Can order come from chaos?

Are you familiar with the Second Law of Thermodynamics? It states that nature is heading towards disorder. See how Frank uses this nearly closed scientific fact to help defend a Creator and how it undermines the idea of macroevolution. Yet, even without pointing to a Creator, macroevolution does not solve the problems of the origin of life. Why not? Watch this!
📚 𝗥𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲𝘀:
🚩Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek: Book👉📱cutt.ly/II4j464, 10 part DVD Set👉📱cutt.ly/FI4krhS, STUDENT Study Guide👉📱cutt.ly/jI4kp0... Study Guide👉📱cutt.ly/5I4kjdA
🚩I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback👉📱cutt.ly/vIET6Y2), and (Sermon 👉📱cutt.ly/MIEYBGM) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
🚩God's Crime Scene: Cold-Case...Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe (Paperback 👉📱cutt.ly/0IETh5N), (Mp4 Download👉📱cutt.ly/xIETQbv), and (DVD Set👉📱cutt.ly/qIETYR2) by J. Warner Wallace
🤝 𝗦𝗨𝗣𝗣𝗢𝗥𝗧 𝗖𝗥𝗢𝗦𝗦𝗘𝗫𝗔𝗠𝗜𝗡𝗘𝗗 (𝗧𝗔𝗫-𝗗𝗘𝗗𝗨𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗕𝗟𝗘) 🤝
● Website: crossexamined....
● PayPal: bit.ly/Support...
👥 𝗦𝗢𝗖𝗜𝗔𝗟 𝗠𝗘𝗗𝗜𝗔 👥
● Facebook: / crossexamined.org
● Twitter: / frank_turek
● Instagram: / drfrankturek
● Pinterest: pin.it/JF9h0nA
🗄️ 𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗢𝗨𝗥𝗖𝗘𝗦 🗄️
● Website: crossexamined.org
● Store: impactapologet...
● Online Courses: www.onlinechri...
🎙️ 𝗦𝗨𝗕𝗦𝗖𝗥𝗜𝗕𝗘 𝗧𝗢 𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗣𝗢𝗗𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗧 🎙️
● iTunes: bit.ly/CrossExa...
● Google Play: bit.ly/CE_Podca...
● Spotify: bit.ly/CrossExa...
● Stitcher: bit.ly/CE_Podca...
#TheCauseOfUniverse #WhoCreatedEverything #HowWeGotOrder #DoesGodExist #Evidence #WhoCauseEverything #God #Christianity #Christians #Apologetics #OrderAndChaos #IntelligentCause #GodIsTheCreator #Jesus #QuestionsAndAnswers #IDontHaveEnoughFaithToBeAnAtheist #DrFrankTurek

[@CrossExamined]

Download FREE Cheat Sheet “The 4-Point Case For Christianity” 👉📱cutt.ly/ZYMC4nl

[@HansMcc1984]

If you're listening ,i can strengthen this argument If you cut a cell in half will matter form to rebuild that cell? If we don't expect that ,then why would we expect Matter to form a entire new cell? Just a thought.

[@Derek_Baumgartner]

Quite often in comment sections under Christian videos, I see folks try to 'box in' the person speaking. One guy gave his testimony, so one person mocked one part of that testimony, oversimplified part of it and said 'Oh, he met a girl who changed his mind. Always how it is.' One guy stands up and speaks about science, so another guy (in this very comment section) says of Frank 'He's white! And middle-aged! Always how it is.' Any dealing with the evidence? No: but definitely mocking the speaker. 'Oh, you grew up that way. Always how it is.' 'Oh, you're in the west. Always how it is.' 'Oh, you're a man. Always how it is.' ----- We all have a tendency to try to 'box in' and 'categorize' people we disagree with so we don't have to deal with the evidence they provide. But it's possible to fight that urge and deal with the argument. If truth really is on your side, the answer to their argument is, too. When I see someone resort to ad hominem instead, it tells me that they likely have no clue what they're talking about if name-calling is all they have. Don't be afraid of saying "I don't know" or "I need to look into that." It can be difficult - pride is a terrible thing - but taking someone's points seriously goes a long way towards learning for yourself, and answering for others. People watch who are are, not just what we say. ==== Thanks for the vids: keep up the great work!

[@joshuaallen285]

I have had to answer with IDK to quite a few videos, then go and look it up!

[@therick363]

Well when the person like this apologist acts like they know more about science than scientists, or more about atheism than atheists…yes we are going to call him out for what he’s saying because it’s so often wrong, incorrect, inaccurate, flat out lies.

[@iliaelija7329]

More time than not, if a person get proven wrong or doesn't have an answer they do the “ ad hominem attacks (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. We see who the winner here is

[@leibniz4455]

WELCOME TO THE INTERNET!!

[@cygnusustus]

"Any dealing with the evidence? No: but definitely mocking the speaker." He didn't present any evidence. Never does. That is why we mock him.

[@bandie9101]

2nd low of thermodynamics is about the entropy of the **whole system**, which is growing over time, but it does allow entropy in "local patches" to lower. scientists' conjecture is that beginning of life on Earth was a local patch of low entropy state. this does not refutes divine reality; i just pointed out it is not whole picture…

[@deoranferguson5657]

Nice I really like this one

[@mustachemac5229]

You like lies? Why?

[@deoranferguson5657]

@@mustachemac5229 explain to me how it's lies

[@mustachemac5229]

@Comment Warrior the Jesus Christ follower. ☦️ ✝️ Look... it's Fake Shapiro.

[@mustachemac5229]

@@deoranferguson5657 You can easily do your own research and see that chaos can create order and vice versa. Example: Have you ever play the game Yahtzee?

[@mustachemac5229]

@Comment Warrior the Jesus Christ follower. ☦️ ✝️ I don't care 😘

[@tTtt-ho3tq]

Order, disorder are misnomer. There's no disorder in this orderly universe. You play pool? When you break the balls at first they go everywhere, right? Looks disorderly? No. If you knew everything, every variables, every factors, you would know exactly where every ball goes. Having said so. You can't tell him what he can do or what he can't do. There was nothing before but him. He created every thing. Whatever he wishes he can do so by definition. He can design to create his creations to behave whatever he wishes, any which ways his creations act, react by causes and effects.

[@tTtt-ho3tq]

@Butwhy Yes, entropy. Very good! So how does this entropy works down? How do things of entropy follow? They all follow the natural laws, don't they? It may look disorderly to you, to us but it's going entropy orderly. Or are you saying all those physical things happen purely random? Of course, there're probabilities at micro quantum levels, though it's still probabilistically deterministic at macro levels.

[@kongstrong1938]

Great video. Love the explanation. Will use this information going forth

[@piegros]

Good

[@ZER0--]

This is from a Christian perspective. I prefer science when it comes to these sort of questions. I think science has proved that order can come from chaos. You can get chaos becoming ordered, and then returning to a chaotic state. Crazy stuff.

[@finnknoop457]

The second law of thermodynamics doesn't state that "things go to disorder, not order". It states that any thermodynamic process will result in a global increase of entropy. Entropy isn't a measure of disorder of all things, it is a measure of disorder in the distribution of energy amongst particles, for example, if energy is evenly distributed between ten particles, the entropy would be higher than if five had lots of energy and five had very little energy. The second law of thermodynamics implies lots of things, including the eventual heat death of the universe, but it doesn't have any implications on whether things in nature tend to order or disorder (I am not a scientist, but I am fairly sure my definitions are correct. Either way, Frank is misrepresenting the second law of thermodynamics). Also Frank says that laws must come from a law giver. Not only does he provide no evidence for this, it logically can't be true. In the situation that there is no law giver, if what Frank says is true, there can be no laws. This surely includes the law that all laws must come from a law giver. Frank also says that the fact that we haven't managed to use selective breeding to break out of the dog genus is evidence against natural evolution. He neglects to mention that we have only been selectively breeding animals for a relatively small time compared to how long life has existed, most likely not long enough for it to be likely that enough random genetic mutation would occur for that to happen.

[@WesleyDechavez]

I don't think you understand enough the 2nd law. Yes, there are some truth in your words but you're just debunking your own arguments.

[@finnknoop457]

What have I got wrong about the second law of thermodynamics?

[@leibniz4455]

@@WesleyDechavez So... What about the Borde Guth Valenkin theorem and the Holographic Model of the universe? The Big bang with its radiation afterglow?

[@les2997]

@@finnknoop457 Till date we have not seen an experiment or a computer simulation showing that an endlessly creative evolutionary processes is possible.

[@leahcimmmm]

There is a law that all laws must come from a law giver? I don't think that's quite right.

[@katamas832]

"Amazing, every word of what you just said... was wrong" - Luke Skywalker, The Last Jedi

[@robertgonzalez2669]

Hahaha hmm my stomach hurts

[@MichaelG485]

"Mr. -Madison- Turek, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

[@rydrakeesperanza5370]

So, you're saying thermodynamics are a problem for evolution? No, they're not. There are videos explaining it. I forgot the reason though. Maybe it has to do with open an closed systems. Anyway regarding reactions, they don't only depend on entropy, there are other factors that determine if a reaction will take place or not. And that's for reactions. I personally don't see how that applies on the evolutionary scale because one gene more or less if it works it works. If flies or humans both exist so what's the difference between them existing now and them beginning to exist back then? Wouldn't thermodynamics them disprove reproducción itself? Because don't we create order from disorder there? A human out of many molecules out of different places and origins? So, you're saying all stay in the genus of dogs. Ok, what about birds then? Would you say "it's still a bird so so "macroevolution"" even if it's progeny changed orders over time? If so, who determines which taxon is the one a species mist cross to be considered to have evolved macroly? Update: I googled it and if I'm not mistaken it refers to closed systems with no energy deliverance. There, warmth cannot travel from low to high, molecules cannot travel against their concentration gradient and thermal energy cannot convert into mechanical energy. Despite that, we can clearly see the opposite happening: refrigerators, active transport, etc. Why? Because you can overcome that obstacle by giving energy to the process. Entropy helps to predict whether reactions can take place spontaneously or not. But it's in no way a problem for evolution.

[@shauno6799]

You can bring order to chaos, or you can bring chaos to order, either way, order wins!

[@atajoseph]

Psalms 14:1 Only fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, and their actions are evil; not one of them does good!

[@Mavors1099]

Says the book that also says a snake can talk.

[@UltimateYūsha]

@@Mavors1099 which is Satan? Bruh, context.

[@atajoseph]

@@Mavors1099 the book that also say God and Demons and witchcraft exist also. So again save me the small talk and go learn how immoral and foolish your worldview sounds.

[@henryfrancis9533]

@@Mavors1099 says the guy that says human came from bacteria. Clown.

[@Mavors1099]

@@henryfrancis9533 Never said that humans come from bacteria.. are you stoned?

[@Imaginathor-1k0]

All these debates is just chaos

[@theoskeptomai2535]

If _anyone_ has any questions concerning the position of atheism or would like to understand why a former evangelical Christian came to adopt such a position, I will gladly answer any questions you may have. Peace.

[@joen.8364]

Dr. Turek, I was just told to read books by Bart D. Ehrman, a religious scholar that denounced the New Testament for several reasons (I looked him up on Wikipedia). I'm sure you must have heard of him. Any thoughts please?

[@mickqQ]

Get as much information as you can from as many different perspectives as you can. Dr Erhman has lectures here on KZbin

[@choosejesus1910]

He's an atheist

[@mickqQ]

@@choosejesus1910 He’s also a highly respected New Testament scholar and former evangelical Christian.

[@reallifelegend4781]

@@mickqQ and wrong.

[@mharzmhason1787]

Dr. Turek recognized him. Ehrman wrote the book “Misquoting Jesus” (that says New Testament is unreliable) and at the same year published another book that’s say New Testament is reliable.🤔

[@stevieoberg3104]

So I don't agree with your stance but I really appreciate you acknowledging that evolution can't disprove God, It would just describe a process he has put into our reality.

[@gordo191]

Evolution cannot prove itself,

[@i7Qp4rQ]

Evolution has no direction neither magnitude. Its a term without meaning. If a theory explains all the possible outcomes its not a theory.

[@incredulouspasta3304]

@@i7Qp4rQ Evolution isn't a vector, but it still has meaning. It doesn't explain all possible outcomes. It explains very specific outcomes that we observe. For example, fossils are organized in the ground according to their phylogeny. If this weren't the case, evolutionary theory would be in trouble. I think you are confusing "evolution" with "god". A being that can supernaturally do anything it wants _can_ explain all possible outcomes. Hence, it's not a useful theory.

[@TrueSaint916]

@@incredulouspasta3304 The fossil record conflicts with neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. Check out "Darwin's Black Box"

[@therick363]

@@TrueSaint916 no it doesn’t

[@bobwhelan5636]

I guess they pretend there's no 1st law of thermodynamics because it so completely shows the flaw in their "creator".

[@TheMidnightModder]

How does the First Law of Thermodynamics show a flaw in God?

[@Kevin-jc1fx]

The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of any *isolated system* is constant. So energy is neither created, nor lost WITHIN THE ISOLATED SYSTEM. For something to be conserved, it needs to first exist. We are then back to the creator as ultimate source of everything that exists. Also, even all the laws of physics and thermodynamics are simply discovered by us. Who created those laws? Who fine tuned every natural constants like gravity and so on to the exact values that enable life? The origin, the first and uncaused cause, the designer of the universe or whatever you refer to him as. Most people simply call him God.

[@arunmoses2197]

How does the 1st law of thermodynamics show a flaw in God?

[@bobwhelan5636]

​@@TheMidnightModder Energy can't be created or destroyed, it just changes states. What I actually said was "creator", not "god".

[@davidross5593]

And I guess you completely pretend that there's no second law of thermodynamics because it's so completely proves that our creator is very real. For first law and second Law to exist at all Yahweh has to exist otherwise nothing would exist. Still.

[@Seeker7257]

To conclude that the universe and the planet earth just formed spontaneously, and stupendously, without any extrinsic motivation, is pretty naive.

[@therick363]

It’s naive to ignore that we have understanding of natural causes and forces of the universe and can explain how the earth formed. Do we know how or why the universe “began?” No. So it’s very naive to say it can only happen from a god.

[@incredulouspasta3304]

To conclude that God just formed spontaneously, and stupendously, without any extrinsic motivation, is pretty naive. :)

[@alphabeta1337]

Correct, but the earth is not a planet.

[@therick363]

@@alphabeta1337 ha ha ha the earth is not a planet? Do share then. What is the earth? The evidence do back up it’s not a planet? What about the other planets?

[@incredulouspasta3304]

@@therick363 The earth is a meatball, obviously. May the Great Pasta in the sky bless us with his special sauce!

[@Imaginathor-1k0]

Frank is trying to bring order in this chaotic world..........Ordo ab Chao

[@richardsasso8043]

Dr. Tuerk is mistaken here. The Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed - i.e. whole - systems. The Earth is not a closed system; it receives ample sunlight everyday. In point of fact, those parts of the globe where the sun goes out for months a year - like the the North and South Poles during their winter seasons - fall into a dark type of entropy. Ask anyone who has spent a winter in Barrow, Alaska.

[@demanitorres5925]

The universe is a closed system

[@heathers4961]

Earth is a closed system too.

[@ML-yy9iu]

@@demanitorres5925 The overall entropy of the Universe can increase over time while the entropy of the Earth itself can decrease. The two are not mutually exclusive. Macroevolution doesn't contradict the second law of thermodynamics which applies to the Universe as a whole, not open systems like the Earth. There are much better arguments that support the existence of a Creator, please don't use this when attempting to persuade someone.

[@kinggenius930]

@@heathers4961 Earth is not a closed system. It is constantly receiving energy from an outside source, the Sun.

[@Dhorpatan]

@@demanitorres5925 The Universe is not a closed system. That requires a boundary.

[@Imaginathor-1k0]

The mind itself is chaos n it will seek order

[@Bc232klm]

Trying to disprove evolution is like trying to disprove a spherical earth.

[@katamas832]

Creationism, especially young Earth Creationism are pretty on par with Flat Earth, so I'd say yeah

[@priscilatrevino8089]

no, because you can actually prove the earth is round, since you can study it and are witnessing it right now, contrary to the beginning of life, where non of us where there to witness it, so every conclusion to the beginning has assumptions, especially evolution

[@katamas832]

@@priscilatrevino8089 Yep, on par with Flat Earthers. Just like Flat Earthers who don't understand the model of the Earth and solar system, Creationists don't understand Evolution to the exact same extent

[@i7Qp4rQ]

Evolution has no direction neither magnitude. Its a term without meaning. If a theory explains all the possible outcomes: its not a theory.

[@priscilatrevino8089]

@@katamas832 no, this isn’t about understanding (some scientists don’t even understand evolution they just use it as an excuse) it’s about evidence. Trying to disprove my popsicle is purple is dumb if you can actually just see the color purple, but if we debate what processes the creator used to make it then it’s logical argument because the evidence of the existence of the popsicle is that is there, but neither of us was there when it was created so we need to make assumptions based on what we see

[@hanshammerhand9854]

Can order come from chaos? Yes, easy answer. Yes, thermodynamics teaches us that ordered systems are going to deal eith increased entropy with time. However chaos is a simplification that doesn't discribes very accurate what is meant with entropy, otherwise we would use chaos. But lets say chaos increases. This doesn't exclude that ordered patterns can evolve within this chaos. Partial order is not impossible, its a mathamatical neccessity. Analogy: You take a standard card deck of 52 ordered cards and throw them on the ground and pickit back up. Now its disordered. You do this over and over. Everytime you do this, you add another stack. Now after many many run throughs, and thats a mathematical essential, there will be one Deck that will be completly ordered again. And after more time, there will be 3 Stacks back to back that are ordered. However in order to accomplish that it was first nessasary to higly increase chaos. And thats actually how atheists can argue. Inorder to make our existence and Planet possible our universe first had to make waaay much more chaos. And yes its not proving that god does not exists. Its just an attemp how atheists and mathamatics explain order.

[@Amy-un6xg]

"Analogy: You take a standard card deck of 52 ordered cards and throw them on the ground and pickit back up. Now its disordered. You do this over and over. Everytime you do this, you add another stack. Now after many many run throughs, and thats a mathematical essential, there will be one Deck that will be completly ordered again. And after more time, there will be 3 Stacks back to back that are ordered." - I'm sorry. When you say "ordered deck" are you actually saying that the deck will be in it's original configuration (prior to ever throwing it- just outside of the box)? If so, can you please provide me with the probabilistic mathematical model you are using to support this analogy.

[@hudgaming_7022]

*

[@hanshammerhand9854]

@@Amy-un6xg stochastic, simple multiplication and logic. There is a nice video from veritasium:"this equation will change how you see the word". This video isn't in a religious context. I recommend you look it. Its not exaclty our thematic but its explains realy clear how out of something that seems to be chaotic evolve patterns and order. Its also important to keep in mind that entropy is not RANDOM chaos with infinte possible actions, its still obeys natural physical laws. Like in my anaology, the universe has only a finite amount of different things it can play with. So while it can make a tree, it can't build a skyscaper out of metal and glas.

[@Amy-un6xg]

@@hanshammerhand9854 Please confirm if you are referring to a uniform distribution in the statistical sense?

[@hanshammerhand9854]

@@Amy-un6xg Because of the constantly increasing amount of possibilities its hard to argue that the universe is a uniform distribution, so no. I doesnt know if it can be applied to the card-analogy because the amount of cards is also increasing by each go-trough and the increasing amount of possible combinations. Also the uniform distribution makes mostly statements about how a event is not if a event happens. Example: The maxwell-boltzmann-distribution discribes statistical how fast atoms would move in a finite ideal gas. This is not the same as the increasing entropy of our universe. But like I said, the internet can descibe this far better than I can so I recommend to look some videos about that instead of get the cheap version from me.

[@FrankTurekVideo]

Thanks for your comments everyone. My short answer to this gentlemen is concerning the origin of life and new life forms. It is not to suggest that natural laws cannot bring order locally in terms of galaxies, crystals, molecular compounds or in pre-existing living things (which is what I only partially said... the limitation inherent in a short answer). They just don't bring the kind of order necessary to create a living thing (specified complexity e.g. the genetic code). Nature would disorder any progress in all the steps necessary to bring forth specified complexity, which is one reason why abiogenesis doesn't work. Once a living thing exists it can grow by taking energy from its environment (as I said), but macroevolution appears to run into insurmountable problems such as irreducible complexity, epigenetic information (which can't be modified by mutations), and the lack of the new code necessary for new body plans (which is not achieved by mutating the existing code as admitted by many neo-Darwinists-- that's why they are looking for a completely new naturalistic mechanism to drive evolution). And even if natural laws could do all this, we are still left asking why those laws exist in the first place and why they are so precisely fine-tuned and uniform. The existence of the fine-tuned universe, laws that govern it, the first life forms, and subsequent life forms all appear to be effects that are best explained intelligent causes.

[@frankcardano4142]

Frank, have you ever read a book on evolution or abiogenesis? Everything you mention has already been dealt with. I recommend “Genesis. The scientific quest for life’s origins” by Robert Hazen. And “The making of the fittest. DNA and the ultimate forensic record of evolution” by Sean B Carroll. Try to remember that “god did it” doesn’t explain a thing.

[@rolandwatts3218]

//They just don't bring the kind of order necessary to create a living thing (specified complexity e.g. the genetic code). // That's the theist's assertion. But we (non theists and many theists) think otherwise. The problem is that we don't have any good scientific theories at the moment which explain how natural processes could have brought about life from non life. But then, neither do theists. They remain stuck at two points:- a. Arguing that because science cannot explain this, then God/ID did it, or b. Asserting that a God/ID did it. But they offer nothing by way of explanation to the same degree and depth they expect science to explain it. When I say that science has no good theories, it does offer several speculations which are to a degree testable. For example, "RNA world" and "Metabolism first". However, these are a long, long way from being good scientific theories, that is, ideas which have a lot of supporting evidence, and which are testable. //Nature would disorder any progress in all the steps necessary to bring forth specified complexity, which is one reason why abiogenesis doesn't work.// So you assert. However, see my points above. And, if a process was put forward, as long as it generated entropy as it proceeded then no second law of thermodynamics is being violated. For example in "RNA world", chemical reactions and physical processes are put forward, none of which violate the second law. //Once a living thing exists it can grow by taking energy from its environment (as I said), but macroevolution appears to run into insurmountable problems such as irreducible complexity, epigenetic information (which can't be modified by mutations), and the lack of the new code necessary for new body plans (which is not achieved by mutating the existing code as admitted by many neo-Darwinists-- that's why they are looking for a completely new naturalistic mechanism to drive evolution).// It's important to read literature from evolutionary biologists and other scientists regarding this. By that, I mean scientific papers and books written by the very people who study and research these fields, as opposed to critics, particularly religious folk who have several points against them which make them overly biased against ideas they don't like. I am not trying to be rude here after all, we all face problems with bias. However, I think for many religious folk the problem is particularly acute because they believe they love Jesus and have a personal relationship with him, and they believe the bible is a perfect book, and they believe that to doubt any of this will upset God and likely lead them to eternal punishment in hell. That punishment could be by eternal death or eternal conscious torment. Upsetting the object of their love, Jesus, and utter fear of hell, makes doubt against their religious beliefs almost impossible. ^^ Given this, how can such a believer even begin to contemplate ideas like evolution, abiogenesis, or even a spherical earth, should they think the bible teaches a flat earth? //And even if natural laws could do all this, we are still left asking why those laws exist in the first place and why they are so precisely fine-tuned and uniform.// I agree. However, if you want us to explain them, then we want you to explain them, and to do so to the same degree and depth you expect from us. Still, fine tuning is a good argument for the existence of some kind of deity I think. But that's all it is. The argument is not conclusive. It has its flaws. And if it points to the existence of a deity, it still fails to show how the deity explains the origin of life, for example. Thus, did the deity speak life into existence? If so, how does that work? Did the deity make nature and leave it up to natural laws and processes to cause life? If so, then how? //The existence of the fine-tuned universe, laws that govern it, the first life forms, and subsequent life forms all appear to be effects that are best explained intelligent causes.// Not necessarily. If one allows for an invisible, omnipotent, eternal intelligent agent with a mind not like our mind and ways not like our ways, then one can easily allow for an invisible, omnipotent, eternal NON intelligent agent with ways not like our ways. And in both cases above, an agent which is beyond our ability to understand is being proposed So maybe the universe always existed, just not in a way we can understand.

[@ryana1787]

Wow, Frank Turek responded to my comments on galaxies and crystals! Hi Frank!

[@frankcardano4142]

@@ryana1787 Famous. 👍

[@robertlewis9132]

Sorry Frank, your stuff is made up nonsense at best. If your god, or anybody else's god exists, it created a hell of a mess. Twice apparently after it cruelly drowned it's first bad attempt. Your stuff is designed to feed the gullible masses and I find it hard to imagine you really believe it. You do not seem so......simple. If your god existed, it would make itself KNOWN. It would not expect anybody to trust other humans with their selfish agendas to convince them. You seem like a genuinely nice guy, but you have found a niche convincing simpler minds of incredibly silly nonsense. But, admittedly you are providing those simple minds exactly what they want. Something to explain that which humans simply can't know, something to allay their fears of the unknown, and something bigger than themselves to trust, and defer to. All the god thing does is kick the can down the road. Where did we come from? Oh, god made us. So where did god come from? Just take my word he always was and always will be and we can't understand his ways! Oh OK. I consider religion et al to be proof that humankind is still immature and primal. Not critical thinkers, but those who will accept the illogical because our own human insecurities ignorance. There is really only ONE acceptable answer to a thinking person, we don't KNOW because we can't KNOW. Faith and belief are not knowledge. Absolute fact!

[@nunya3399]

Maybe to nature though, a pile of bricks is what order looks like. I guess the master of this world is reflected in the nature of it.

[@DiscipleShaynePlaylist]

Order CAN come from chaos. Adam and eve brought sin into the world. Then Jesus showed up!!! Jesus is Alive!!! ✝️💕🏃💨🌎

[@atajoseph]

😅

[@mharzmhason1787]

Order can’t come from chaos unless there’s an Orderer.

[@dominicj]

what you says makes no logical sense, but thank God for Jesus though!

[@tennicksalvarez9079]

Um why is a theist talking about science if he is using the word 'macro evolution'

[@cygnusustus]

They like to pretend they know anything about science, and their gullible flocks believe them.

[@festushaggen2563]

The explanation is, "we don't know the true origin of matter and the universe, we just know God didn't do it." And they know that how? They don't. Chance, luck, happenstance and every other possibility get their shot at it first to be the cause that brings about the effect. The happy accident that brings order out of chaos and all the wonders of life. This is suppressing the truth in unrighteousness as described in Romans 1. Denying God as the Creator of all things and being ungrateful in the process.

[@katamas832]

No, we don't know the origin of the universe (we know the origin of matter, it is energy), and God is an unlikely explaination due to how many assumptions we have to make. This is simply Occam's razor.

[@frankcardano4142]

Wrong Pete. “We don’t know the true origin of matter and the universe” That part is correct. We’re just not buying your claim that it was a character in an old book written by ancient men.

[@mustachemac5229]

Good old Romans 1:20. For since the creation of the world, Sasquatches invisible qualities- from its massive hairy body to its large feet, have been clearly seen. You are without excuse. Sasquatch is real and you are without excuse. 🤷‍♂️

[@festushaggen2563]

@@mustachemac5229 I won't mock or interfere with your worship of sasquatch. Have at it. I hope you 2 will be very happy together.

[@festushaggen2563]

@@katamas832 God is unlikely because luck won't judge and convict you. There's a lot of reasons for you to want God to be unlikely.

[@davidross5593]

Short answer no. Longer answer - If that were so, there would be no point to unloaders in any business. UPS, FedEx, DHL and post offices around the world. I am a package handler of UPS of 14 years so I know exactly what I'm talking about. It takes intelligence to unload a package. It takes intelligence to scan an address label and apply a sort label. It takes intelligence to sort that package on the correct belt. It takes intelligence to pick off packages from a belt to send it to the correct vehicle. It takes intelligence for loaders to load packages in the correct vehicle, in the correct spot.... "If" Chaos can produce order then you got a whole lot of catching up to do, unbelievers. (I have done all the positions that I have mentioned above. Unload, scan, sort, pick off and preload during Christmas volume and during regular volume. As I said I know exactly what I'm talking about). Someone can say whatever they want about abiogenesis. But saying it and proving it, are two completely different things. *Three weeks ago I made this comment. This morning, Thursday February 24, I was thinking about my comment here and someone else in the comments section mentioning Yahtzee. They explained you roll certain number of dice to make 1-6 appear chronologically. But what they fail to realize, that's an intelligent force acting on the dice and it's upon them to prove non intelligence had or can chaos produce order.... Someone rolling dice is not proof.

[@frankcardano4142]

How can I take this guy seriously when he misrepresents science and non believers so much?

[@gordo191]

How did the universe come to be , there is no scientific evidence

[@frankcardano4142]

@@gordo191 That has nothing to do with Frank misrepresenting science and non believers. Why does Frank do that? Is it because our true position is the only logical and he knows his isn’t?

[@chriscravens8318]

Please give just one example.

[@frankcardano4142]

@@chriscravens8318 Saying atheists need faith. He instantly shows he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

[@chrisg9383]

@@frankcardano4142 atheists do need faith, you have faith that life came into existence by something that is non intelligent, you have faith that the universe came into existence by nothing and by no one

[@SuPaTuBeDuDe]

Wow so many people mad in the comments. Let's settle this. We should put the best representatives of each side to debate the topic of God's existence. I'd say Richard Dawkins vs William Lane Craig should do it. Who do y'all think would win? 🤔

[@Mavors1099]

This video is not about the existence of God but about evolution. So if you want a debate with the "best representative" of each side you could have Francis Collins, James Watson or Donald Prothero for pro-evolution and for the anti-evolution you could have... Well I really can't think of any competent biologist who rejects evolution.

[@twoshotthereal]

WLC of course.

[@Dhorpatan]

That's hilarious there are still people rocking Richard Dawkins in 2022. Not 2006, 2022.

[@nonprogrediestregredi1711]

Wow, just wow... Frank is not an honest person to begin with, but this little rant is really something. I truly sympathize with those who get their scientific "knowledge", or lack thereof, from a Christian apologist. It's so sad.

[@davidross5593]

Yes he is honest. Why do you care if he wasn't honest if God isn't real?

[@davidross5593]

Perhaps you should realize that where we get scientific knowledge, is from God. You sympathize? I think you mean pity.

[@davidross5593]

And I pity you

[@davidnewhart2533]

I don't think you even watched the video.

[@katamas832]

@@davidross5593 No, we get scientific knowledge by using the scientific method.

[@JasonSchmidt-1979]

Jesus is the Way and the Truth and the Life!

[@Dhorpatan]

Frank Turek should take this video down. He embarrassed himself with it.

[@Mavors1099]

Well, them he should take down every single video he has posted

[@naucifacio]

This should be a new brand fallacy, is kinda staw man, entropy doesn't mean "disorder", that's a simplified version that tries to explain the concept to the public, entropy is more like the systems tending to the most probable states (which is kind of obvious), not necessarily the more disordered, for example if you throw sand into a glass of water it will tend to get to the bottom (this can be considered in a way tendency to order) and this is nothing else than the second law of thermodynamics in work.

[@keyboardevangelist]

Quantum physics has destroyed your materialistic and Naturalistic view points consistently. But you still view the world in a classical physics point of view. Right now after conclusion in the quantum world their are actual theorotical cosmologists that believe that the universe is a simulation, like the matrix😎. Space-time is not fundamental. Instead the quantum information underline the hyperspace of spacetime is fundamental. Where do you think all the quantum information of the universe came from?. Its either a super super computer that can't work cause it will burn out. Or an Omnipotent mind that carried this quantum information in his thought and created the underline information for the progressive creation things through natural laws. Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. The word of God (logos/information) is the extension of fundamental overall quantum information that made the universe. We can't see the underline information of things but its there. But the actual Word of God is alive. He came into his world 2000 yrs ago. If you really wanna know Jesus exists just humbly ask him in repentance to reveal himself to you..a glitch in the matrix will occur and you will never be the same .

[@naucifacio]

@@keyboardevangelist hahhaha, thanks for your lengthy not related to the topic response, is red herring your favorite apologetic tactic? Now seriously, can you mention a single paper showing that the material world doesn't exist? I mean, anything besides sensationalist articles and speculation, because if quantum mechanics brought any insight is that our intuition is not reliable.

[@keyboardevangelist]

@@naucifacio I did not say the material world does not exist. I said its not the fundamental. Its is derived from the information within. It is common knowledge that When an object falls into a black hole, everything about it disappears except the residue quantum information about it. That's present in the surfaces of the blackhole as proposed by Stephen hawkings.

[@naucifacio]

@@keyboardevangelist I'm not sure where you want to go from there, but still this is a subject not related to my main comment (I don't know how you though that was a good response) Buuuuut, even though you only asserted that that information must come from god, there's no real reason to believe that's the case and you're not considering black holes information paradox which makes your assertion even less reliable.

[@keyboardevangelist]

@@naucifacio Please check out the video, he usually lists "scientific papers" in the descriptions. Where does information/knowledge come from, if its not a free thinking mind?. We have minds that discover receive,create knowledge, its perfectly reasonable to hypothesize thats it comes from the thinking mind. I believe God made us in his image, Our minds are less creative than His.. Do you think if pythagoras did not discover the pythagorean theorem, the right angle triangles in the universe would stop following the equation😅? The underline information of the equation exists independent of pythogoras. Pythagoras just discovered it. But an equation is something reasonably orderly constructed. An equation is a statement about something in the universe. Only free thinking beings can create statements.

[@guitarplyr327]

Frank lacks a basic understanding of scientific principles and it’s laughable

[@memastarful]

The soul has been given ears to hear what the mind can not understand

[@guitarplyr327]

@@memastarful huh?

[@tgm2474]

What a stunningly incoherent and rambling response to the question.

[@davidm.857]

You'd think if there was a "law giver" he'd mention some natural laws in his book and wouldn't be worried about us eating shrimp... stop trying to use science to justify your faith. Stick to the book. Literally. If we could scientifically prove God didn't exist would it change your faith? If we could scientifically prove he did it would change my belief (still wouldn't get me to faith).

[@bram4818]

You don’t seek truth… Wherever it may be. Science doesn’t “justify” faith and nobody explains it that way. Scientist try to disprove God and faith and we are still waiting… So far they have failed. Truth matters, objectively look at the evidence then make a decision. However, no matter what your decision is the truth remains! God Bless you….

[@gkardz4602]

The chicken or the egg

[@simplyseculardave]

"Are you familiar with the Second Law of Thermodynamics?" Good Question. It's obvious that Frank has never studied it, or any of the other law of Thermodynamics. There is no Atheistic viewpoint of science. Atheist is a position on Deity belief, and nothing else. And then he demonstrates his ignorance pf phylogenetics... again. It baffles me how Frank can continue to make these 'many times corrected' false assertions. I bet that every day, more of his 'followers' learn enough about these ignorant arguments to give up trying so hard to believe things for which there is no evidence.

[@SumiOccult]

My beautiful Christians.

[@Steven-ki9sk]

Anyone who has studied high school biology or science will know Turek has no clue what he is talking about eg entropy is not a measure of order / disorder like Turek says. There will be zero disorder when the Universe reaches ‘heat death’

[@davidross5593]

Regardless disorder doesn't create order

[@davidross5593]

Regardless disorder doesn't create natural laws or any kind of law.

[@davidross5593]

Regardless disorder and natural laws doesn't create complexity or irreducible complexity

[@email1008065]

basic definition: Entropy: PHYSICS a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system. What do you mean when you say that "entropy is not a measure of order / disorder"?

[@davidross5593]

I guess You missed the part where Frank said "laws come from law givers". Not just natural laws and laws of physics but also moral law

[@ryana1787]

The answer is yes, by the way. Order can come from “chaos”

[@dominicj]

do give an example

[@ryana1787]

@@dominicj Stars. Galaxies. Planets.

[@ryana1787]

@@dominicj crystals. Sedimentary layers. Snowflake.

[@ryana1787]

@@dominicj I just cleaned my living room. Was that impossible?

[@dominicj]

@@ryana1787 buddy, u cannot be serious, get ur head checked.

[@incredulouspasta3304]

This is gibberish. 1. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies to a CLOSED SYSTEM. You can increase "order" by adding energy to the system... like from sunlight, for example. 2. Irreducible complexity - Has never been shown to actually exist. 3. Epigenetic Information - Not incompatible with evolution. 4. Genetic limits to change - Has never been shown to actually exist. 5. Can't break out of the dog genus - This is just silly. Evolution doesn't propose that any group of animals has ever "broken out" of their Genus. They diversify within their Genus. Life is a branching tree. Each branch grows from it's parent branch, and has it's own child branches. It never "breaks away" from it's parent branch. --- Learn science from scientists, not apologists.

[@frankcardano4142]

Oh my word, he even brought up irreducible complexity. This is very poor.

[@robertgonzalez2669]

I got 2 eyes 2 arms 2 legs damn im not evolving but i always scatch my crotch hmm

[@incredulouspasta3304]

@@robertgonzalez2669 Your arm is already at optimal crotch-scratching length. No need to evolve further.

[@Mavors1099]

@@frankcardano4142 Yes, to rebutte it.

[@chriscravens8318]

The universe is a closed system.

[@jeffphelps1355]

Theism just makes sense, It's the only rational explanation for our existence

[@therick363]

No it doesn’t.

[@mickqQ]

Not to me A god did it, has as much explanatory power as magic did it 🪄

[@kinggenius930]

Not sure I see how

[@dja-bomb6397]

Are Christians really still using the second law of thermodynamics to argue against evolution? The most important and most commonly ignored part of the second law of thermodynamics is in a closed or isolated system. Earth is not a closed or isolated system. We are steadily receiving new energy from the sun. As a former Christian, I am embarrassed for you.

[@rolandwatts3218]

//Are Christians really still using the second law of thermodynamics to argue against evolution?// Some certainly are. When they do, they show their ignorance, and they rely on the ignorance of other believers to keep this argument going. //The most important and most commonly ignored part of the second law of thermodynamics is in a closed or isolated system.// Yep and the thing is, if you look at every sub-process of evolution:- a. Reproducing. b. Competing or cooperating. c. Mating. d. Having genomes mutating. e. Living. - then entropy is being generated all the time, and thus the second law of thermodynamics is not being violated. Organism are generating entropy just to be alive. And that's all evolution is - populations of organisms living and reproducing, and having differential success in doing so such that more or less of a type of gene gets spread across the population. Entropy/disorder is being generated all the time that organisms are being built up and populations of organisms are changing.

[@uolocur9356]

So because evolutionist can't prove where life came from its God. Makes sense. So everything that we don't understood and can explain yet must be supernatural. Really dude?

[@johnl9595]

Like a typical atheist, you completely missed the point of this video. Turek’s point is that in nature, everything that we observe (science!), natural law dictates that everything tends to disorder. Leave a cupcake in the sun, it will disintegrate. Leave a car in a woodshed for 100 years, it will stop working. There is not a single thing on this earth where things get better with age. (From disorder to order). So how is it that life came from nothing? It is impossible unless a creator intervened and disrupted the law of nature and created highly ordered organisms. We have never once been able to create life out of nothing. No amount of zapping a petri dish will create even a single amoeba.

[@uolocur9356]

@johnl9595 Well, that's just wrong... sorry. Entropy doesn't work that way. There are pockets of order within the disorder. Think, all of space vs. galaxies. No. Basic physics can make an organic life self assemble. Hydrophobic versus hydrophilic ends will arrange themselves together, eventually resulting in organic life. Look up the deep sea vent theory if you actually care to check. Life didn't come from nothing. Life came from the available conditions and materials here on earth. Funnily enough, you are the one who believes that life came from nothing except dust and a word. Who cares that we haven't recreated it? We have had this type of scientific method for about 500 years. In that time, we have made a device that allows you to post how [youtubecencored] you are, instantly. We are working backwards trying to recreate a scenario that, for all we know, only happened once. Sorry if you think it's unreasonable that it's challenging and taking some time. You project your one shred of, "You don't have this one piece of information fully figured out and replicable", as being 1. a legitimate argument, but 2. enough to outweigh the mountain of evidence for the history of life on our planet. Everything we know about evolution. All the fossils. All the genetic sequencing data. Not knowing this exact one thing means nothing in terms of attempting to discount this theory of science and prove creationism. And zapping a petri dish? You really have no clue what happens in a lab... and it's sad. It's really amazing if only you'd be willing to learn. I'm also probably not a typical atheist like you'd like to categorize me. I'm your mind. I was raised a Christian for 22 years. I was involved in my church's youth ministry in my senior class. Whenever I was going to my Baptist school, I was the chaplain. I led prayer groups in prayer meetings. It's all lies.

[@katamas832]

No, the second law of thermodynamics states that the overall entropy of an isolated system always increases. Entropy in thermodynamics is the measure of unavialable energy for work. It doesn't state things are going towards disorder. A broken cup for example has increased its entropy because it created heat by friction and used up potential energy while the pieces fell to the ground, not because we see it as disorderly. Also, chaos doesn't create order. The forces of the universe amongst the chaos do. "macroevolution does not solve the problems of the origin of life" That description is about as ignorant as it gets, you just showcased you have no idea what you're talking about AT ALL, so listening is a waste of time. For anyone who does not know: Abiogenesis is the origin of life. Evolution has nothing to do with it. Frank has literally no idea what he is talking about, he's fractally wrong, he builds each of his point on a previous one which is already false, and just gets worse and worse. Like, jesus...

[@IZZY404_]

Abiogenesis is what atheists calls the Bible. Fairy tales. Have fun saying its a 100% fact when scientists admit they arent sure in anything theyve done in that field.

[@katamas832]

@@IZZY404_ No, Abiogenesis is a field in biochemsitry concerned with how life forms by natural means. It has nothing to do with atheism, nor is a fairy tale. Quote me where I sad it is a 100% fact. I didn't. It's a scientific hypothesis with evidence backing it up, but not enough to conclude it is how life formed. I know Abiogenesis better than you do, so i know pretty darn well how much we still don't know about it.

[@katamas832]

@Kyle G Idk

[@IZZY404_]

@@katamas832 So why are you using it as a statement for life if no one even knows how it fully works and is literally only at a hypothesis stage. Yet everything Chrisitans say even not as a fact but as an opinion is instantly labeled as nearly 100% wrong with no discussion.

[@katamas832]

@@IZZY404_ I didn't state it, you misunderstood me I think. What I was saying is that in science it is the origin of life. Hence Evolution has nothing to do with it. I did no such thing, soo... I labeled everything Turek said as completely wrong when talking about science. Because he is. There's no discussion to be had, he has no clue what he is talking about.

[@Amy-un6xg]

The only comment Frank made that I believe is not technically accurate was his comment on macroevolution. When one uses the term macroevolution they are typically implying speciation. I suppose the definition or understanding of macroevolution has somewhat evolved to be referring to more general changes in higher taxonomic levels since even evolutionists have come to realize actual speciation is a faaar stretch from the evidence they have collected (I feel like they are constantly changing terminology bc they are starting to grasp at straws to validate Darwin's original theory). If speciation or even the new understanding of macroevolution is true, then the Genesis account of creation becomes questionable (but I may need to delve into binomial nomenclature more to get a more full understanding). If it's not accurate, then it can't be trusted. If I can't trust Genesis then how do I really know what parts of the Bible are an accurate depiction of how I'm supposed to live my life, or actual events. I don't think the Word of God would mislead us. As far as I have been able to ascertain there is no legitimate evidence for speciation. On that basis I can reject it, which further validates the Biblical account. I really like Frank and Norman's book thus far. I listen to it on Audible while driving and going to sleep lol They give some solid ways to approach the subject of truth.

[@rydrakeesperanza5370]

As far as I know, macro and Microevolution are terms creationists or religious people made up; Microevolution apparently being adaptation for like dogs. Evolution in science is shift in allele frequency ( over successive) generations. And there's evidence for that, like dogs, finches, pigeons, wheat and so on, up to whales, tiktaalik, Branchiostoma, juramaia, anomalocaris etc.. Darwin's theory about Evolution by natural selection still applies today. He had incorrect hypotheses about reproduction but evolution holds to this day (otherwise we wouldn't have a theory of evolution anymore /teach that it is wrong).

[@tTtt-ho3tq]

"if I can't trust ..... then how do I really know ... " I believe that's what happened at the time of Copernicus. Some say that the church accepted Copernicus' heliocentric and even took in his book inside the church. But then there were some who objected. If the Earth goes around the sun then what happens to God paused the sun in the middle of the sky? Or the Earth is fixed and immovable? And the rest is history. Took the Catholic Church over 300 years or so to officially accept it. So how do read it? Read it literally? Did God paused the sun ... instead of paused the earth (from spinning)? Or the earth is fixed and immovable ... Literally? So is evolution heliocentric 2.0? Is Darwin maybe Copernicus 2.0? If you believe in God and believe he created this world, you can't say evolution can't happen. It can happen if he wished it happen so.

[@Amy-un6xg]

@@rydrakeesperanza5370 Your statements and my responses follow: “As far as I know, macro and Microevolution are terms creationists or religious people made up” - I’m not entirely sure where you got that notion from. If creationists (religious people) made it up, I guess their made up words made it to several dictionaries. “Microevolution apparently being adaptation for like dogs.” - Yes, that is correct. It is defined, and understood to be, a change within a species. “Evolution in science is shift in allele frequency ( over successive) generations.” - Interesting that that is the current description of evolution, since Darwin didn’t even know what a gene was, much less the concept of an allele. You are literally describing genetic drift. So why not just call it genetic drift? Well could it be because you need to hold onto the term “evolution?” That said, what is the cause of genetic drift? During late Prophase 1 of Meiosis 1 a crossing-over (aka recombination) event occurs in which homologous chromosomes (one maternal and one paternal) literally switch genetic information. This is followed by independent assortment, where the homologous chromosomes align randomly along the equatorial plate of the cell, then sperate from each other; thereby setting the conditions to form four gametes, each with a different, or unique, allele combination. Ultimately, this results in genetic diversity/variation. It is why we all look so uniquely different than each other, but are all still human. So what exactly is this evidence of? An astonishingly complex macromolecule such as DNA, was designed by an incredibly intelligent mind, which not only serves as a code for the development of the species, but when present in specialized cells (germ cells) can undergo the astoundingly complex process of gametogenesis to facilitate reproduction of a species. If gametogenesis did not occur, no one could replicate because 4n (4 x23) chromosomes is incompatible to life. This incredibly intelligent Creator, didn’t just design germ cells to undergo meiosis, but he designed the actual process of meiosis to proceed in such a manner that crossing-over, and independent assortment occurred resulting in individuals who are uniquely different, phenotypically (with the exception of identical twins of course- who have mutations in their genomes anyways). Our Creator isn’t only intelligent, He is creative. When you study "evolution," you are simply studying God's creation, and how it works. “And there's evidence for that, like dogs, finches, pigeons, wheat and so on, up to whales, tiktaalik, Branchiostoma, juramaia, anomalocaris etc.” - Care to elaborate? If you are simply referring to genetic drift, then I agree. I explained why it happens above. Relative to genetic drift, mutations have very little to do with actual genetic diversity. IF the mutation was beneficial (which is much less common than harmful ones) it typically comes as a pro/con situation. As in, it could be either beneficial or harmful, with no indication that it could lead to a new species. “otherwise we wouldn't have a theory of evolution anymore /teach that it is wrong” - With the concept of evolution constantly changing, I would have to ask you what aspect of evolution are you referring to (genetic drift, mutation, environmental pressures, natural selection). What is the predicted result, and on what basis is it stated as true? Keep in mind that I have not said anything to insult you, so please, if you choose to continue, let's do so as a cordial exchange of information. If you have something of substance to add, I'm open to discussing and analyzing it (but I have limits because of time restraints of course). All the best to you in your journey to truth. Be blessed!

[@rydrakeesperanza5370]

@@Amy-un6xg well... The reason why I don't call it genetic drift because it is not genetic drift. It is shift in allele frequency over successive generations. It can be the consequence of a genetic drift (few species populate a new island; catastrophes wipe a huge part of the population out/isolate them suddenly, etc.) but it is not genetic drift itself. Though adaptation within a species; if that's Microevolution then, unless you define species differentoy than scientists do, that's not what happens. The finches I mentioned, as far as I remember in the end you had about 11 or 13 different species. For wheat, the original wheat didn't have much seeds for humans to eat so they selected the best one for many hundreds of years, so now we have wheat with much more seeds. Considering that if I'm not mistaken humans even hybridizised we absolutely have new species. So, unless you have a different definition or view of a species (where I wonder what it would be considered that dogs, reptiles, lizards, fish, fungi are all on a different hierarchy) it's not change within a species. Juramaia is one of the early mammals, a relatively small one if I'm not mistaken. Branchiostoma as a Cephalocordata has all synapomorphies of chordates even as an adult, it's brain even expresses proteins or has genes for proteins that become important for the different brain sections in later chordates (it's worth noting that Urochordata (even though adult forms may not Look like it) seem to be closer related to recent chordates. We didn't learn much about evolution here but there seems to be a species discovered that's more fish like (can't really explain it because it was only shortly mentioned). Tiktaalik, well, I could quickly only find 3 species that were shown on the internet (sarcopterygii, tiktaalik, and on further, can't remember the name right now) and the leg evolution seems to fit in that picture, especially if we look at all tetrapods following. Birds, If I look at skeletons of e.g. ostrich it seems to me that their important bird bones like sternum are reduced as you'd expect but to me they still look more like the bones of the birds that can fly, just too reduced to be used for flight. I haven't mentioned them but agnatha to Gnathostomata (gill arch evolved to the jaw), gill evolution and it's types (considering that gills were mainly to separate food), ear bones (one hyoid part became later stapes, articulare and another jaw part because malleus and incus while mammals evolved the Squamoso dental joint with what remained... Mammals; Prototherian who lay eggs but their hatchlings aren't fully developed, Metatherians with their marsupium and finally eutheria with a real placenta.... Which looks a bit similar to an egg, well, a amniotic egg. Well, I don't think I've explained every animal I mentioned but it's already late over here and I wanted to go to bed a long time ago; so, if you still have questions regarding what I didn't mention feel free to ask. Well, those are all examples that in my opinion make total sense in the light of evolution. I hope I don't write things you already know considering that I don't really know what you know and what not. Edit: just a quick adding, I so far only heard micro and macro Evolution in discussions on religious videos/in that realm, I don't think I ever heard or read it in general science books and videos, only when religion was involved. I may be wrong but that's what I experienced so far

[@Amy-un6xg]

​@@tTtt-ho3tq Your statements and my responses follow: “I believe that's what happened at the time of Copernicus. Some say that the church accepted Copernicus' heliocentric and even took in his book inside the church. But then there were some who objected. If the Earth goes around the sun then what happens to God paused the sun in the middle of the sky? Or the Earth is fixed and immovable? And the rest is history. Took the Catholic Church over 300 years or so to officially accept it.” - No offense, but I don’t really care what happened in the Middle Ages, or how the church responded. Interesting historical event, but it has no bearing on truth. I care about the historical account of Jesus, and it’s historicity. “So how do read it? Read it literally? Did God paused the sun ... instead of paused the earth (from spinning)? Or the earth is fixed and immovable ... Literally? So is evolution heliocentric 2.0? Is Darwin maybe Copernicus 2.0?- I can understand why this part of Scripture in Joshua may make you hesitate, however there is a pretty valid explanation. One, Joshua could have simply been speaking from his observational vantage point, and did not have any special understanding of the cosmos, but was using the terminology of his time. Just like we say “the sun rises and sets,” when it does not literally rise and set. You might not accept this explanation is enough, since the earth moves not the sun. Do you really think He should have said something more along the lines of “Earth, slow down spinning on your axis,” so that time prolongs? If you look into it even further, you’ll learn that Joshua’s command in Hebrew was “Sun, cease acting,” or “Sun, stop working.” It was then that the gravitational pull of the sun affected the earth, so that the earth slowed down and the day was lengthened. This is a very reasonable explanation. “If you believe in God and believe he created this world, you can't say evolution can't happen. It can happen if he wished it happen so.”- Please describe evolution how you understand it, and the expected outcomes. Then provide your basis for accepting it as true/factual. I am unequivocally convinced an Intelligent Designer and Creator is behind the existence of the universe. The same Bible I believe in did not give me the impression that we are all a result of speciation. I can revisit this idea if speciation is ever proven. I can’t make a decision on whether “evolution” happens at the, because the description itself is ever-evolving. When someone uses the term evolution, I often have to request what specifically are they referring to. Thank you for your question. You have helped me understand why Frank made his statement that even if macroevolution/speciation is true (which it is NOT), it does not discredit the Christian view. Additionally, as believers we can end up attempting to address EVERY perceived “wrong” in the Bible (which can get way too cumbersome) and not focus on what is really important. Our entire salvation does not hinge on the absolute accuracy of the Bible, but whether the historical account of Jesus in the Gospels was true. If Jesus really was born of a virgin, performed miracles, lived a SINLESS life, was crucified on behalf of our sins, and rose from the grave to conquer death, we can trust Him as our Lord and Savior. How incredible is that?? I have done my due diligence to study and research the historicity of the Gospels, and in doing so have concluded that they are true. THAT is why I am Christian. THAT Is why I follow Jesus. Jesus, confirmed the Old Testament, THAT’s why it is to be trusted. In other words, EVERYTHING we believe hinges on the historical narrative of Jesus. Please look into it, and come to your conclusion. I recommend Frank and Norman’s book, “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.” I was drawn to it as a book because I related to the title. It is easy to understand, and explains several objections to the faith rather well. It also addresses why we can trust the Gospels. All the best in your journey to truth!

[@hasone1848]

The more I listen to Frank the more I realize he doesn't understand evolution or science!!!

[@chriscravens8318]

Yet you give no example to prove your assertion. How convenient.

[@TheLawRival]

@@chriscravens8318 I agree, Chris. I say “to assert is not to justify”.

[@hasone1848]

@@chriscravens8318 Thanks for asking. Frank says "Dog breeders can breed all kinds of dogs, but they can't break out of the dog genetics" . That is not how evolution works. No living thing will ever break out of their genetics line. About 600,000 years ago a single celled organism swallowed a different cell and instead that cell being food, they became a partnership. This is called a eukaryote. Every single multi celled living thing is a eukaryote, all plants, insects and animals. Dog will always be dogs. Frank says "the 2nd law of thermodynamics says, thing go to disorder and not order" the 2nd law is entropy of an isolated system always increases. Nature or Earth is not an isolated system. Franks says "the laws of dynamics is virtually a closed science" So is Evolution. He will cherry pick the 2nd law of thermodynamics (and completely get it wrong) but will ignore 99% of what evolution says.

[@ltlsWhatltIs]

Yet you keep listening.

[@hasone1848]

@@ltlsWhatltIs Yea, I do keep watching. It's fun to watch Frank's knowledge about basic science get worst, but his confidence on his misinformation go through the roof!! It's like that car crash that you can't help but watch.

[@ryana1787]

I’m sorry, but this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the second law. It doesn’t say anything about order.

[@JontheBerean]

I believe in devolution, God's perfect creation has been slowly falling apart and getting worse . Mankind's sin is to blame.

[@cygnusustus]

Actually, that would make everything God's fault.

[@JontheBerean]

@@cygnusustus God calls us to obey We fail Not His fault

[@cygnusustus]

@@JontheBerean Nope. People claim God calls other people to obey what they want people to do. God never called anyone.

[@JontheBerean]

@@cygnusustus Are you an atheist ?

[@JontheBerean]

@@cygnusustus “If you love Me, you will keep My commands. John 14:15 HCSB I believe Jesus here is referring to His teachings as "commands" If people refuse to accept Jesus is deity, the Son of God, then they don't know or love Him

[@jhmejia]

My question is if macroevolution were to be shown to be true, would that convince you the Christian god didn’t exist? Or how about if scientists manage to active abiogenesis? Would you leave the faith?

[@twoshotthereal]

Both evolution and abiogenesis require the ‘pre’ existence of complex information before any process of evolution or abiogenesis can even think to consider beginning to begin. That complex information ultimately has no source to arise from unless something like God already exists. So, for that reasons and many more, I think it’s safe to say if you are a logical person, you wouldn’t discontinue belief in God because evolution and abiogenesis both require pre existing information and conditions that only something like God could be responsible for. I hope that helps.

[@jhmejia]

@@twoshotthereal yeah that’s fair that that wouldn’t disprove God, but how about that whole creation story and whatever?

[@jhmejia]

@@SuperEdge67 I’m saying it has lol. I’m asking Turek if we were to convince him of this fact that has much more evidence than Jesus resurrection, would that impact his faith?

[@tTtt-ho3tq]

No, science doesn't disprove God. Evolution by natural selection, whether micro or macro doesn't disprove God. Because he could designe and create nature with the order of nature to produce life and evolve. He just lets it happen. He is capable to do that as/if he wishes by definition. The only argument is that if nature defined by atheists that is simply physics, material nature with no god of any kind could produce life and evolve by itself? The argument is it can't, meaning materia, physical only nature can't produce life ... therefore it needed God. You can't say he can't do by his definition. Meaning your can't say he can't do abiogenesis or evolution by nature he designed and created, wherether it's nice or macro. He can foresees things in future so he could designe and create accordingly. He could do anything as he wishes by definition. However, you could argue if that's how he did it or not. Then lets hope it's not the repeat of Copernicus all over again. Just as for Copernicus, maybe it was so clear when Darwin first posited his theory of evolution. But over 100 years after Darwin, there're more and more evidence just as in when Newton came around. There're substantial evidences in nature to support evolution by natural selection, though. Isn't it better to recognize, respect, admirer and appreciate the beauty of what it is in nature as what and how he designed and created? As Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo Newton and others did before?

[@Dhorpatan]

@@twoshotthereal What do you mean by information?

[@jhmejia]

Abiogenesis does have

[@sierraclark6129]

“If you declare with your mouth “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9). Now is the time to accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior. Obey His commands and repent of your sins because Jesus is coming back soon. Tomorrow isn’t promised.

[@repentancenow]

♥️💯

[@tennicksalvarez9079]

Cool what's your point Jehovah witness would tell me the same thing so should i become a jw (i wouldn't but still) um idk see ya bye

[@cygnusustus]

Prove it. Oh yeah....you can't. You are just repeating nonsense you were once told and believed without questioning. Grow up.

[@repentancenow]

@@cygnusustus humility Sir, is a great stepping stone to know Jesus Christ Son of God. God himself testifies as witness to the truth, even if you're skeptical about the scriptures or preachers. Someone once said, (dare to believe)

[@cygnusustus]

@@repentancenow Always hilarious watching people who believe that an all-knowing being is in complete agreement with them lecture others on humility. Check your hypocrisy, bud.

[@kevinclint7588]

FOR IT IS WRITTEN,…………BUT SEEK YE FIRST THE KINGDOM OF GOD , AND HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS ; AND ALL THESE THINGS SHALL 🐝 ADDED UNTO YOU . MATTHEW 6 : 33 KJV

[@Mavors1099]

It is written.... So what?

[@robertgonzalez2669]

Dux so angry God bless U

[@Mavors1099]

@@robertgonzalez2669 Angry? I just made a question, you fool.

[@hasone1848]

FOR IT IS WRITTEN,....... there is no Sufficient evidence for gods existence.. me 2:16pm

[@frankcardano4142]

From the very beginning of this video Frank shows he doesn’t understand evolution or the atheistic viewpoint. It’s not that they’re trying to build everything thing up from a naturalistic standpoint. The fact is that we keep filling the gaps that god used to occupy.

[@bram4818]

You should look at his other videos that explains “ atheistic” viewpoints and the holes that atheist can’t explain logically or with any factual evidence. FYI… your last statement is about as illogical and non-sensical as one can be. I would encourage you to do some research on this topic and fully understand what Frank’s view is concerning atheistic talking points. A 2min clip won’t help you…

[@frankcardano4142]

@@bram4818 NO. YOU should look at atheists vids that explain what atheism is instead of relying on Franks strawman of it. No wonder you think my viewpoint was illogical. Frank hasn’t a clue what he’s talking about.

[@therick363]

@@bram4818 it’s been quite clear for a long time that Frank either doesn’t understand things like atheism and science or he purposefully misrepresents them. The arrogance is shocking. What “atheistic” viewpoints and holes can’t be explained?

[@frankcardano4142]

@@therick363 It seems because they’ve been brainwashed into a worldview that has the answer to everything, Then they think evolution should also have the answer to everything or else it’s not worthy.

[@TheRastacabbage]

@@frankcardano4142 as soon as someone points out the most obvious scientific problems with evolution, the claim is they don't understand it. Evolution theory is perfectly clear. The problem is not that people don't understand it, the problem is evolution itself

[@rosariopresti9792]

Amen.

[@somerandom3247]

Have you got any evidence for the existence of a god yet? Or are you still just filling the gaps in your knowledge with magic?

[@Mike00513]

So you have a severe misunderstanding of the argument it seems.

[@cygnusustus]

@@Mike00513 So you have no evidence for God it seems.

[@cygnusustus]

@@Mike00513 Turek didn't even understand his argument. Many people smarter than Turek have corrected his ignorance in these comments.

[@Mike00513]

@@cygnusustus Remind when when I ever made a case for God’s existence here.

[@cygnusustus]

@@Mike00513 Remind me where I claimed you had.

[@guitarplyr327]

To say I don’t know and therefore God is intellectually lazy and dishonest

[@kinggenius930]

Why does Frank keep trying to talk about science? has he ever actually debated anybody qualified in the scientific fields he speaks on himself?

[@xixingpooh]

Many times. He has several debates live online. Definitely worth a watch.

[@kinggenius930]

@@xixingpooh Against who?

[@xixingpooh]

@@kinggenius930 He has held debates against Christopher Hitchens several times, Dennis Normark, David Silverman, Michael Shermer, Jeffrey Lowder, David Smalley, and the Cosmic Skeptic (Alex O'Connor) Regardless of your disposition towards a theistic or atheistic word view, they are all great debates worth a watch.

[@kinggenius930]

@@xixingpooh Thanks for the tips and I am sure they are interesting debates to watch, but if you look again at my original comment, I was asking if he has debated any scientists qualified in the fields he speaks on. Frank regularly talks about problems with evolution and the Big Bang, and every time the comments section is full of people pointing out the obvious flaws in what he is saying. I was curious if he had actually tried these arguments against an evolutionary biologist, or physicist. As far as I am aware, none of the individuals you listed are either of those. Are you aware of such a debate?

[@katamas832]

@@xixingpooh Well, uh... none of those people have scientific qualifications in these fields. The closest to a relevant field anyone comes to is Dennis Normark, anthropologist, since that's biology, but is still a far cry from being qualified in Evolution.

[@rplayer3846]

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16 NKJV

[@cygnusustus]

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:17-18 KJV

[@ZER0--]

There's many many more books that say otherwise.

[@JamesRichardWiley]

Order and chaos have always existed together. Another of Frank's nonsensical questions that reveals his inability to understand science.

[@memastarful]

Genesis chapter 1

[@cygnusustus]

Yes. That is the start of the ignorance that follows.

[@Mavors1099]

A myth.. so what?

[@brotherchrisrco1125]

It's funny and suspicious. When I was a child or even a teenager, movies were made so differently. When there was a mystery with a mysterious villion. In the end, the solution to there problem was God and Jesus. Today they try to make the solution anything but God. Especially with Time Travel Movies. God doesn't exist in any future. The Only TV Show that did this and were right was The Good Place. You would think that a show about Afterlife would include God but in the Good Place there in Hell, believing their in Heaven and God is Nowhere to be found. No one has ever met Him. They are just as clueless as atheists are in life. That's about right. They chose to keep God out of their lives and now they got it. Forever. Not only spending Eternity without God but Eternity without having ANY ANSWERS. If you choose to see this Series, be sure to notice the EMPTY feelings you get at the end. The Good Place is not Heaven but Hell...

[@christandhimcrucified3868]

Wow 👏 This is very true. It's mind blowing how brilliant persons like scientists, etc., doesn't belive in God based on this information that they know. I pray that God will touch the heart of the persons who doesn't believe in him in Jesus name 🙏

[@therick363]

It’s because scientists and others do understand things we don’t believe in any gods. No gods are needed. Yes order can come from chaos-it’s called gravity and the other fundamental forces of the universe.

[@cygnusustus]

Nope. Just a God Of The Gaps argument. Easily debunked. What is mind blowing is how people can be so gullible and foolish so as to be convinced by arguments which literally have no evidence for themselves.

[@Mavors1099]

Many scientists do believe in God... Some of them even believe in your god.

[@ZER0--]

@@Mavors1099 Lol.

[@cygnusustus]

What is the source of such wilful ignorance? Oh, yeah....religion.

[@priscilatrevino8089]

oh such a well fundamented, non bias argument you got there!!

[@Nov_Net]

@@priscilatrevino8089 lol guess I'm atheist now because of his arguments

[@cygnusustus]

@@priscilatrevino8089 It was a question, not an argument. Turek displayed his willful ignorance of science. I'm just asking why he does so.

[@cygnusustus]

@@Nov_Net What arguments? I just asked a question about Turek's willful ignorance of science. You do know that practically everything he said in this video was incorrect, right? I mean, you didn't get your science education from Christian apologists, right?

[@priscilatrevino8089]

@@cygnusustus bro it wasnt just a question, it was a retorical question, which you didn’t expect a response since you answered it, and those my friend, are made for making points

[@RhythmEmotions]

The comet that killed the dinosaur 🦕 probably set some sort of reaction off to start the life creating process

[@chovynzchovynz6291]

Think about what you just said. Think really hard for at least two minutes.

[@RhythmEmotions]

@@chovynzchovynz6291 why ? Dinosaurs were here before us the comet came from space that probably had loads of strange organisms on it so the comet that destroyed also started life. We have to have come from somewhere we didn't just poof in to existence by magic.

[@chovynzchovynz6291]

@@RhythmEmotions no magic involved muh dude. A thoughtful intricate irreduciblly complex design process is where we came from.

[@cygnusustus]

@@chovynzchovynz6291 Have any evidence for that? Of course not.

[@IBenZik]

@@cygnusustus Just like no evidence for the big bang, both are faith. You have a choice, a purpose or a mistake of nature.

[@jhmejia]

Creationists, SMH... evolution is proven beyond any reasonable doubt lol. The obvious answer to the 2nd law of thermodynamics conundrum as to how stuff keeps growing is that the Earth is not a closed system, there's this thing called the sun constantly putting energy in the form of light and heat.

[@dominicj]

microevolution yes, if you mean macroevolution that's absolute rubbish.

[@jhmejia]

@@dominicj and why is it absolute rubbish when we’ve literally seen all of the fossil record and also bacteria have macro evolution in the lab

[@mustachemac5229]

Of course chaos can produce order and vice versa. The two are not at ends with one another.

[@davidross5593]

Prove chaos can produce order

[@mustachemac5229]

@@davidross5593 Yahtzee

[@mustachemac5229]

@@davidross5593 Well, what say you David?

[@jasonrodriguez4615]

@@mustachemac5229 what's with yahtzee? Can you explain

[@mustachemac5229]

@@jasonrodriguez4615 I was giving an example of chaos creating order. If you have ever played the game of Yahtzee there are five dice put into a cup in which you shake(chaos) and throw onto a flat surface. The idea is to get common numbers(order) on the dice or sequences such as 1,2,3,4,5 etc. Does that make sense?

[@justingary5322]

I mean yeah but it's highly unlikely it'll be ordered so finely tuned to not only form Life but sustain it altogether. AMEN brother Frank Turek and Cross Examined ministry you're always telling The Truth of God's Word and Character. This has nothing to do with the video but please listen if you want to otherwise leave it alone and ignore it. Hello my name is Justin and I'm a fellow Christian and Apologist but I'm also a college student. I'm not a closed minded Theist as I have nothing against Atheists or unbelievers as I speak to them often to understand their reasons for unbelief but we as Christians are convinced of God's Existence due to many real factors). I'm not trying to convert anyone or convince anyone to become Christians as that's The Holy Spirit's job to help people believe but only explain why I believe in Jesus Christ. There's actually evidence of God's Existence in Christianity. First of all there's proof that Jesus of Nazareth existed in history since the writings of Tacitus, Josephus Flavius, Pliny the younger and other historical documents prove that He was living two thousand years ago that even scholars both religious and Atheists agree with historically speaking but not that He's The Divine Son of God because obviously they don't. I'm going to give you historical and archeological evidence for God's Existence as The Scriptures have prophecies that predate the events recorded in them by several millennia including Matthew, Hosea and Zechariah which prophesy accurately of the people of Israel becoming a nation again after over 1900 years of being scattered around the nations since the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. spoken of by Christ in Matthew 23:29-24:3 and returning to their homeland after The Holocaust with Jerusalem as their capital in 1948 exactly as Jesus The Christ said. The prophets including Daniel spoke of the time where several world empires would arise and fall including the Babylonian kingdom, Medes and Persians, Roman Empire, and Saladin and the Muslims which went in consecutive order for the past few millennia. The people of Israel becoming a nation after The Holocaust in 1948 (ironically the melting point of gold as God compares Israel to gold that's tested in fire in Zechariah 13:8 and Jeremiah 16:15) exactly how Jesus The Christ said would happen since God us everything to come in The Scriptures and not just because people were working towards as Atheists claim which are impossible for any regular man to predict. Just before anyone says Christianity is a white man's religion made to oppress blacks during slavery you obviously aren't aware that the first Christians were Jews in The Middle East and that Christianity just like any religion can be used by evil and corrupt people to oppress others but you forget that the first Abolitionists/Civil Rights activists were Christians who sought to abolish slavery, racism, segregation, injustice and prejudice throughout American history. Jesus The Christ loves you enough not to give you what we all deserve which is God's Wrath by His Own Blood. Charles Darwin didn't originally come up with The Theory of Evolution over 200 years ago as it is mentioned in the writings of Ancient Greeks who believed in Demons that gave knowledge to philosophers. Evolution makes no sense when nothing has evolved after thousands of years of human history and supposedly the first creature came from primordial sludge several millions of years ago funny how they won't believe that God an Eternal Almighty Spirit Being created us from the Earth) which came from a supermassive expansion of matter at high temperature that inexplicably created everything in the known universe that supposedly came from nothing billions of years ago. How did the organs evolve before there were bones, skin, substance and how did any creatures see before eyes evolved? I've studied evolution and abiogenesis in the past and read Darwin's " Origin of The Species" I've studied evolution and abiogenesis in the past and read Darwin's " Origin of The Species" and I'm not convinced of but not macro or micro Evolution because there's no evidence of it nor clear observable examples of it where living creatures evolve into other kinds of species plus the fact that fossils don't show evidence of evolution and genetic entropy rules out evolution. The question begs how did two genders evolve from a common ancestor with a perfectly hospitable and sustainable environment with breathable oxygen and resources to survive on inexplicably? Atheists have the burden of proof to explain how everything came to be and why our existence is possible without the Existence of God from an godless perspective just as Christians have to provide evidence of God's Existence and the validity of His Word. Evolution requires life to already exist in order to take any effect in living organisms so it doesn't account for the existence of Life and reality. Also evolution is impossible because it goes against The Law of entropy and the second Law of thermodynamics because evolution makes things better whereas nothing continues to get better but decays and turns to absolute destruction in the end. Mark Ridley an Evolutionist said "No evolutionist whether gradualist or punctuationist uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of The Theory of Darwinian Evolution as opposed to special Creation". God's Existence is made perfectly known and observable in the universe as demonstrated in His Handiwork in the intelligently designed manner that Creation was made, human consciences and consciousness historical and archaeological evidence of God's Word being valid history, fulfillment of Bible Prophecies God in His Holiness and Righteousness could give us what we deserve in Hell for our since but He's merciful to give us free will to choose to accept or reject His gift of salvation by grace through faith in His Son Jesus. I don't mean this is any condescending manner but if you'd like to discuss The Scriptures with me or have me listen to your view on anything my instagram account is Savage Christian Kombatant.

[@kinggenius930]

Posting your comment showing a flawed understanding of the Second Law, on a video that also demonstrates a flawed understanding of the Second Law. Gotta love it

[@larzman651]

Evolution 🤔 I'm still not convinced. THIS IS JUST MY OPINION NO NEED TO RESPOND

[@katamas832]

I will respond 😈

[@larzman651]

@@katamas832😂 reverse psychology does command fast response from egomaniacs. Well I can check that one off as true

[@cygnusustus]

Well there is abundant evidence for Evolution, and zero evidence for God. So I have to wonder what your standards are for belief. THIS IS JUST A FACT NO NEED TO RESPOND.

[@larzman651]

@@cygnusustus theory vs actual manuscripts 👌

[@cygnusustus]

@@larzman651 Spiderman comics are actual manuscripts. What is your point, if you actually have one?

[@rosariopresti9792]

Amen.