes; each aspect of the semiotic triad are highly unlikely to form independently of each other. Even if they did, it is statistically impossible that they would work together in harmonious and congruent unity, there is no natural reason they would. I am afraid you have to do better than just claiming something as “false”.

[@m0x910]

@@therick363 There is no ‘gap’ here. I simply take what we do know as fact about the origins of semiotic information and apply it to some more semiotic information of uncertain origins. A similar argument would be: 1. Duck eggs come from ducks. 2. I have an egg of uncertain origin from which a duck has now hatched. 3. This egg of uncertain origins came from a duck. To suggest otherwise you have to prove or invent a working theory of how duck eggs come from other organisms.

[@OslerWannabe]

THERE. IS. NO. EVIDENCE. FOR. A. GOD. NONE. Even the presence of beauty, symmetry, and incredible equilibrium in the cosmos does to point to a god. It points to the presence of beauty, symmetry, and incredible equilibrium in the cosmos. That is the only conclusion justified by the evidence. Remember, just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's God. It means you don't understand.

[@calvinsmith7575]

Design points to a designer- Remember, just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it came about through naturalistic processes. It means you don't understand.

[@LordMathious]

​@@calvinsmith7575 Do you not see the issue in your reasoning? Can you provide evidence that nature is designed?

[@calvinsmith7575]

@@LordMathious Of course I can, and so can you. Just apply the exact same standards and methods you would use to determine whether something else was designed or came about by random chance to nature and you will see it was designed just as Romans 1:20 says. What is so funny is that even Richard Dawkins admits there is incredible design in nature. He just believes it was unintelligently designed : ). Go figure, he believes that no mind can somehow design things our most intelligent minds on the planet can't even come close to : )

[@LordMathious]

@@calvinsmith7575 Then could you please present your best piece of evidence.

[@therick363]

@@calvinsmith7575_remember just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean it came about through naturalistic processes_ Just because YOU dont understand something doesn’t mean it didn’t happen via natural. Don’t pull personal incredulity

[@andrewmazzer]

Not a single point of 'evidence' for god. Lots of 'god of the gaps' going on here.

[@optimus1212]

Evidence isn't required for an atheist to believe. They do not have any desire to believe.

[@johnsmit5999]

What would qualify as evidence?

[@andrewmazzer]

@@johnsmit5999 dictionary is a good start

[@johnsmit5999]

@@andrewmazzerIrreducible complexity and complex specified information are concepts based on our knowledge of mind and design. These principles are based on what we do know, not about knowledge gaps.

[@bikesrcool_1958]

@@andrewmazzernot you trying to find a God atom to put under a microscope 💀 Did you watch a skeptic video and think god of the gaps can parry everything

[@erikt1713]

Honestly, there are indications against design and foresight. A surprisingly large part of a mammal's genome codes for the sense of smell so that substances can be detected, such as the smell of strawberries. Dolphins have these same sequences, but they are all corrupted and useless. That's because the dolphin is now aquatic and does not need a functional sense of smell. What a waste to still have the code. To name but one more example, anyone who has knee problems will suspect that the human knee was not originally meant to bend oppositely like front legs would.

[@edjo3430]

God said ... that settles it. I don't care if every single person says otherwise.

[@Bomtombadi1]

Doesn’t settle sh-t. All it settles is the conflict in your pea brain

[@josephreigens3090]

AMEN!! THANK YOU AIG 👍

[@hasone1848]

If evolution was proven 100% false, does that prove god?

[@jockyoung4491]

The 2 have nothing to do with each other.

[@bigbabatunde1218]

Of course it does. How many options did you think were available?

[@hasone1848]

@@jockyoung4491 your absolutely correct.

[@HangrySaturn]

@@bigbabatunde1218 Tons and tons of them actually. Wanna go down the list?

[@bigbabatunde1218]

@@HangrySaturn Heard it all before, an eternal universe (but you twitch at the reality of an Eternal God) or Aliens.... and that's about it for you.

[@jgray5yt]

This guy is clueless about molecular biology - again just showing off his ignorance of DNA repair mechanisms

[@calvinsmith7575]

Nice story...

[@johnsmit5999]

Doesn't repair imply design? How does a system know what needs to be repaired?

[@alfyr.e.meyerakaa.r.e.m.4434]

For some bizarre reason, when I chromecast this program onto my TV, I get no volume. On the phone, no problems... and I know my devices work because I just watched another program on the TV.

[@switchie1987]

Must be the Satans!🤡

[@user-wu7lu1gv6g]

God is, was, and always will be. We don't create, we discover what was created. We were made in His image. We were made to know, love and fellowship with God by our own choice. Choose wisely.

[@thedubwhisperer2157]

And there are thousands of gods to choose to follow. Strange, don't you think, that gods apparently compete for our (largely geographical) worhsip?

[@user-wu7lu1gv6g]

But only one God.

[@tobias4411]

​@@user-wu7lu1gv6gWhat you mean "only one God"? There are plenty of gods and mythologies through human history.

[@user-wu7lu1gv6g]

But only one God.

[@tobias4411]

​​@@user-wu7lu1gv6gCorrection: There are plenty of gods. Once upon the time our ancestors believed that thunder, lightning, volcanos where gods in action. People invented gods to explain the mysteries. Thanks to science and as knowledge improves, God has less work to do. Perhaps one day he will be able to retire ;-).

[@nissimhadar]

Why do Christians think it is OK to lie?

[@need2connect]

God bless you

[@nissimhadar]

@@need2connect No thank; I do not want to be blessed by an evil monster

[@maliquesmith2311]

@@need2connect God bless you to❤❤😌

[@HangrySaturn]

@@maliquesmith2311 Ahura Mazda bless you.

[@TacoBel]

@@nissimhadar To copy your question. Why do you think it is OK to say that God is an "evil monster"? Not trying to be funny, but a Legit Question.

[@mattikaronen7728]

Yes, nature is wonderful in making stuff evolve… As usual, every argument he brings up have been shows to be false many many times. It’s truly hilarious that people still believe the crap they bring up in this and AIG channels. 🤣😂

[@throckmortensnivel2850]

Twelve minutes of "I can't believe this could happen naturally, therefore there is a God". This is not an aregument. This is a statement of incredulity. Present the evidence for your case, Mr. Smith. When you have shown the evidence people can decide whether that evidence is enough to overthrow the existing theory. By the way, what is the design function of the two nipples you have on your chest?

[@m0x910]

The evidence: ATP Synthase. (It is empirical) ​​⁠1.) Machines are defined as an apparatus using mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task. 2.) Every instance of a machine is first conceptualised by intellects, then designed by intellects, then created by intellects. 3.) There is no observable or theoretical natural phenomenon or mechanism that can produce working machines. 4.) ATP synthase is a working machine. 5.) Therefore ATP synthase is the product of an intellect not natural phenomena. Falsifiability:YES. Observe and/or demonstrate experimentally how natural processes could construct a working machine. For clarity: Machines cannot be evolved incrementally as each part is purpose built to work with all the other components ready made and purpose built, the whole machine fails to work properly or at all if one or more components is removed or not adequate. The loss or inadequacy of components becomes more crippling the simpler (less components) a machine has. In this case at least 4 parts for ATP synthase. For some men the nipples provide sexual pleasure. They serve a purpose not for everyone but for enough people.

[@therick363]

@@m0x910you literally made the OP points! You want to claim things from a creator because you can’t imagine them happening naturally.

[@throckmortensnivel2850]

@@m0x910 So the nipples have a dual purpose, is that correct? Does that mean that other parts of organisms might have more than one purpose?

[@m0x910]

@@therick363 By all means prove me wrong by demonstrating or even explaining the mechanism by which molecular machines are created by natural processes from inanimate matter. I am not alone in my rationale; if while exploring Mars we discovered an ancient machine, no one in their right mind could justifiably assume it emerged via natural processes. It would be proof of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when it comes to machines on a nano scale there is a double standard all to affirm an atheistic worldview.

[@m0x910]

@@throckmortensnivel2850 potentially, yes

[@miketype1each]

They exchange the truth for a lie. I like to describe it as the conclusion that the thing isn't the thing. They are shown, plain as day, the thing being 100% the thing, but deny it. No, that couldn't possibly be it, they respond, citing every reason and excuse after excuse. We've all done it, but for some, the time comes to realize what's real.. to separate fact from fiction.

[@Bomtombadi1]

How’s about you don’t type the way incoherent people talk? That would help.

[@miketype1each]

@@Bomtombadi1 I tend to speak in parables; analogies. It's my way of explaining this crazy world to myself. A fellow once told me his way of explaining the world to himself with this story: Let's say you invented a cure for a disease. It was a simple medication which you managed to put into the size of a common pain reliever. It cost very little to make, and the ingredients are plentiful. You even offer to sell it for a quarter. He said you couldn't sell it, or even give it away for free, because people are conditioned to believe nothing will cure their ailments. They've been programmed to accept that they're sick without hope of ever getting better. Also, they won't believe a cure could be so simple.

[@LordMathious]

​@@miketype1each How about tending to speak in a way that you can actually be understood?

[@miketype1each]

@@LordMathious I've done that, which raises the question as to why you remain confused. Anyway..

[@LordMathious]

@@miketype1each Tending to speak in parables and analogies is not reasonable when having a technical discussion.

[@fortunatoluccresi5243]

Examples are watches and bicycles... When did they receive the spark of life so that they could continue to develop like living beings?

[@AboveReproachPodcast]

All analogies fail at some point. That said, you know full well what is meant but are purposely over complicating the analogy in order to make a fool of the analogy giver. In reality, you are making yourself look like the fool

[@fortunatoluccresi5243]

@@AboveReproachPodcast “In reality” is a term you shouldn’t use in the context of such nonsense. Reality is something that the person making the comparison in the video doesn't understand much about.

[@Firearcher4]

2000 years and Jesus still has not returned. What the hell is he waiting for? Is he on vacation?

[@desert_rose7171]

He will come. Be patient and pray for the good news to be preached all over the world

[@Firearcher4]

@@desert_rose7171 He will come? People have been saying that for 2000 years. Billions of people have lived and died during that time frame. Face it - nobody is coming back and your story is a fairy tale. Unreal that adults actually still believe in this nonsense in 2024.

[@koiyankawala279]

Well, if God do exist (the evidence tells us he does), by definition He is timeless, spaceless, immaterial, divine, etc. And if Jesus is the literal incarnation of the logos than He can't be bounded by time (as you seem to be doing). "A thousand years is like a day to the Lord and a day like a thousand years..."

[@Firearcher4]

@@koiyankawala279 What is your evidence that God exists? This ought to be good.

[@johnsmit5999]

When the gospel has been preached in all the world, the end shall come.

[@Vernon-Chitlen]

Of the the atheists on this thread, how many don't want there to be a God or see no evidence of God? Read the 1st 50 pages of: The Stairway to Life: An Origin of Life Realty Check by Tan and Stadler. And consider why you won't look at this book.

[@Bomtombadi1]

Hey Vermin! I’ve also read Stadler’s stupid book! You’re talking the engineer who presents himself as a biologist? His book has also been torn apart by many. But of course you won’t I pay attention to that. Love the hypocrisy! You may proceed to recite your pathetic mantra.

[@epicofgilgamesh9964]

​@@Bomtombadi1 He really is a brainwashed imbecile isn't he?

[@Vernon-Chitlen]

@@Bomtombadi1 Liar. What a stupid, illogical mantra atheists have seized on..If you aren't a methodical naturalist you aren't qualified to question the presuppositions of naturalism. Do the chemistry you claim took place on a perfectly sterile prebiotic earth already.

[@kevinkelly2162]

Your god supposedly wrote a book. Why are you recommending we should read some other book? Can't your god speak for himself?

[@larrycarter3765]

Gove?

[@hansdemos6510]

The plant Mr. Smith hails as a surprise problem for "evolutionists" is called Arabidopsis thaliana. Mr. Smith seems to refer to research from 2002 (Repair of Damaged DNA by Arabidopsis Cell Extract). Newer research is available (2020, Mitochondrial DNA Repair in an Arabidopsis thaliana Uracil N-Glycosylase Mutant; 2023, Long noncoding RNAs contribute to DNA damage resistance in Arabidopsis thaliana) showing that Mr. Smith is just speculating on something that was not known 20 years ago, making his claim a species of argument fro ignorance. The issues about self repair he raises are not a problem for scientists, because, as further research shows, the mechanisms it employs are themselves subject to natural selection. This is a recurring flaw in the way Mr. Smith (and many other creationist apologists) structure their arguments; they latch on to some research result that at the time does not have a known explanation, and then mistakenly argue that this means the theory of evolution must be false and their own religious explanation must be right. This is not a valid method of argumentation. Rationally, the only think we and Mr. Smith should be able to say about such a result is that we don't know, and only further research may bring more facts and evidence to light for us to form a better hypothesis. If and when we do that, we have invariably found that there are natural causes for these natural phenomena, and *_never_* have we found any supernatural causes for natural phenomena. In other words, Mr. Smith's view has a very, very bad track record, while Dr. Dawkins' view has been vindicated time and time again.

[@TacoBel]

You accidentally just proved his point... "The issues about self repair he raises are not a problem for scientists, because, as further research shows, the mechanisms it employs are themselves subject to natural selection." The point is that the Natural Selection had to correctly pick the organism that had the, as he calls it 'revert to save function' a function that wouldn't have even been needed at the time and it couldn't have even known that it may be needed in the future. It was never about the specific ways in which the plant fixes itself. "we have invariably found that there are natural causes for these natural phenomena, and never have we found any supernatural causes for natural phenomena. " Thats correct. It is Fundamentally IMPOSSIBLE to find a Natural Cause for a Supernatural happening.

[@hansdemos6510]

@@TacoBel You said: _" You accidentally just proved his point... The point is that the Natural Selection had to correctly pick the organism that had the, as he calls it 'revert to save function' a function that wouldn't have even been needed at the time and it couldn't have even known that it may be needed in the future. It was never about the specific ways in which the plant fixes itself."_ You obviously have not read the research and are misunderstanding my comment. The 2023 research shows that are repair mechanisms that rely on RNA; and we already know that RNA has a hereditary component, so that would turn everything nicely back into familiar territory. But even a scenario like you are sketching can be explained quite easily if the repair mechanism started off as a simple copying action but reversed. First the correct DNA activated messenger RNA, which then produced a protein, but then, when the error occurred and no correct template DNA was available, the messenger RNA could serve as the repair copy. All it would take would be a fairly simple mutation that used messenger RNA as a DNA template in case no original DNA templates were available and the available DNA had become useless. As I said before, until such a hypothesis had been confirmed by research, we should default to "we don't know", and not insist that our own preferred explanation is correct, or that our opponent's preferred explanation must be incorrect. That is what I am doing, but it is not what you and Mr. Smith are doing. You said: _"Thats correct. It is Fundamentally IMPOSSIBLE to find a Natural Cause for a Supernatural happening."_ Apparently you believe "Supernatural happenings" do take place. How would you prove or find evidence for *_any_*_ "Supernatural happening?"_ Is it just your personal intuition that makes an event "supernatural"? I hope you would agree that that would be rather silly.

[@regizer2399]

The issue with the irreducible complexity's bike analogy is that it's a self inflicted failure. On one hand the requirement for a characteristic emerging does not require us to understand why it's useful, it just needs to be useful. It does not sound like a meaningful difference, but it is. Just because you can't explain something, it's not instantly witchcraft. For example you may say that you can't take away anything from a unicycle, but you actually could take away the seat, you cans till balance on it, but there is a weird assumption that it has to be rideable, even though it could just be useful in other ways, e.g.: as a manually powered wheel used for something other than riding. Also, taking away stuff is never that cut and dry, putting or taking a wheel from a bicycle is anything but a minor change, it's just a bad analogy. A very simple, but hard to see evolutionary driver for visible changes is mating. The circuit that makes the animal prefer a specific kind of mate is not prepared for new visual changes, so it could "randomly" deem a visual trait preferable, and as long as it's not explicitly disadvantageous, it can then stick, because it was advantageous from a mating perspective due to a technicality. Stuff like this have a very low chance, but that's just the thing, evolution had a ridiculous amount of time, and it was very slow compared to any kind of technology, even a watch. How can self reparation be selected if it solves something that does not exist yet? Well it evolves the procedure itself, not the exact steps. Also it will be slightly advantageous to have this trait, because specimens having this trait will on average survive a bit longer, and have more stable offspring. Does it have very low probabillty? Yes, that's why not everything can do it. Also, it is not perfect, so there is no need to over mystify the ability itself to be impossible The whole point is that the human mind can't grasp statistics well, especially in extreme situations. Something having a one in a million chance means that it will happen once in a million tries on average, which is basically guaranteed on a long enough time scale. Winning the lottery is a pipe dream for a singular player, but a full player base will win every now and then. The whole argument of the video is that "this is complicated, I don't understand it at all, and you can't explain it to me in detail, but I have a simpler solutions, a very specific magic actor whom I can't comprehend completely and thus won't detail, but trust me, it makes a lot more sense, because there is only one of this, and it can be the answer for everything" What I say is not exactly an argument for evolution, but rather an argument against the argument (why it's flawed) Not being able to fully prove something is not a proof for it not existing, it just means that we can't be entirely sure yet, but we can show that it's very very likely, because it predicts a lot of stuff well, making the whole argument of the video pointless

[@dooglitas]

You state: "The whole point is that the human mind can't grasp statistics well, especially in extreme situations. Something having a one in a million chance means that it will happen once in a million tries on average, which is basically guaranteed on a long enough time scale. Winning the lottery is a pipe dream for a singular player, but a full player base will win every now and then." This argument does not take into account the issue of multitudes of one-in-a-million chances compounded one upon another. A million one-in-a-milllion chances are virtual impossibilities. No conceivable length of time will allow them to happen. In living organisms, the odds of many of the things that would need to happen are not merely one in a million but one in a dodecadillion chances, and even smaller chances so small that we don't even have names for those numbers. The chances against a single protein coming into existence by chance outside a living organism are greater than the number of atomic particles in the universe. That does not even take into account the immense problems with such a thing happening, such as the problems of the natural formation of all left-handed amino acids (the problem of chirality), and the fact that water and oxygen degrade proteins and their presence would make their natural, chance formation infinitely less likely. Another problem is that the watchmaker analogy starts with parts that already fabricated. In reality, each of the pieces must be manufactured as well. Each is designed for a particular purpose. The issue of irreducible complexity is ONLY ONE problem in the existence of life. It's not just a matter of whether a bicycle or watch could function without some particular piece. Even if a unicycle could "function" without a seat, you still have to account for all the other pieces being there and being in the proper place. It's not just a matter of one particular piece. Each piece must be manufactured. Then they must be put together in the proper order and proper place. No honest, thinking person would suggest that a watch or a unicycle somehow came into existence by purely natural processes. A single living cell is infinitely more complex than the most complex machine that humans have invented.

[@Bomtombadi1]

@@dooglitasso creationists try to demonstrate they understand probability by misunderstanding probability. 1) you came up with this number, how? 2) you had how big a sample size? 3) you had how many events? Are you able to play every game of solitaire? Are you aware that the odds of any one game setup in solitaire are 1/52!? That’s a number so big, it’s practically incalculable. Yet you are able to play solitaire.

[@regizer2399]

@@dooglitas You say: "This argument does not take into account the issue of multitudes of one-in-a-million chances compounded one upon another" Thing is, one-in-a-million is actually nothing for billions of years and a ridiculously huge universe, where hundrends of millions (or billions?) of planets exists, on which there are hundrends of millions (or billions) of "occurences" happen where you "roll the die" for that low chance. That's why I say people can't really grasp these statistics, because people think like the "trying" is happening at the speed of roulette And we didn't even speak about the possibility of essentially limitless universes existing which have about the same chance as any other theory, including many without creators (or creators that are not "smart enough" to create a universe with life, but smart enough to try doing so in a rapid or patient manner). In high number / limitless universe scenarios, we as humans experience a kind of selection bias, or confusion. In the grand scheme of things any scenario that is not exactly 0 chance will happen however unlikely it is, and then the sentient result will just look at itself and say that "my existence is a miracle", which may be true in its closed framework, but a triviality in the grand scheme of things. Technically any indefinitely "retrying" random generator will eventually generate "miracles". Just like any infinitely long random letter generator will eventually write all the books currently existing in alphabetical order. If the trace of the ridiculous amount of randomness at the beginning can't be seen, when the generator just got to the end of the above mentioned sequence, you'd say that it's most likely not even a random generator, but a meticulously preprogrammed design, even though I just ran out of memory to contain the bullshit at the beginning My point is that even if the observation is right (about history being exceedingly unlikely even in a universal scale), it doesn't exactly prove or disprove anything. It gives pointers when looking for the truth, but treating it like evidence is foolish.

[@johnsmit5999]

For each protein that time and chance happens to produce(assuming that that is all that is necessary), it has to have an associated promoter to control where and when it is expressed for it to be useful to an organism. It also has to be a trait that gets passed on to offspring.

[@Bomtombadi1]

@@johnsmit5999 time and chance produce? What is with people like you needing there to be intent for everything? Also, last I checked, proteins require base elements and amino acids. So why is time and chance the only factor?

[@hansdemos6510]

Mr. Smith misrepresents Hercule Poirot's method. The realization that the twelve stab wounds could have come from twelve different stabbers is a nice idea, but it needed to be supported by sufficient objectively convincing evidence before it could become a working hypothesis, and then an inevitable conclusion. It seems to me that the appearance of design in nature is perpetually stuck at the "nice idea" stage of the scientific method.

[@TacoBel]

Yes, and No. It is a Nice Idea, and I would say that Evolution is also a Nice Idea. In the context of great way of trying to understand the world around you. But Evolution goes against SEVERAL Scientific Laws and there has been no evidence of one Kind of animal changing into another Kind. However, when you look at the complexity, design, intelligence, and order of everything it must be Intentional BLIND FAITH to chose to believe in Random Processes instead of a Logically Provable God. By the way, Evolution can't even begin to explain Complexity, order, intelligence, or logic. Both are great theories of how things might have happened/are happening. But only one stands to reason. The other is still a Theory that Directly contradicts Observable Scientific Law.

[@therick363]

@@TacoBelwhat laws does the scientific theory of evolution go against?

[@sliglusamelius8578]

The fossil record doesn't support the idea of phylogenetic linkage of all extant organisms. There just are not the expected transitional fossils to make that case. In addition, Lamarckism makes sense because random mutations can't create good and novel structures. It never has been seen prospectively to do that. Almost all mutations are neutral or bad.

[@hansdemos6510]

​@@TacoBel You said: _" Yes, and No. It is a Nice Idea, and I would say that Evolution is also a Nice Idea."_ It certainly was when the ancient Greeks were thinking about it, but since Wallace and Darwin gave it a scientific basis by proposing a verifiable mechanism that drives evolution in the form of natural selection, the stream of scientific evidence supporting their "nice idea" has not stopped. You said: _"But Evolution goes against SEVERAL Scientific Laws..."_ It does not. If you think it does, then you are just reading or watching very unsophisticated creationist apologists at their worst. Please read or watch some general scientific sources on this matter. You said: _"... and there has been no evidence of one Kind of animal changing into another Kind."_ Depending on what you mean by that, it is quite possible that the modern scientific theory of evolution does not predict that will happen. You may have been fed disinformation by creationist sources. You said: _"However, when you look at the complexity, design, intelligence, and order of everything it must be Intentional BLIND FAITH to chose to believe in Random Processes instead of a Logically Provable God."_ Actually I think most of the elements of your statement are untrue. First of all, we cannot "look at" design or intelligence, because those are conclusions, not observations. Secondly, I don't think anyone can intentionally have any faith, blind or otherwise, or "choose to believe" in anything because "faith" and belief are involuntary, irrational, and emotional responses. Thirdly, although random processes are part of what drives evolution, natural selection is certainly not random, so you seem to be missing the point completely when you are thinking about what the modern scientific theory of evolution is. Finally, there is no logical proof of anything supernatural, and certainly not of the God of the Bible. I think we would have known by now if there was. You said: _"By the way, Evolution can't even begin to explain Complexity, order, intelligence, or logic."_ Not sure what you mean. The modern scientific theory of evolution aims to explain the diversity of life, nothing else. You said: _"Both are great theories of how things might have happened/are happening."_ The modern scientific theory of evolution certainly is a great explanation of how the biodiversity we observe has come about. Creationism is no more than a religious dogma that explains nothing.

[@hansdemos6510]

@@sliglusamelius8578 You said: _"The fossil record doesn't support the idea of phylogenetic linkage of all extant organisms. There just are not the expected transitional fossils to make that case."_ The scientific community seems to disagree with you. The word "expected" does a lot of heavy lifting in your statement. Apparently you do agree that there are some transitional fossils, but because there are too few, you reject the argument that transitional fossils are evidence of what you call _"phylogenetic linkage of all extant organisms"_ or what others might call "common ancestry". I would like to turn your argument around; even one transitional fossil serves as evidence for common ancestry, while any number of non-transitional fossils do not serve as evidence against common ancestry. For example, if you go to the same store every day and you only stole something once, then all the security cam footage of you not stealing anything does not disprove the evidence of that one time that it did record you slipping that Slim Jim in your pocket. You said: _"In addition, Lamarckism makes sense because random mutations can't create good and novel structures."_ Neo-Lamarckism has made a bit of a come-back with the discovery of epigenetic switches, but only as an additional mechanism to the ones we already know about. Your claim that _"random mutations can't create good and novel structures"_ has been conclusively disproven by the E. coli Long Term Evolution Experiment.

[@damianabbate4423]

No one has conceded anything. In order to determine if something is created or designed, you need to compare it with something that is not. You can see buildings and watches are designed, because we compare them to what isn't designed, nature. You have nothing to compare the natural world to in order to determine if it was designed or created. All that religious people have is a belief, and on that belief they build huge assumptions like design, creation, gods, saviours, afterlife, angels, demons. It's ok to have a belief or hypothesis for something, but you have to take it further and provide evidence. Sadly, that's as far as religious belief goes. Only ideas, beliefs and a book of ideas and beliefs. No god, no proof of creation or design except through devious christian pseudo science. Try again.

[@m0x910]

In nature we there are things that aren’t designed that emerge naturally like crystals. They have all the features of having natural origins, simple and repeated internal and molecular structures, we also currently observe them emerging naturally in nature today. However when you examine living organisms they do not have any characteristics to suggest life originated naturally. Instead they express all the hallmarks of being designed by an intellect when compared to items we know to be designed. The evidence: ATP Synthase. (It is empirical) ​​⁠1.) Machines are defined as an apparatus using mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task. 2.) Every instance of a machine is first conceptualised by intellects, then designed by intellects, then created by intellects. 3.) There is no observable or theoretical natural phenomenon or mechanism that can produce working machines. 4.) ATP synthase is a working machine. 5.) Therefore ATP synthase is the product of an intellect not natural phenomena. Falsifiability:YES.(Observe and/or demonstrate experimentally how natural processes could construct a working machine.) For clarity: Machines cannot be evolved incrementally as each part is purpose built to work with all the other components ready made and purpose built, the whole machine fails to work properly or at all if one or more components is removed or not adequate. The loss or inadequacy of components becomes more crippling the simpler (less components) a machine has. In this case at least 4 parts for ATP synthase.

[@damianabbate4423]

@@m0x910 comparing life to machines is ridiculous. Just because we currently can't explain APT doesn't mean a god did it. You would have to throw out the entire fossil record which clearly shows biological systems evolving. It's a favourite trick of believers to pull something singular out of the group that is not well understood and point out it must have been god. Believers do that with their own scriptures. Your god clearly moves with human sacrifice, and can only think of cursing, drowning, burning and murdering its problems away. Believers want to show a loving god, but this god murders his own son as another human sacrifice. Nice try.

[@servant_symm]

We can compare existence to what would be without a creator: non-existence

[@damianabbate4423]

@@servant_symm Non existence is what you were before you were born. You didn't have a problem with it then, and you wont have a problem with it when you die either. That's the way the world works. Every species of plant and animal has come and gone and been recycled in this closed system on this planet. You can believe that you'll live forever after you die, but there isn't a single piece of evidence for it that you can observe and prove. You just have a belief. Every single human that has ever lived is dead and recycled. That we can observe and prove.

[@damianabbate4423]

@@servant_symm You didn't exist before your birth and had no problem with it. You'll have no problem with non existence after you die.

[@willytheriot8439]

Why do people still believe in magic?

[@des711]

Like, "How can something come from nothing?"

[@wingednut2283]

​@@des711nothing is still something

[@nathancook2852]

@@des711 Like, no one who understands evolution claims that. Only the one's who don't and need some way to try to discredit evolution do.

[@CaptainFantastic222]

They can’t handle death or not knowing the answer to something

[@jockyoung4491]

Because magic promises immortality. No amount of logic or reason can compete with that.

[@DgDo-tt6uf]

‭‭Romans 1:20-23 NKJV‬‬ [20] For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, [21] because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. [22] Professing to be wise, they became fools, [23] and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man-and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

[@markduell2468]

That same Bible condones slavery.

[@mwhabs]

@@markduell2468I can’t believe I’m gonna get baited into this but here I go 😭 - Why/how enslaving non-jews started (in Old Testament context): Enslaving non-Jews is both a punishment to those immoral peoples surrounding Israel and a replacing of their immorality with His morality. In Lev 18 & 20 we see all the reasons the nations around Israel are immortal, including those sacrificing children to Molech. Leviticus 20:23-24 “And you shall not walk in the statutes of the nation which I am casting out before you; for they commit all these things, and therefore I abhor them. But I have said to you, “You shall inherit their land, and I will give it to you to possess, a land flowing with milk and honey.” I am the Lord your God, who has separated you from the peoples.” (Also Leviticus 18:24). - Does that mean treat them badly?: No! On the contrary, God loves them and tells the Jews to love them “And if a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him. The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.” (Leviticus 19:33-34 also in Deuteronomy 10:18-19) - Slaves from among your own people: Indentured Servitude: the rule for jewish people who sold themselves to you (Lev 25:39). You can’t force them to serve/treat them like a slave (Lev 25:39). They can be released whenever their debt is paid, whenever the owner chooses, or they must be released at the year of the Jubilee (Lev 25:40). - Slave trade is condemned: In the OT Exodus 21:16 “He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death.” And in NT 1 Tim 1:8-11. - Now the new covenant starts: Jesus came to set the captives free (Luke 4:18) and in Galatians 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Anyways, hope some Christians read this and find this journey useful

[@markduell2468]

@@mwhabs The Bible in Leviticus states you can enslave people from the "pagan nations that are around you." Pagan meaning they believe in a different religion. Let me get this straight...you are OK with enslaving people who have a different religion than you?

[@DefeatTheWokeEstablishment]

@@markduell2468 Go back and finish Old Testament 101 and get back to us.

[@markduell2468]

@@DefeatTheWokeEstablishment I am very familiar with the Bible. I was a Bible believing, born again Christian for 25 years. In fact, I street witnessed in the slums of New York City in the early 80's.

[@Xyrogenix]

Atheism is a coping mechanism.

[@katamas832]

For what?

[@jockyoung4491]

I'd say just the opposite. Someone believing they will be saved for eternity is the ultimate coping mechanism.

[@HangrySaturn]

Religion is the opiate of the masses.

[@therick363]

Theism is nothing but lying. Now backup your claim or admit you were wrong.

[@nonononononono8532]

@@jockyoung4491I subscribe to the view that religious are a terror management theory. This is because humans have gained the traumatic knowledge of their own death, and construct ways of living on after their death, religion, poetry, art and etc.

[@ramigilneas9274]

Those AIG jokers always forget to mention that the vast majority of Christians agree that Evolution is a scientific fact.😂

[@AboveReproachPodcast]

No. No they don’t. But AIG has very often addressed those who have been fooled to believe it

[@Xyrogenix]

Atheists=dumb on purpose. They must argue against design, using arguments that they had to design. 😅

[@nathancook2852]

You do realize that even most Christians believe in evolution, don't you? Who's the dumb ones?

[@razark9]

Says the one in religious denial of science. You are wilfully ignorant. And science has nothing to do with atheism or your beliefs for that matter.

[@CaptainFantastic222]

The irony of your post is unbearable

[@kayakMike1000]

Way to win hearts and minds. Maybe if we insult them even more, they will just change their mind.

[@Xyrogenix]

@@kayakMike1000 Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

[@jockyoung4491]

Atheism and evolution are not the same thing. Millions of Christians accept the science of evolution.

[@RodericGurrola]

What are you talking about there like brother and sister.

[@avgejoeschmoe2027]

If it were "the science of evolution" it would be REPRODUCIBLE. THEORY of evolution is far more accurate. However, the gaps in between simple organisms becoming more complex and where the extra DNA info came from, makes it more of a FAIRY TALE

[@jockyoung4491]

@@RodericGurrola Just the opposite. They have nothing to do with each other. Evolutionary theory is a scienitific explanation for how the material world works. Atheism says NOTHING about the material world, and is instead a statement about what ELSE there mayor may not be. we all need to understand the difference between science and faith.

[@jockyoung4491]

@@RodericGurrola They have nothing to do with each other. Evolution is about science and the material world. Atheism says nothing about the material world - but is instead a statement about faith (or lack thereof) in the supernatural.

[@tims5268]

@@RodericGurrolatheir point was self evident. Christians believing in evolution shows that evolution is not the same as atheism.

[@larrycarter3765]

WHo created your god then?

[@DefeatTheWokeEstablishment]

Apparently you haven't evolved past theism 101.😂

[@m0x910]

Your question reveals a fundamental ignorance on the definition of the title “God”. God (by nature of being God) is uncreated, eternal, without beginning and without end. Your question is like asking, “Where are the corners of a circle?”. The question is nonsensical.

[@wingednut2283]

​@@m0x910 but nothing can be uncreated evidenced by this very video we comment on

[@therick363]

@@DefeatTheWokeEstablishmentyou haven’t passed basic manners 101 and hypocrisy

[@therick363]

@@m0x910actually his question points out the double standards and special pleading used by many theists

[@noilocay]

Who design the designer?

[@calvinsmith7575]

God is eternal, not designed. And if you believe matter created everything, where did matter come from?

[@tobias4411]

​@@calvinsmith7575Big bang

[@l.m.892]

You're right, Cal. Natural selection is not a watchmaker. It's more of a watch breaker. 7:11 Nice bike!

[@globalcoupledances]

But the analogy is that natural selection only selects working watches

[@l.m.892]

@@globalcoupledances How would nature do such a thing, being blind and dumb?

[@l.m.892]

@@globalcoupledances How would a blind "watchmaker" know whether a watch was working or not?

[@globalcoupledances]

@@l.m.892 He can hear the watch ticking

[@l.m.892]

@@globalcoupledances What if it's running backwards instead of forward? Any answer is better than no answer, eh?

[@DefeatTheWokeEstablishment]

The theory of evolution is laughable.😂😂

[@wingednut2283]

Good talk

[@jockyoung4491]

You don't even know what it says. I can guarantee there is nothing illogical or impossible about the theory of biological evolution. If you think there is, then you don't understand it.

[@DefeatTheWokeEstablishment]

@@jockyoung4491 Typical atheist evolutionist, making judgments without evidence. Or do you have evidence that I don't know what it says? I'll wait...

[@jockyoung4491]

@@DefeatTheWokeEstablishment There are mountains of evidence that you don't know about. And that is entirely YOUR problem. If you refuse to even look at it, you remain ignorant by choice.

[@marcj3682]

@@jockyoung4491 "You don't even know what it says. I can guarantee there is nothing illogical or impossible about the theory of biological evolution. If you think there is, then you don't understand it." Please, do explain every part, little by little. I'll wait for you expertise insights, then I will shock you with facts.

[@markduell2468]

They can't deny what they don't see.

[@Bomtombadi1]

Hey Calvin, what about all those rocks formations which DID form naturally?

[@m0x910]

?

[@HangrySaturn]

Never mind all that

[@TacoBel]

... They formed naturally. Could have been with Devine intervention or guiding. Or random. Only God knows.

[@Bomtombadi1]

@@TacoBel right: naturally formed by supernatural means … makes perfect sense and must be true, because “who knows?!”

[@johnsmit5999]

You mean the ones formed by the worldwide Flood?

[@AmericanActionReport]

I have also asked the question, "In known, individual cases, how does it benefit a species (or even an individual organism within a species) to go out of its way to help a member of a species that couldn't possibly benefit organism that confers the benefit?" Here are a few examples, dolphins have rescued dogs from drowning and rescued humans from shark attacks. (Dogs and dolphins normally inhabit different habitats.) Predatory animals such as wolves (to give an example from Cambodia), have been known to care for small children. Ducks have been videotaped feeding fish in parks.

[@ileanamuntean7338]

Dogs are man-made mutants, only in US there are almost one million dog attacks a year that require some medical intervention. Many dog attacks result in life-changing injuries and sometimes death. About 23000 people worldwide are killed by dogs each year. Dogs require other animals to be intensively farmed and killed for their food. Dog "love" is basically Disney induced anthropomorphism, kitsch sentimentality and goofy nuttery. Dolphins, sharks have real ecosystems, dogs don't.

[@dataforge2745]

I think you're a little confused about the issue. There's nothing that says everything that evolved must solely benefit the organism. Nor does any aspect of evolution say every benefit will be perfect. Quite the opposite in fact. Your cases have pretty obvious explanations. These animals have nurturing instincts, and for whatever reason those instincts were active towards a different species. Why would you expect this to be a problem for evolution? Perhaps if every species was going around raising others' offspring, and neglecting their own. But that's clearly not what's happening.

[@l.m.892]

@@dataforge2745 Evolution has no specific definition, therefore, it can be used to "explain" anything. Darwinian evolution is a classic example of confirmation bias.

[@stephenboshoff8316]

A watch maker is a person skilled at designing and making a watch. You have to be able to SEE and have the SKILLS to make a WATCH, to be known as a watch maker.

[@larrycarter3765]

So?

[@mchooksis]

@@larrycarter3765 So....If you are curious as to where the watch came from, you have to be able to find watchmakers, show they exist, and understand where their skills came from. Until you do this, you cannot just say it was a watchmaker that made the watch, you don't, at this stage even know what a watch maker is or what watchmaking skills are. There are a number of things that could have made the watch. It does not mean it was intelligently designed, A watch COULD be made by an unintelligent entity simply by trial and error. Put two things together, if they work together ,move onto the next step. Add a third part. If that doesn't work, try something different, continue doing this until it does work, at which point move onto the next step. Until eventually you have a working clock. "Now, What is this working clock thing that I have made? What does it do? Oh, that's strange, it seems to tell me when the sun is overhead." You then make others, but because some of the parts are different sizes, most of them are inaccurate. So you keep the accurate one and copy that one exactly. No intelligence required, no plan required. It's like putting together a jigsaw just from the way the pieces fit without knowing what the final picture is going to be. Or, the watch could have been made by a committee of of pink unicorns, (you can substitute the word "gods" if you like), all with limited intelligence, but collectively having enough snippets of intelligence to pool resources and create a meaningful result. You cannot say it was designed by a intelligent, all powerful, all knowing and all seeing god that has always existed, until you have ruled out all other plausible or equally implausible possibilities. You first have to prove that he exists. Just saying his creation proves he exists is not enough when that same creation could have been made by an unintelligent collective committee.

[@mattbrook-lee7732]

What's your point

[@mchooksis]

Point is there is no evidence of a designer of the universe. Until a designer can be demonstrated, and the process demonstrated as to how he did it. no one can say the creation was designed. Although we don't know all the answers yet. There are far more pointers to there being a naturalistic origin than a designed origin. (does that ,REALLY need explaining,)

[@mattbrook-lee7732]

@mchooksis if that's what the post is saying then I agree. I don't think it is saying that though. Reads more like nature could not have done it because it can't see or have the skills. So I think it most definitely does need explaining. Thanks for implying that I'm stupid though

[@wingednut2283]

AIG is the second worst export from Australia since fox news.

[@HangrySaturn]

This

[@velkyn1]

and Calvin lies yet again. Unsurprisingly, "top evolutionists" know that Calvin is a liar and his god doesn't exist. Complexity does perfectly fine with evolution. It's wonderful how this cult depends on ignorance and deceit to exist.

[@need2connect]

God bless you

[@DefeatTheWokeEstablishment]

Look up the definition of a lie, and then get back to us.😂

[@m0x910]

The irony is you don’t realise just how deceived you are to believe in macro-evolution. The basis of your belief is a group of people with certain qualifications also believe it. Till they don’t, and then you too will change your mind and stop believing it. That is the definition of a hive mind, which is arguably worse than a cult. Try examining all the facts and think for yourself.

[@HangrySaturn]

@@DefeatTheWokeEstablishment Lying for Jesus

[@velkyn1]

@@m0x910 I always find it great when creationists admit that there is evolution. You try to claim it is only "micro" but you still agree that it happens, which is not what your forebearers said was true. Science always wins since you can't deny it happens. Evolution is both micro and macro and the same mechanism works in both. So your creationist nonsense fails miserably. the basis of my trust in what the evdience supports isn't "faith" or "belief" in the sense that chritains use those words. I don't just trust someone who says something is true without evidence like you do. I do think for myself. That's why when I read the bible I realized what complete nonsense it is. Have you read your bible, M? Curious how christians can't agreeon what it "really" means, and that's why we have creationists who make up different versions and not one can convince the others that their baseless claims. "The irony is you don’t realise just how deceived you are to believe in macro-evolution. The basis of your belief is a group of people with certain qualifications also believe it. Till they don’t, and then you too will change your mind and stop believing it. That is the definition of a hive mind, which is arguably worse than a cult. Try examining all the facts and think for yourself."

[@ajmittendorf]

Dawkins is top in only one thing, and it's not being an evolutionist.

[@jonhofelich9107]

Yes, they will.

[@Spacekriek]

9:20 ... Or even comparable to Reed-Solomon or similar codes that do forward error correction.

[@epicofgilgamesh9964]

*The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.*** *Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.*** ***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service. *"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"* *"Sumerian Is the World's Oldest Written Language | ProLingo"* *"Sumerian Civilization: Inventing the Future - World History Encyclopedia"* ("The Sumerians were the people of southern Mesopotamia whose civilization flourished between c. 4100-1750 BCE." "Ancient Israelites and their origins date back to 1800-1200 BCE.") *"The Myth of Adapa - World History Encyclopedia"* Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her 1st lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from 8:50 to 14:30 minutes, lecture 3 from 28:30 to 41:35 minutes, lecture 4 from 0:00 up to 21:30 minutes and 24:00 up to 35:30 minutes and lecture 7 from 24:20 to 25:10 minutes. From a Biblical scholar: "Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."* *"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, look up the below articles. *"Yahweh was just an ancient Canaanite god. We have been deceived! - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* *"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"* *"The Greatest Trick Religion Ever Pulled: Convincing Us That Satan Exists | Atheomedy"* *"Zoroastrianism And Persian Mythology: The Foundation Of Belief"* (Scroll to the last section: Zoroastrianism is the Foundation of Western Belief) *"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"* *"January | 2014 | Atheomedy"* - Where the Hell Did the Idea of Hell Come From? *"Retired bishop explains the reason why the Church invented "Hell" - Ideapod"* Watch *"The Origins of Salvation, Judgement and Hell"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica (Sensitive theists should only watch from 7:00 to 17:30 minutes as evangelical Christians are lambasted. He's a former theist and has been studying the scholarship and comparative religions for over 15 years) *"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"* *"Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood | Bible Interp"* *"The Search for Noah’s Flood - Biblical Archaeology Society"* *"Eridu Genesis - World History Encyclopedia"* *"The Atrahasis Epic: The Great Flood & the Meaning of Suffering - World History Encyclopedia"* Watch *"How Aron Ra Debunks Noah's Flood"* (8 part series debunking Noah's flood using multiple branches of science) *"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"* *"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"* *"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"* *"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"* *"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"* *"Studying the Bible"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei (This particular article from a critical Biblical scholar highlights how the authors of the Hebrew Bible used their *fictional* god as a mouthpiece for their own views and ideologies) *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history?"* -- by Dr Steven DiMattei *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them"* -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei

[@IAMhassentyou]

Every single one of those accusations are refuted by christian apologetics sites. Besides just AIG there is apologetics press, got questions, bible. org, ICR, CMI, Genesis apologetics as well as multiple church sites that have information on all of these things. So, don't expect your comment to comvince anyone.

[@HangrySaturn]

Good work on all those references!

[@HangrySaturn]

@@IAMhassentyou I was convinced by him before the comment was even made.

[@IAMhassentyou]

@@HangrySaturn of course you were. Lol You're not one of us.

[@OgdenCrimmcramer8162]

Another day, another Calvin argument from ignorance. "This biology is too complex for me to understand therefore GAWDDIDIT!!" Yawn.

[@johnsmit5999]

Protein synthesis is complex.

[@bigsammcbam6123]

Why are you so triggered? Projecting your inability to understand on to others never ends well for the accuser. Explain the origin of RNA, DNA, amino acids, proteins and the jump to life from inanimate material, explain this within the self imposed confines of abiogenesis and 'evolution' as fabricated and taught.

[@Rydonattelo]

Atheists ( New atheists like Dawkins) are just teenagers that never grow out of that misplaced God complex where they imagine themselves to be much smarter and more important than what they are. I was that atheist in my late teens and early 20s. The smart ass, obnoxious guy at the party that sounds smart because I could parrot Dawkins, Hitchens, Fry etc . , when in reality none of I was my own ideas. You know like a Brian Griffin type? That was me. Cringe.

[@DefeatTheWokeEstablishment]

😂

[@jockyoung4491]

@@DefeatTheWokeEstablishment That was you. It doesn't mean it was everybody else you disagree with.

[@statutesofthelord]

Praise God you came to the foot of the cross, and allowed Jesus to lift you up!

[@somerandom3247]

Just because thats how you were doesnt mean it applies to eveeryone else aswell.... Im an atheist because i havent seen any evidence for the existence of a god. Pretty simple.

[@DefeatTheWokeEstablishment]

@@somerandom3247 I don't see evidence for the existence of a god either, but I see mountains of evidence for the existence of God.

[@kitchencarvings4621]

It's not really all that complicated. One law is responsible for everything we see happening in the universe. That is the Law of Identity. It has always been so and it will always be so. There is no random chance in the universe. Everything that exists and acts does so according to its nature. Nature, or identity, is inherent in the things that exist and they can only act in specific ways. Nothing can act apart from its nature. There may be a lot of things that exist but they all follow one law. All the other so-called laws are just different expressions of identity.

[@2012grayhound]

You are either missing my point, or you are trying to be sarcastic, which is ok. I can take a joke. Evolution requires chance. Chance requires an action. Action requires a force to initiate the action. Without the force to initiate the action, nothing happens, ad infinitum, no matter how much time is allowed. Even the force itself requires an initiate behind it. With regard to the beginning, before the Universe existed, this force must therefore be initiated by a creator or an intelligence with intention outside of the action. To argue origin of matter, space, and time is irrelevant without explaining this dilemma first. The argument rests here. Evolution, therefore, is also a matter of faith, not science. For me, it takes less faith to believe in a creator than to hope that somehow it just happened. There is no "proof" for either God or evolution, but there is evidence for God. Believe what you want.

[@Bomtombadi1]

You’ve not connected your conclusion to a creator. Do you think this is a unique argument? Evolution therefore requires faith because the origin of time, space and matter is irrelevant without understanding a prime mover? Your non-unique arguments are all over the place. Okay, good for you for thinking it’s easier to believe a creator than to take the time to understand this stuff. Sure, there is evidence for god. You present it all the time. It’s just not compelling, much like your entire paragraph.

[@mirandahotspring4019]

Nah, we still deny it! Trouble is idiots confusing pattern for design!

[@DefeatTheWokeEstablishment]

Trouble is idiots confusing pattern for evolution!

[@wingednut2283]

​@@DefeatTheWokeEstablishment cant argue with idiots as there are some scientists who are so but by patterns you obviously mean evidence regarding Evolution

[@DefeatTheWokeEstablishment]

@@wingednut2283 Yes, as well as atheist nudists who go to hot springs and ruin the experience for everyone else.😂😂

[@wingednut2283]

@@DefeatTheWokeEstablishment Oooo....kay slightly weird tangent. Did you ask each of these nudist if they were atheist? I actually find most nudists to be quite spiritual more of a zen buddhist or reincarnationist. Also very judgemental of you.

[@m0x910]

The indicators for design are quite distinct from naturally occurring patterns which repeat without meaning however in DNA there is coded meaning which is direct evidence of an intellect. 👉🏾The evidence: DNA. (It is empirical) 1.) DNA is semiotic information. 2.) Every instance of semiotic information existing is always the result of an intellect, no exceptions exist. 3.) There is no known natural phenomenon or mechanism that could compose semiotic information (that is to imbue meaning into an arbitrary, specifically complex sequence) 4.) DNA is therefore the product of an intellect. 5.) The discovery of DNA and its semiotic nature is irrefutable proof of the existence of at least one supreme intellect before life began (as we know it) on earth. Falsifiability?: YES. Method: Observe and/or demonstrate experimentally how natural processes compose semiotic information.