Evolutionists Are HOPING You Won’t Watch This Video...

Discover why evolutionists CANNOT explain how eyes developed. In this presentation, Dr. Tommy Mitchell exposes a number of issues with evolutionists’ perspectives on the development of eyes in various animals.
========
Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (Christianity-defending) ministry dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ effectively.
On our KZbin channel, you’ll find answers to your most pressing questions about key issues like creation, evolution, science, the age of the earth, and social issues. We desire to train believers to develop a worldview based on the Bible and expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas and their implications.
You’ll hear from top teachers such as Ken Ham, Bryan Osborne, Dr. Georgia Purdom, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, Tim Chaffey, Bodie Hodge, Dr. Gabriela Haynes, Dr. Terry Mortenson, and more.
Please help us continue to share the gospel around the world: AnswersinGenesis.org/give

[@LV4EVR]

Having studied this for decades, I never cease to be amazed at two things: the genius of all of God's creation, and the intellectual bankruptcy of those who deny it.

[@richardgregory3684]

Ah yes, the genius of God's creation, stuff liek cancer, smallpox, rabies, malaria, tapeworms, parasites that turn babies blind....

[@Leslie_Crich]

​@@richardgregory3684 I think youʼre proving their second point.

[@richardgregory3684]

@@Who_IsLike_God No, jusrt pointing out the ludicrous hyprocrisy where creatards gawp with amazement at "god's genius" when it comes to eyes, but flatly refuse to acknowledge that their "loving" god must also have designed really horrible, but nonethless complex, things like cancer or rabies. I don;t dislike god, any more than I dislike leprechauns. Neither exist.

[@The_Lord_has_it]

​@@richardgregory3684Those problems weren't there before the fall.

[@Yipper64]

@@richardgregory3684 we live in a fallen world, and most Christians dont deny micro-evolution that causes some of these things, just deny macroevolution. Tell me, do you have a better explanation for why these things happen?

[@sgt.grinch3299]

Only God has the ability to design life and all its variables. Nothing only makes Nothing!

[@crispincurtis8585]

His Holy spirit is awesome

[@--..-...-..-.--....]

god came from nothing

[@wingednut2283]

Snow flakes dont have a designer but are unique everytime

[@mr.commonsense]

good thing the atoms already existed before life. And I agree that atoms are gd

[@mr.commonsense]

@@Who_IsLike_God because I can observe them under a microscope. Now tell me how do you know your god exists? You can't even see him with anything, especially with your bare eyes

[@luelee6168]

It really really annoys me when people say "science says this" or "science says that" or "listen to the science." Science is not some divine entity that is filled with all the answers rather it is simply a PROCESS of acquiring knowledge.

[@annieoaktree6774]

Saying "Science says" is just a shortened way of saying "the consensus of the science community is". Don't make a big deal out of simple language.

[@annieoaktree6774]

@@luelee6168 (facepalm) *Consensus* doesn't mean 100% agreement. It means the accepted majority opinion. Scientific conclusions aren't true just because they are consensus. They are consensus because the evidence convinced the majority of experts in the subject.

[@luelee6168]

@@annieoaktree6774 Were you in a coma during COVID? Since when were there more intelligent people than naive and gullible ones willfully consuming popular opinions because that's what everyone is doing? That doesn't mean the data was convincing especially when you account for the fact that most people aren't intellectually capable of breaking down and analyzing data in the first place. THATS NOT LOGICAL!!!

[@annieoaktree6774]

@@luelee6168 If SARS-CoV-2 hasn't evolved then why do we have to keep producing new vaccines since the old vaccines no longer work on the new strains? Maybe you should tell the relatives of the almost 7 million people who died from COVID the dead were just being "naïve and gullible" 🙄

[@captivedesk3168]

the knowledge base science has is what is referred to as the science

[@alantasman8273]

Thank you AIG for further opening our eyes to our Heavenly Father's glory.

[@razark9]

They're not opening them, they're pulling wool over your eyes.

[@Censoredbyyourcult]

Your eyes are shut tight and your heads are buried in the sand.

[@JamesReborn2023]

@@Censoredbyyourcult what a nice thing to say. I see atheism really helps with advancing morals and human decency. If only followers of Christ could be as nice as you are. But they don’t have you as there perfect example, so I guess it’ll never happen. Seriously tho, do you find it righteous to make fun of others with differing beliefs. And if you are in fact an atheist, then it shouldn’t matter to you what others believe as it’s all relative, just a taste. You like the taste of atheism, others like the taste of a relationship with God. If you know there’s no God, why waste the precious, finite time you have left on this earth to belittle those who don’t have the sacred knowledge you hold? Wouldn’t it be smarter to use your time wisely and accept that others will never be as smart as you? I never understand why those who supposedly know that nothing truly matters will waste time arguing with others about what matters. Just have fun and live however you want like atheism entitles.

[@Censoredbyyourcult]

@@JamesReborn2023 Cry. Creationists lie non-stop and spread vitriol and venom any chance they get. Your sympathy card is declined. Take a good long look in the mirror and how you talk about gay people for example.

[@globalcoupledances]

AiG makes you blind

[@fredcourtney03]

Thank you so much for your efforts. I had moved away from God after college. I thought if Genesis is a myth, then how can I trust anything in the Bible. I was so lost for so long. Through efforts of my Savior and study such as this, I haved learned that all scripture is TRUTH. It is truly the only truth that matters! My prayers for you and your organization.

[@joshuakohlmann9731]

OK, I suppose...but "myth" isn't necessarily a bad thing. In fact, some cultures considered it the highest level to which a story could be elevated.

[@razark9]

Hey, good for you man. Believe what you want, just remember that it's a belief we cannot demonstrate to be true here in the physical universe, it's not science. But believe what you want, all power to you there.

[@kathleennorton2228]

Good for you. When I started college I was an avowed materialist and believed in the ToE as fact. I had no religious ax to grind. On the contraire, I mocked Christians as believing in a fairytale. My Christian Professor had a Bible in her office. I picked it up off from her desk and tossed it on the floor telling her that it was nothing more than made up stories. I took classes in zoology, biology etc. I planned on going into research. It was from learning about the ToE on a deeper educational level that it unraveled for. There wasn't an internet. I was completely unaware of or endoctrinated by any creationists. I was brought up to believe in it. I remember going to my Professors with my questions. I trusted that they would give me reasonable, logical responses that would clear up my questions. No, they gave me circular reasonings. I told them so. The ToE unraveled for me and I stopped believing in it before I ever became a Christian. It is conjecture and circular reasoning.

[@razark9]

@@kathleennorton2228 That's a nice cookie cutter story of how you became a science denier. It's kind of irellevant, as it only leads to falsehood. There's no conjecture or circular reasoning taking place, that's what you do, not the entirety of science.

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

Praise God!

[@alantasman8273]

Irreducible complexity means certain biological systems with multiple interacting parts would not function if one of the parts were removed, meaning they could not have evolved by successive small modifications from earlier less complex systems through natural selection, which would need all intermediate precursor systems to have been fully functional.

[@annieoaktree6774]

Wrong. Biological systems can evolve to be IC through the processes of exaptation of function and genetic scaffolding. Science has know about this for 70 years but for some reason creationists never get the word.

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

There are many examples in nature of far simpler eyes than the ones shown on the video. I wonder why these are omitted

[@alantasman8273]

@@annieoaktree6774 Just as science cannot explain how life even came about (abiogenesis) you take it for granted that the eye was always there and just needed tweaking. First please explain how the eye came about to begin with...not just some theory ...but how it actually happened. If you can't explain that ....just how how do your purport to know how the eye "evolved" from one state to another.

[@annieoaktree6774]

@@alantasman8273 The eye wasn't always there. Evidence indicates the earliest eyes evolved in the late Ediacaran / early Cambrian period some 535 million years ago. It evolved because on a planet bathed in electromagnetic radiation being able to sense and act on that radiation gave a selectable evolutionary advantage.

[@razark9]

Irreducible complexity has been debunked again, and again, and again and again. It's based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works and refusal to learn.

[@ryans8081]

@3:48: to respond to Frank Zindler, who thinks the eye was put in backwards compared to Octopuses and Squids...the reason we have the light-sensitive cells aimed backwards is because we live in the air, and the blood vessels need to be in the front of our eyes because that helps block ultraviolet (UV) light so we don't go blind. Octopuses and Squids live in the water, and because water blocks UV light, they don't need the blood vessels in the front of their eyes. This shouldn't be that tough to understand, but, according to scripture, those who reject God lack understanding.

[@richardgregory3684]

No true: the vast majority of UV light is blocked by the cornea and lens. Also note that FISH have a similar blind spot. rofl.

[@ferventheat]

The photo sensors in cameras are a good analogy. The first few design generations had the photoreceptive diode layer behind the wiring layer (CCD, CMOS). The later designs (backside illuminated (BSI ) CMOS ) now have the photodiodes nearer to the incoming light because the designers realised this would increase sensitivity. It's a more complex arrangement/harder to manufacture but worth it for the extra sensitivity. The latest designs now have two layers of wiring to both process and store data together in the same chip, making them quicker. Search for the difference between CMOS, BSI CMOS ANS stacked CMOS. I suggest the design of underwater creatures reflects the need for an increased sensitivity to light, processing that information and/or movement of objects.

[@Taehc]

What you just described sounds awfully like a careful meticulous design 👍

[@Reclaimer77]

@@richardgregory3684 So the more acceptable and practical answer to you is that "god did it that way". Putting a bunch of blood vessels and nerves there....kind of messy for a "perfect" sky daddy isn't it??

[@kathleennorton2228]

​@@Reclaimer77 You lack appreciation and understanding. Our eyes work for us marvelously. After sin entered through Adam creation became broken. We are designed to last forever, apart from our brokenness caused through sin. Eyes and bodies tend to break down. (As well as all of creation.) Soon God will restore His creation back to mint condition. People and animals will live forever. Even now scientist are trying to research just what causes us to die. It is recognized by them as an anomaly. There are scientists that are trying to understand and remove the death factor. Stop spitting in the eye of God. It won't turn out well for you.

[@docsavage30]

As we know how eyes develop, does this video count as misrepresentation or bearing false witness?

[@avafury4584]

What an amazing God we serve 🙏🙏❤ thanks for this one AIG

[@richardgregory3684]

The Argument of Personal Incredulity, otherwise known as the Divine Fallacy: an assertion that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.

[@TickedOffPriest]

The idea of eyes that were all over creation for different purposes never crosses their minds.

[@Ka66ir]

10:25 “If it can grow, it can evolve.” By extension, if it can’t grow, it can’t evolve. What a wonderful admission! It’s another way of saying “the leap from non-life to life requires outside input.” You just evidenced the necessity for God!! Thank you for proving my point.

[@tone9358]

Even if this was granted & you need a god to create life, what does that do to disprove evolution?

[@ark_survivor4361]

@@tone9358I think he’s just saying that without God evolution can’t happen

[@friisteching3433]

Back when I had chemistry, I learned about chemical reactions where molecules sometimes grow in size. Since it can grow, it can evolve. Sinse we know this, what makes impossible to get life by chemical reactions?

[@VisshanVis]

First, you'd need to prove the existence of a god, man has worshipped thousands of gods in the thousands of years it's been evolving if you can't prove all the other gods existed then you can't prove that your god exists.

[@ark_survivor4361]

@@friisteching3433 your implying that because on an off chance that they do grow that means that these cells can be created? Those don’t relate, a cell doesn’t just mix itself together and then start existing. The premise of life coming from other life is still widely accepted with only few people challenging it

[@v1e1r1g1e1]

The problem with evolutionists and uniformitarians is that they all think that Time is a causal factor. It isn't, but try telling them that.

[@brunobastos5533]

how to be wrong about everything in any place evolution say time i causal factor

[@roscius6204]

So that is simply wrong, time is not a cause, and anyone who knows anything about Evolution would not call it a cause. Time allows for more evolution, suffice to say that as you go back through time you should find less evolved versions of things..... and we do.....

[@roscius6204]

The 'causes' are: Natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, and gene flow.

[@v1e1r1g1e1]

@@roscius6204 You state that aspect of Evolutionist theory quite well. However, we probably both know that while Time might be provision of opportunity, this does not equate to a guarantee of successful mutation, much less capacity of any specific organism to pass on to its offspring any particular genetic mutation. The ''fortunate monster' necessary condition of the theory of Evolution is simply not demonstrable; not even in bacteria, despite what we are told, much less more complex organisms.

[@roscius6204]

@@v1e1r1g1e1 ' despite what we are told' that's just science denial, you've first had to reject what we do know to get to your position. We see; Pesticide resistant insects. Pollution resistant fish Vaccine resistant viruses. Antibiotic resistant bacteria And honestly the detailed list goes forever. I'd suggest where you're misunderstanding the mechanism, is in that you're assuming the mutations have a preconceived goal. Where as, what is really happening, is any given mutation simply causes a better or worse chance of survival. That's all that is required.

[@TheArtisticGardener777]

Which came first? The eye or the brain? The heart or the liver? The skin or the stomach? The mouth or the hand? Can any part exist without the whole? How does every system “evolve” perfectly all at the same time over “millions” of years when even the tiniest minute component couldn’t live even a second without all the other systems being fully complete and working perfectly together? The utter absurdity of man.

[@richardgregory3684]

Oh look, it's good old "irreducible complexity". All those things developed in parallel. Even today here are plenty of living things that have none of them, or only some of them, or which have them but much simpler versions than are to be found in humans.

[@globalcoupledances]

Euglena doesn't have brains. Arthopods don't have a liver. Colony of dinoflagelates doesn't have a stomach. Only primates have hands

[@nathanwhite704]

Box jellyfish have a complete nervous system yet no brain.

[@TheArtisticGardener777]

@@nathanwhite704 even more miraculous

[@nathanwhite704]

@@TheArtisticGardener777 Your 100 year old argument of irreducible complexity is laughed at by everyone outside of you evangelicals.

[@TheArtisticGardener777]

For anyone to not recognize the miraculous genius of creation and to deny the obvious existence of an Omnipotent Creator is just mere ignorance fed by pride. Man is an absolute deplorable mess. Praise the Lord for His great mercy on us, and His great sacrifice to pay the penalty for our sin. Praise Lord Jesus Christ. Believe and be saved.❤

[@ChipsMcClive]

The complexity you see is the result of iterative changes to both final structure and formative process (growth during infancy) simultaneously. Also, luck has nothing to do with evolution. Luck and spirituality are higher concepts that people invented to stay comfortable while operating in uncertainty.

[@meyliqg1774]

We have been pranked all of our life… most of what they say is not true, including ancient history

[@Censoredbyyourcult]

Everything's a lie, except this blatant example of propaganda. Creationists are just clueless.

[@stefanhall3219]

Actually the ear is even more complicated than the eye! Believe it or not!

[@mr.commonsense]

the mechanisms behind hearing? Yes

[@kathleennorton2228]

​@@mr.commonsenseThey astound me!

[@crappyanimations9992]

I do believe it. The brain is where the eye gets interesting, because modern cameras are better designed than eyes...

[@iwkaoy8758]

If de ear is perfectly designed, den why aye Ken hear a city away? Why hue men's knead sell phones? Evolutionist logic👆

[@mr.commonsense]

@@iwkaoy8758 tf are you even saying? Didn't god give you a brain to think?

[@zerosteel0123]

Love it! I'd also love to see you do something on the evolution of the heart. Origins is the achilles heel of naturalism. They can't explain the origin of ANYTHING by natural means.

[@tone9358]

Simpler organs evolve into more complex ones in species as needed by selection pressure.

[@zerosteel0123]

@@tone9358 sure they do. And magic is real and I am a democrat. Which I'm not, btw.

[@zerosteel0123]

@@tone9358 as needed.....and who decides in your theory what is needed? Nature itself? So nature has a mind?

[@tone9358]

@@zerosteel0123 I said by selection pressure in my original comment. In a population either the most fit of a species survive to repopulate, or that species goes extinct. Also isn't the bible full of magic?

[@zerosteel0123]

@@tone9358 no it isn't and selection pressure? How does "selection pressure" create anything? For instance, allegedly according to evolution a bird gained wings when it needed to climb higher to get food and escape prey. Right? What mechanism, in your theory, caused the birds body to realize that it needed that and what mechanism activated it in the birds body to accomplish that?

[@barriesmith3489]

The eyes are just what a human need to see we see very well for our lifestyle we don’t see well at night for we sleep in the dark we don’t see well in water but then we don’t breath in water ether

[@crappyanimations9992]

Yeah, our eyes fit our lifestyles very well. Shark eyes see about as good as a human in water believe it or not, but put us in water, and put a shark on land, and neither of us can see. Evolution tends to select for the environment that it's in. Neither of our eyes are worse, they're both great for where they are.

[@hah-vj7hc]

Imagine we had actually relied on our eyes. The eyes that can't see viruses, can't see the individual parts of the machine you are using to write this... Now down on your knees and pray to science, pay due respect to what has created the world you live in. Or go to the Amish where you belong (and then use our tech anyway to go shopping)

[@roscius6204]

So are you accepting that we evolved eyes that suited our place in the environment or the frankly magical solution?

[@tymz-r-achangin]

We have already given the direct answer to the big banger evolutionist's question for what the Word of God says where He came from, and so we are STILL waiting for them to give a direct answer for how matter brought themselves into existence, how the properties of physics brought themselves into existence, and the proof of non-living matter has the ability to create living matter.

[@JB-yb4wn]

Which god? Brahma was around way before your god was, maybe he created the universe and your god is taking credit for another god's work.

[@tone9358]

Neither The Big Bang nor Evolution are reliant on how the origin of life began.

[@crappyanimations9992]

I don't believe it myself, but let's grant you that God started the big bang, and god planted the first life: Evolution is still real man.

[@Journey4SureKnowledge-N-Wisdom]

@@crappyanimations9992 Evolution isnt real when comes to darwinian evolution. Theres no shortage of direct evidence which proves how darwinians hype up their theories into being facts concerning their claims of one specie completely evolved into another specie. If missing links (transitional forms) were actuality, then there would obviously be NUMEROUS fossils which showed an actual variety of distinctive stages within a particular specie's transformations into another specie.

[@Journey4SureKnowledge-N-Wisdom]

@@tone9358 Exactly. They cant come up with anything intelligent for the origins of life which irrefutable includes the matter and physics which are absolutely necessary for their big bang and darwinian evolution to have even taken place, and so they just scandalously claim they shouldnt have to provide a direct answer

[@CharlieNKy]

GOD is AMAZING! All glory to our Lord and savior Jesus Christ AMEN! 🙏✝️🙏

[@brownwarrior6867]

One day the scales will eventually fall off the eyes of those whom deny God through science. Only then will the truly blind see that Gods creation is that elusive answer they’ve wasted their entire lives looking for. 🙏🏼❤️✝️❤️🙏🏼

[@johnsteindel5273]

The mollusk images, they ignore the nerves at the back of the light sensitive cells that lead to the brain. Oh yeah and the brain itself, it's just assumed to be there and also just happens to be already connected to the light sensitive cells, and has the capability to process the information and make sense of it and also then direct the organism about what to do.

[@firmbeliever3847]

Yes youre right.

[@Jeremy9697]

Study what a brain is. It's literally just a huge mass of nerves...

[@Woopor]

You’re aware that modern mollusks are just as developed as us, right? They’ve existed for a very long time and have had generations to perfect the art of… doing what mollusks do. They’re simpler than us, but no more primitive

[@planetbob4709]

The math behind evolution just does not add up.

[@tone9358]

It does, you just didn't stay in school long enough.

[@mickeyguide3112]

we, just as trillions of different species exploded over gazillion yrs ago out of some random stardust. Yep it doesn't quite add up lol...

[@hah-vj7hc]

Dude, he is likely from the US. Most of those people can't even tell "your" from "you're" or "there" from "they're". So I will suggest that it doesn't matter how long you stay in such a school.@@tone9358

[@hah-vj7hc]

It doesn't. What you're saying sounds a little less crazy than genesis. But try science instead, in case you are actually fit to comprehend it - which I doubt.@@mickeyguide3112

[@maliquesmith2311]

Exactly the fossils don't even agree with evolution its just a man made theory

[@charlesmorris8791]

Great teaching, thank both of you very much for sharing. May God Bless you, your loved ones, and everyone who hears this message. The Spirit and the Bride say, Come Lord Jesus...

[@SK-bw2cv]

"The eye poses no problems for evolution or natural selection " Just like a leak poses no problems for a pipe. 😂😂😂😂

[@espoeverythingchannel1160]

🤣🤣🤣

[@RobertA-up9ur]

Fascinating work! Thank you

[@bigga5406]

I find it fascinating how scientists speak in such a manner, as if they’re explaining their own sense of religion to outsiders, for those to accept their views by calling them facts. If evolution is in fact real and humans evolved from single celled organisms then okay…so what. But these “scientists” act SO offended and angry that people don’t just blindly believe their “findings”, and so it’s like they are pushing their own beliefs onto others.

[@annieoaktree6774]

Scientists don't mind if people don't accept evolution. They mind greatly when creationist organizations *deliberately lie* about the actual science to try and push their religious mythology onto others. All the videos here are Exhibit A.

[@FilipCordas]

I think most people get angry when creationists lie and use the same old tired nonsense that a 5 minute google search would debunk.

[@Woopor]

Because they’ve spent their whole lives studying this stuff and then creationists holding a book who’s only changes in centuries have been politically motivated by the Churches in the past claim to know all and that the scientists are just “scared of god(which is literally one of their own goodly virtues)” and they only tackle scientific evidence which they can remotely attempt to dismantle with their holy book

[@LM-jz9vh]

*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 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

[@dannyboyakadandaman504furl9]

Bingo finally!!!

[@dannyboyakadandaman504furl9]

The Answers in Genesis organization rejects key scientific facts and theories as established by archeology, cosmology, geology, paleontology, and evolutionary biology and argues that the universe, the Earth and life originated about 6,000 years ago. Creationist science could be said to fall within the realm of apologetics. Creationist scientists tend, by definition, to proceed from the assumption that scripture is accurate on all counts and to shake their science through that particular sieve. This is unlikely to be considered problematic by fellow creationists, though it is often considered problematic by those-in some cases, this may apply even to other Christians-who do not share a creationist outlook.

[@richardgregory3684]

_Creationist science could be said to fall within the realm of apologetics_ I would say that delusion, fantasy and deception of both self and others would be more accruate description of it.

[@h.gonyaulax2190]

It's in the Bible, it's in the Bible, it's in the Bible, blah blah blah.

[@zoyaelizavetahafeez2]

Answers in Genesis rejects key evolutionist lies and debunks darwinian false doctrines, here you go I corrected it for you. Other than that the CIA owned Wikipedia editors can cry us a river😂.

[@zoyaelizavetahafeez2]

​@@richardgregory3684 Darwinian delusions and fantasies would be a much more accurate description of that.

[@Chemafur]

God bless you all!

[@hah-vj7hc]

Which one? There's 3490547 gods. So please don't tell me you're one of those who just went and chose the most popular god. I want some one who actually compared and thought it all through :) But maybe I'm getting ahead of myself. I won't judge you, promise. Just tell me which one is your god before I make up my mind

[@maliquesmith2311]

@@hah-vj7hc chill atheist you no which one

[@hah-vj7hc]

@@Who_IsLike_God That's every single one

[@saliadee2564]

The model of 'progression' for mollusk eyes could just as easily be a model or devolution, ie for some reason development just stopped at earlier and earlier stages, but the creatures can still function well enough to go about their lives. Also, because what pressure is selecting for a more developed eye, at the same time as tolerating a less-developed eye? I think this is devolution in action!

[@lizd2943]

Different environmental niches determine the selection pressure. Try learning about evolution from actual science sources instead of creationist misrepresentations.

[@saliadee2564]

@@lizd2943 so in what kind of environment with any light would a less-developed eye be optimal?

[@lizd2943]

Evolution produces good enough, not optimal. @@saliadee2564

[@trek-spark8507]

​​​@@lizd2943I am a becoming Doctor and your argument is Incorrect and Inconsistent with science. Just do a session on Neuroanatomy, Special Senses (eye) including histology of Eye(this makes Scientific argument for Creation by God, the Triune God). Function of Vitamin A (including Wald's Visual cycle .) Also don't follow the Crowd but follow Truth. Brothers and Sisters God and Saviour Jesus Christ came to Earth to forgive our sins by Dying for our sins taking the punishment we deserve and died for us and on 3rd day after His Death He rose again and calls everyone to repent and believe the Good news of Christ of Repentance and Forgiveness of Sins and be the part of His Heavenly Kingdom .God loves you.

[@trek-spark8507]

​@@lizd2943Also God Doesn't need our approval. God is God.

[@laurieannerodriguez5946]

Amazing!

[@roscius6204]

Unbelievable!!

[@alfomo6670]

The quote regarding computer simulation of the Retina is very poorly chosen, it's almost 40 years old. The Cray-2, which John K Stevens refers to, had a performance of 1.9 Gigaflops and had to be cooled with liquid gas. My personal graphics card is air-cooled and has a theoretical capacity of 93 Teraflops. For those unversed in fancy computer words: my computer is 48 000 times more powerful than the one described by Stevens, give or take.

[@nathanwhite704]

Yep, anyone who takes that quote seriously should really take a basic computer concepts class because it’s completely meaningless today.

[@alfomo6670]

100%. It's so obsolete that it's not representative of anything. Technical... advancements... amirite?🤷🏼‍♂A few things that left me wondering... Is it really accurate that a single nerve cell does 500 simultaneous "calculations" 100 000 times per second? Where does a calculation start and end? What is the simulations acceptance criteria? All very ambiguous. Perhaps those are more philosophical questions rather than technical ones. Or maybe they aren't and I just didn't listen closely enough in school. From the information in the video at least the figures seem completely arbitrary and are more used as a "look at this unfathomably large number" in order to dodge having to give an actual answer. Disappointing. @@nathanwhite704

[@refuse2bdcvd324]

Great video!!! It's time to replace the lie of natural selection with the truth of divine selection.

[@alantasman8273]

Natural selection does happen but only within the constraints allow by a species DNA. Ergo so many breeds of Dogs. DNA does not allow for transitions from one species to another.

[@razark9]

So replace empirical science with religious mumbo-jumbo simply because you don't understand and really want magic to get credit? Sorry, that's not really how science works. When you people are ready to publish your ''findings'' then perhaps science will change to accomodate it. Seeing as we only ever get propaganda and religious declarations from you people I'm not going to hold my breath.

[@annieoaktree6774]

@@alantasman8273 _DNA does not allow for transitions from one species to another._ why not? What stops microevolution from accumulating over time into macroevolution?

[@Censoredbyyourcult]

Replacing science with religion isn't going to happen. You're dreaming!

[@Mothobius]

As a Christian myself, no. Your tripping. We should not replace what we know. We cannot just throw out all of the data that's been collected over the years.

[@RobertA-oi6hw]

They've been working on abiogenesis for decades and still no evidence for molecules to man origin. Only a Creator makes sense of what we see. Good job AIG

[@richardgregory3684]

Nonsense, great progress has been made - one example demonstrating how complex molecules such as amino acids spontaneoously form under given conditions. A few decades is nothing. After all, it took nature billions of years. Believers have always proclaimed that science would never replicate "the creator" for various things, and they've always been proven wrong.

[@RobertA-oi6hw]

Looks like one atheist comment already bit the dust and disappeared. I guess you guys don't take a hint very well.

[@SK-bw2cv]

​@@richardgregory3684 your nonsense is nonsense. There's far more to making life come from non life than making an amino acid spontaneously. How about actually forming proteins and the genetic information required for DNA to actually exist and work. 😂

[@SK-bw2cv]

​@@richardgregory3684 you haven't proven anything wrong. You aren't even a fraction of the way there.

[@globalcoupledances]

And still no evidence for the Biblical God

[@Bildad1976]

As I grow older, so grows my amazement of the incredible design of the human body (and all living things)! Evolutionists posit that evolution is a process without design, without logical purpose, without forethought. Yet, we can see that 99.99% of every cell, every organ, and every system in our bodies has logical purpose! If evolution truly began with a single cell and then began growing & evolving without design, without logical purpose, then would we truly believe that it could evolve into something so incredibly highly functional and interdependent as the biological systems that we see all around us (including our very own bodies)? And now, for something that is truly mind blowing: they truly believe that the method by which all things evolve into more complex and highly functional cells, systems, and organs is mutation. And just what are mutations? Mutations are COPYING ERRORS! That's right, mutations are MISTAKES!! So, the engine which they credit for building more complex cells, organs, and systems is the process of MAKING MISTAKES! ARE YOU KIDDING ME??!! This is akin to hiring a blind construction crew to build you a modern skyscraper. They stand around in a large circle and begin throwing the supplies haphazardly into the middle of the circle, and lo & behold!, a beautiful and highly complex skyscraper begins emerging from the pile of chaos until it reaches the skies. That perfectly illustrates the idea that billions of mistakes could result in our human bodies! Yet, that's exactly what they believe! It's very clearly logical and reasonable that all the living things we see around us were designed & constructed by an incredibly unfathomable Intelligence! Praise Yeshua!

[@annieoaktree6774]

_That's right, mutations are MISTAKES!!_ No they're not. The process of genetic reproduction includes the insertion of random variations in each individual in each generation. These provide new raw material for natural selection to act on. If all genetic reproduction was 100% perfect there could be no evolution. People only think of them as "mistakes" because we're used to human produced copying devices which strive for 100% fidelity. Nature doesn't do that. The random variations are actually a critical part of the natural process.

[@richardgregory3684]

_As I grow older, so grows my amazement of the incredible design of the human body_ So why is that "design" as you call it, so often incredibly BAD? The human body contains some comically terrible flaws, anyone who designed that must be an incompetent fool. _And just what are mutations? Mutations are COPYING ERRORS! That's right, mutations are MISTAKES_ And they are "mistakes" as you call them which can lead to an *improvement* over the original. And of course, mutation is but one elemen tof evolution. You left out natural selection, which weeds out deleterious mutations and which favours beneficial ones. Humans only see them as "mistakes" because when we copy things we want 100% accuracy. Living things don;t reproduce like that, in fact life would not survive if it did, for it would mean there would never be any variation, and living things would never be able to adapt or change when (say) the climate changed. _It's very clearly logical and reasonable that all the living things we see around us were designed & constructed by an incredibly unfathomable Intelligence_ By "unfathomable" you mean incompetent, bungling sadist, right? You know that 99% of species ever to have existed are now extinct? That's some "design"

[@globalcoupledances]

@Bildad1976 - So why had q 7 million years of evolution taken place from the first human? Why are previous versions of humans extinct?

[@richardgregory3684]

@@globalcoupledances _Why are previous versions of humans extinct_ Changes in environment, arrival of new diseases, new predators, bew competitors. A major factor driving prior hominid species to extinction was...us. We outcompeted them, up to and including actively exterminating them where we found them, as rivals.

[@user-zu2zo8ji4n]

@Bildad1976. Do you suppose that we should feel sympathy for them, the evolutionists? I think that maybe we should!

[@Prognosis__]

God’s creation is evident in itself. Plus eyewitnesses of Christ dying and rising from the dead. We have no excuse. We need to preserve holding the truth, trusting in God in prayer and knowledge from His word

[@richardgregory3684]

_God’s creation is evident in itself_ That would mean that "creation" is equally valid evidence for all of the creator gods including Lord Shiva, Allah, Amun-Ra, Gitche Manitou and so on (there are hundreds). So how did you decide it's this Yahweh thing, and the Christian version of it? _Plus eyewitnesses of Christ dying and rising from the dead_ According to the gospels - which were authored by anonymous people, decades later, and who were eyewitnesses themselves, but simply claiming that they'd been told by someone else who had claimed to have seen Jesus back from the dead. So all you've got is hearsay, from several thousand years ago, in a time of massive ignorance and superstition - resurrection tales are actually VERY common during that time - when there was no means of accurately recortding a likeness. I mean, there are stories even now of people whpo claim to have seen Hitler, Gandhi and Elvis walkign around....

[@mr.commonsense]

I was alive 2000 years ago and im an eyewitness. I Can confirm the bible is made up, since none of that happened 2000 years ago

[@wingednut2283]

​@@mr.commonsense probably was a dude named jesus though to be fair but id equate him to like a primitive Chris Angel.

[@mr.commonsense]

@@wingednut2283 that's probably true, but im talking about the one with magical powers, not the guy who was actually real

[@razark9]

What makes ''creation'' evident exactly? Be as specific as possible. As for eye witnesses, you mean a book written by humans, most of which were born after jesus' death? It's like claiming that ''I know a friend, who know's a friend who's got another friend who saw the resurrection'' is evidence. It's a tall, unsubstantiated claim from unreliable and untrustworthy sources.

[@iservHim]

It’s hilarious to me when they pretend that an organism developing in the womb of its mother is the same kind of development as evolution and is thus evidence of it. Hilarious and infuriatingly dimwitted. Edit: LOL, the presenter said the same thing right after I paused the video to comment. Same page, brother, same page 😂

[@tone9358]

They were presenting how when in development a fetus shows the same characteristics of simpler organs becoming more complex one in the same way it would need to in nature according to evolution. The fetus starts with a simpler eye, & that eye develops more complexity rather than a non-functioning half an eye till its fully developed. This is true with more than just the eye & with more than just humans. This was the comparison, not baby develops therefore evolution.

[@roscius6204]

Well misunderstood and misrepresented.....

[@Jeremy9697]

What a true Christian you are

[@njhoepner]

Try this out...get a job with a company that designs cameras, and then propose a design that includes putting the wiring in between the lens and image receptor...and see how long you keep your job. Because remember, the argument from ID is a PERFECT designer producing FLAWLESS designs...not a second-rate designer producing designs that would get any ordinary human fired. They tried to insist that human eyes are "irreducably complex" so could not have evolved...and they were shown to be wrong...so now they retreat to "cells are complex" and back into one more god of the gaps argument. And THEN these people, who strive to jam all human knowledge into a bronze-age box because "the bible tells me so," accuse scientists of telling "just so" stories. Talk about projection.

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

"evolutionists are hoping you won't watch this video" Too late. In fact, they're too late on a lot of things. 🙂🙏

[@Censoredbyyourcult]

It's like those ads that say "Try these tips and millionaires will hate you!" You actually fall for this stuff? You're definitely the target audience haha.

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

​@@razark9 so kind. God bless you 🙂🙏

[@nathanwhite704]

Evolution is a fact. The bible is a historical fiction novel with fantasy elements.

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

​@@Censoredbyyourcult well, first of all before anything else we are Christians. We believe in Jesus and his Spirit dwells within us. Just as Christ promised. So, why would we doubt anything else regarding the Bible? Why wouldn't good science point in God's direction? God is faithful in keeping his word. That much we can be assured of.

[@razark9]

@@newcreationinchrist1423 You're very welcome. 🤗

[@steveocvirek6671]

I truly wish this video explained more on why scientifically some things occur - such as why the blood vessels are located in front of the photo receptors. That would be quite helpful.

[@edwardtelles1956]

So according to the evolutionists , any Creature , humans included , Stumbled around , Sightless , for a Billion years until proper development was achieved.... My question is... How could they look at a menu and decide what they wanted to eat... Or was the menu in Braille. Because obviously, hunting was out of the picture.

[@SK-bw2cv]

Don't forget a brain. Kinda hard to figure out what to eat without a brain but I suppose they have more illogical excuses for that.

[@annieoaktree6774]

@@SK-bw2cv Lots of creationists manage to survive without a brain. 😄 Sometimes the jokes just write themselves.

[@SK-bw2cv]

​@@annieoaktree6774 I'll give you that one. That's pretty funny and I have no comeback. I just looked at about six sites on evolution jokes. Got nothing.

[@Jewonastick]

@@Who_IsLike_God Why can't we rely on our senses? My senses seemed to have pretty good for the past 48 years.

[@Jewonastick]

@@SK-bw2cv Well actually........ There are several creatures that don't have a brain such as oysters, clams, jellyfish and starfish. See, that is so cool about learning biology and studying our biodiversity!! It helps you to better understand evolution.

[@MJ100k]

Why would a scientist mention something being a spiritual experience? When science has no evidence that we have spirits ? 😂

[@lizd2943]

Induction is a thought process. That people are able to think that way is evidence that... that kind of thought process exists. @@Who_IsLike_God

[@lizd2943]

Yes. As always, you made a category error. @@Who_IsLike_God

[@hah-vj7hc]

Why are talking as if science was a religion? It baffles me how your brain is so washed that it can't even comprehend how to think outside the dogma. Almost like oyu guys are a different species

[@thomasforsyth8329]

God bless you for this great video.

[@hah-vj7hc]

Which god? The one who murdered 99% of all life in one go? The one who murdered a child of every Egyptian for what (a few of) their parents did? The one who is punishing every woman to this day with their menses? Idk man, I'd rahter get blessed by the flying spaghetti monster who has never murdered any one. Rahmen

[@ronaldkemp3952]

Excellent video. Thank-you.

[@HellNoMoreBiden]

The commercial I got was illegal. It's the sound of the emergency broadcast sound that you cannot use. Look up the FCC enforcement advisory.

[@IAMhassentyou]

The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God endures forever. Isaiah 40:8 As for God, his way is perfect: The Lord’s word is flawless; he shields all who take refuge in him. Psalm 18:30 Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. Matthew 7:24 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. Matthew 24:35

[@pflume1]

And how does the brain know what it's looking at?

[@hah-vj7hc]

Because it has seen and understood it before. You only see what you know. You also only realize what you understand. If you don't realize that science has given you the world you live in, then you are not the best at understanding things

[@roscius6204]

millions of years of evolution.

[@HyzerFlexOnYou]

A spiritual experience for a materialist is one that inspires awe/wonder/amazement about how we fit into the universe. Simple as that.

[@HyzerFlexOnYou]

@Who_IsLike_God no worship is involved

[@HyzerFlexOnYou]

@Who_IsLike_God you wish. Nature is nature and doesn't fit the definition of a god -- you can't just equate the two. And you conveniently left out the "relating to a deity" part of the definition of the word worship. Nice job.

[@HyzerFlexOnYou]

@Who_IsLike_God the etymology of the word is irrelevant, because word meanings change over time. The old English meaning happened to fit your argument, so you went with that one. The current Oxford dictionary definition for "worship" is "the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity." I also disagree that people treat nature like a god. Do people pray to nature? Do people assign characteristics to nature like omniscience and omnipotence? Do people consider nature a supreme being with a mind? Generally, no.

[@klouis1886]

​@Who_IsLike_GodWhat is wrong with loving something?

[@Jeremy9697]

I love how these ppl see a video on something they dont like...and instead of debating that person on the topic. They quitely mimmer to the only ppl who will listen and believe them

[@stevekooyers6920]

so, how did this mollusk manage to eat without eyes, and for how many years in order for adaptation to work?

[@hah-vj7hc]

I will try to speak in simple terms. Me speak easy. Look at earthworm. Earthworn has no eyes. Earthworm eats food. Let me know if this was comprehensi... Tell me understand, yes, no?

[@hernandez-yanezboldvoyager2623]

Amazing God, great job guys!

[@stefanfrello2953]

Could you relate to the fact that ONLY vertebrates have our specific type of eye. It is found nowhere else. How come? Same goes with each of the other types of eyes. No Octopus has our arrangement of nerve-cells on top of the retina. No vertebrate has the Octopus arrangement of nerve-cells beneath the retina. Why is that?

[@cosmodradek]

Is this another one of the "I dont know how this works, therefore god exists" videos?

[@daveblock]

Said an uneducated kid. Disregard.

[@annieoaktree6774]

That's all this site ever offers.

[@daveblock]

@@annieoaktree6774 100% backed up with science is what it offers. When you get an education then you can comment.

[@annieoaktree6774]

@@daveblock I have an MS in Biology and decades of experience in the lab and in the field. How about you?

[@daveblock]

@@annieoaktree6774 Oh really. Show me your education and answer this. Evolution from a common ancestor requires the DeNovo creation of groups of proteins to build new systems or body parts. What is the mechanism that can create these proteins from scratch? Remember, a small 100 amino acid protein has 20^100 possible configurations and only one folds correctly. The only way you can defend evolution is to explain where these proteins come from. You should have never started running your mouth.

[@OverlordShamala]

Evolution can explain how eyes developed. Living organism today show it slowly evolved from a light sensitive patch of skin, to the intricacy we see today.

[@JamesRichardWiley]

Here we go again. An imaginary, invisible designer created the eye instead of you who formed your own body from eternal energy without knowing how you did it. Humanity has a ways to go before this nonsense fades away.

[@dannyboyakadandaman504furl9]

Exactly

[@chimpanzinc1790]

militant atheists are a plight on the human race.

[@rorywynhoff1549]

2Cor 4:3-4 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

[@roscius6204]

Any god who wishes to hide the truth is an arsehole.

[@danielleholley817]

I think Neil Degrasse Tyson is narrating that video... Lol hilarious

[@firmbeliever3847]

Hes an actor, a failed one, like bill the science guy.

[@laquan3661]

If consciousness, rationale, decision, morals, etc are nothing more than chemical reactions, then how is the materialistic worldview not an illusion itself as its logical conclusion implies that consciousness, rationale, decision, morals, etc are also illusions?

[@annieoaktree6774]

Try stepping off a 100' cliff and see if material reality is just an illusion.

[@laquan3661]

@@annieoaktree6774 How is your rationale, knowledge, fear, and a 100ft cliff not an illusion in a materialistic worldview, given your premise that consciousness, rationale, decision, morals, etc are nothing more than unguided chemical reactions? Don't different people's brains react differently? What makes yours objectively rational? Also, what makes yours objectively moral? If none of it is objective, how can you not see that your worldview cannot account for you believing there are objective realities like 2+2=4 and rape is wrong?

[@laquan3661]

@@Who_IsLike_God Spot on

[@burnttoast2790]

*If consciousness, rationale, decision, morals, etc are nothing more than chemical reactions* Regardless of all the whining theists do about this subject, we are still _at least_ chemical reactions. And thus far, everything we know of how the mind works points to it being inseparable from the brain that produces it. Alterations to that brain alters the resulting person. Thus, we are _all_ subject to the same potential for biases and errors, for failings in memory and so on. *how is the materialistic worldview not an illusion itself as its logical conclusion implies that consciousness, rationale, decision, morals, etc are also illusions?* How can _you_ be so certain all this isn't an illusion? After all, you believe in a magical sky-daddy in charge of everything who can do whatever he wants. Why couldn't he do something like that? *How is your rationale, knowledge, fear, and a 100ft cliff not an illusion in a materialistic worldview, given your premise that consciousness, rationale, decision, morals, etc are nothing more than unguided chemical reactions?* That cliff would still be there in a materialistic worldview even if our perceptions of it were altered. A blind man would still fall down it just the same as a sighted man. *Don't different people's brains react differently?* Yes, which is precisely what makes us different people. Souls aren't really a thing, dude, and if they _were,_ we have _zero_ evidence that they serve any function in maintaining or creating the conscious entities we identify as our fellow human beings. *What makes yours objectively rational?* Nothing. But we can _try_ to get as close to rationality as we can. You just decided that all that "rationality" business is a bunch of hogwash because it didn't give you enough fuzzy feelings. *Also, what makes yours objectively moral?* Nothing, because _nobody's_ morality is objective, here. You lot base yours in a subject, God. The only actual basis you have for claiming his perspective as being the objective one is because he's got enough power to back him up that he made us all and we can't do anything to go against him. That's an abus3r's logic, that'd keep a kid chained up in his parents' basement for _"reasons."_ And remember, your morality probably differs from God's After all, most YECs I've met say abortion is literally murder, despite God actively participating in it. They'll say that lying is a sin, and then ignore that _God_ told the first lie. *If none of it is objective, how can you not see that your worldview cannot account for you believing there are objective realities like 2+2=4* For mathematics, that's because we've come to agree upon a set of consistent rules that exist regardless of what one person might wish to perceive about it. *and rape is wrong?* In a biblical view of things rape isn't actually wrong in the way we see it. Taking children as war-booty? Not a problem. Raping a women? Only a problem if she's already taken; if she isn't you just need to pay a fine because "you break it you buy it."

[@thepiratepeter4630]

@@Who_IsLike_God Of course you don't "know" that the cliff is real, but you can reasonably expect it is. Just because you don't have an absolute point of reference it doesn't mean you can't make assumptions about the world.

[@nouveau53]

Absolutely!! The eye is just freaking incredible, but nobody talks about the male and female reproductive organs which are ESSENTIAL in the process of “evolution”. What about that? Forget the eye, forget everything else. You need to focus on the essentials of reproduction. Without that, everything else is moot.

[@chasebush7423]

Yes the reproductive system has evolved over time too (and still isn’t perfect).

[@nenemens]

You're right. For sexual reproduction to be possible, Somehow the female reproductive system of all animals evolved to be compatible with male reproductive systems of all animals completely independent of each other and even evolved at the cellular level to make the egg cell and sperm cell compatible. Evolution takes a lot of blind faith.

[@luish1498]

​@@nenemens LOL you think females comes first and then males appear? that not how reproducion work. ever you ear about hermaphrodits/ isogamous?

[@nenemens]

@@luish1498 when did I say females come first then males? I said they'll have to evolve independently of males but yet will have to somehow have a compatible reproductive system. There are always exceptions to the rule. Species that are hemaphrodites still do not explain away the point I made about animals that require mating of males and females.

[@luish1498]

@@nenemens there is a lot information about evolution of male and female! go read it.

[@RXNZL]

You couldn't have picked a worse body part to try and debunk. The eye is probably the easiest organ to understand the evolution of as the advantages it would have given at every stage of it's development would have been immense. Starting off as a simple light sensor to be able to detect light and dark and movement and then through natural selection improving and improving over millions of years to what we get today.

[@Nov_Net]

Being able to find reasons/advantages for why various alleged stages of the eyes development would be useful doesn't equate to then showing that the eye in those prior stages developed into what it is now.

[@user-xs2ln9fv7l]

The fact that you (AIG) continue to not see that proposing intelligent design as the method that was used to get to where we are today. There is no need for any god to have designed any of us. Using the scriptures, which are the words of men, NOT of god, to prove your points is circular reasoning.

[@PortmanRd]

The titles get more, and more absurd. "Evolutionists won't like this?" Why wouldn't evolutionists like it. Like it's gonna be world changing in its viewing? 😂

[@PortmanRd]

Well in your intellectual analysis do actually believe the scientific world is ever going to dump mainstream thinking, in favour of Biblical fairy-tales?

[@Nils-gi5bv]

Many of these titles want to be sneering, but evolutionists (does that word even exist) don't care.

[@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

[@user-dy8ow6vx6m]

I am asking for prayer. We are currently homeless, but are thankfully able to stay in a hotel for now. Please pray for the Lord's Will and our obedience & peace. We also are in need of at least 1 vehicle.

[@hah-vj7hc]

Stop praying, start looking for a job.

[@bpljlb]

God put you there, stop asking for things off others

[@matthewparsons9407]

How do you account for age of the earth though.

[@nathanwhite704]

What do you mean? It’s objectively billions of years old.

[@burnttoast2790]

@@Who_IsLike_God *Only according to naturalistic and materialistic premises.* Which are the only ones we've got, and if you want to inject God's magic into this, then he's a deliberate deceiver.

[@richardgregory3684]

Evolution explains eyes very well, including why they are often so flawed. Christians hail the eye as some perfect mechanism that could only have been designed and created by "god", the moment you point out the eye is absurdly flawed they have to fall back on "well yeah, that cos of sin". So the eye is a perfect divine design...except when it isn't!

[@008Birdman]

Our Father is an amazing Designer. Praise the Lord our God!

[@hah-vj7hc]

Yeah, praise the lord for making our eyes unable to see viruses. Thank God humanity spent the vast majority of its existence unknowing what caused diseases, let alone how to prevent the painful death they cause. Halleluja

[@Woopor]

@@hah-vj7hc and praise him for designing your immune system so that it viciously murders said eyes if it ever finds out they exist

[@archibaldling8621]

Thank you God amen 🙏🙏🙏

[@v1e1r1g1e1]

Evolutionist: ''Start with a thing that could develop into an eye''. So.. how did an organism suddenly develop a sequence of cells that are sensitive to light?

[@burnttoast2790]

Proteins that chemically react in the presence of light, perhaps? Doesn't even need to be all that complicated a reaction.

[@hah-vj7hc]

I see that time and again. You simple cannot comprehend a worldview outside your own, can you? It is your bible that claims it happened suddenly.

[@fohrum4757]

It's a shame you didn't watch that entire episode of The Cosmos with NDT. You might've actually learned something. Instead you pick out a view lines, quote the Bible and say "nuh uh".

[@i7Qp4rQ]

Instead of typing it in briefly, you pooh-pooh 'd it alltogether. Not a good start.

[@fohrum4757]

@@i7Qp4rQ Go ahead then, explain how I messed it up. This should be fun. Creationists certainly never make claims without giving a reason as to WHY. (He said sarcastically)

[@i7Qp4rQ]

@@fohrum4757 "you didn't watch..." Any an "argument" starting with "You x y z.." Is an ad hominem. "..quote the Bible and say "nuh uh"." _pooh-pooh_ . It seems it was _you_ that did not watch anything.

[@fohrum4757]

@@Who_IsLike_God Science deals with how and why things happen, and formulate laws and theories to explain each process. Creationists deal with 'some book says a thing'. I think I'll put my money with the side that constantly tries to disprove their own ideas. I've never seen a bible believer try to disprove themself, only try to prove what their stories say. I'll take honesty over dishonesty. I'll take science every day of the week. The key part to take away from this btw, is that scientists try to disprove one another every single day. And that's how you get such fantastic ideas. By weeding out the BS and only keeping what can no longer be proven wrong. A Creationist wouldn't have a sweet clue what that even feels like.

[@i7Qp4rQ]

@@fohrum4757 "I watched the entire video actually."👍 "I'm also subscribed."👍 "It's how I'm able to realize your claims are BS and evolution is a fact."👎 Im not so sure, judging from the committed fallacies this far. "Because I actually listen to both sides."👍 "I verify what people say."👍 Some things you just cant verify by yourself. " It's a shame that you're so scared to be wrong that you just won't go listen to a biologist talk about how evolution works."👎 Been there, done that. (University) It was not like most courses had anything to do with this topic at all... ..... "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. ..." .... Richard Charles Lewontin (March 29, 1929 - July 4, 2021[3]) was an American evolutionary biologist, mathematician, geneticist, and social commentator. A leader in developing the mathematical basis of population genetics and evolutionary theory, he applied techniques from molecular biology, such as gel electrophoresis, to questions of genetic variation and evolution. V Usually, in the end, it's a _heart issue_ .

[@christophesutter1844]

Alléluia 🔥💜🔥

[@arcguardian]

Finally a video that isn't 2hrs long.

[@jasminedavid2756]

Amazing video 😊

[@goodolearkygal5746]

I thought Darwin said the only problem with his theory is the eye......

[@kevinhank17]

​@@emigs8712we've got lots of missing links. I know you guys prefer old, outdated knowledge but come on, at least talk about modern science instead of Darwin, guy was smart and ahead of the curve for his time but we've gone well beyond his musings. That's what happens when you study the world instead of ignoring it and pretending that old, outdated nonsense is the best you can ever hope to achieve. God won't hate you for learning things.

[@annieoaktree6774]

​@@emigs8712 How would you identify a transitional "missing link" if you saw one?

[@annieoaktree6774]

@@emigs8712 You dodged the question. How would you identify a transitional "missing link" if you were shown one? What criteria would you use?

[@annieoaktree6774]

@@emigs8712 OK, you have no idea what a transitional would look like so no matter what I show you'll just yell NUH-UH! 🙄 Another fine example of creationist intellectual honesty.

[@annieoaktree6774]

@@emigs8712 Like I said, just one more example of creationist intellectual "honesty."

[@Papalopie]

Christian here. Evolution doesn't conflict with the Bible. That is all.

[@burnttoast2790]

@@Who_IsLike_God And one need not accept universal common ancestry to accept evolution. That's literally how most creationists operate.

[@h.gonyaulax2190]

Evolution is a part of God´s toolbox.

[@antegrizelj1590]

Really enjoyable video, thank you.

[@joetaylorrealestate3251]

Whenever the narrator speaks of eyes at different development levels being functional, it doesn’t mean they are at the same level of functionality, just that they can sense light at any stage, some are better or worse than others and some are just clusters of photon receptors that can only barely tell light from dark, but they still serve a function.

[@HeLives88]

Good morning 🌞 God bless you

[@veritasestlux]

Nothing can't create something, a void cannot create light. -Me

[@markduell2468]

Does that apply to God as well?

[@veritasestlux]

@@markduell2468 God IS something, a sentient and supernatural being. He bent the laws of science by creating something from nothing. Science is able to be bent because it is of the natural, and the supernatural, which God is a part of, is greater than the natural. The supernatural is beyond the natural and has total control over it.

[@markduell2468]

@@veritasestlux How do you know that?

[@veritasestlux]

@@markduell2468 For one, I was healed by God, which proves that He IS something. Second, supernatural basically means "beyond natural'. The power of the supernatural is literally in the name.

[@markduell2468]

@@veritasestlux 1), Muslims claim they have been healed by Allah. Do you accept their testimonies? 2). Defining supernatural does not explain how you know God exists.

[@bluemarble2458]

It would be such an advantageous to have an advanced echolocation capability along with the complex eyes. Yet we don't. What is evolutionist's explanation on this? We had night vision goggles million years ago? They were once dead serious about phlogiston theory for a century. Theory of evolution following the same history.

[@richardgregory3684]

Actually it owuld not be any real advantage, because vision is greatly superior to it; espescially in a species like humans who are diurnal. Humans surive perfectly well without echolocation, though we are capable of discering the approximate direction and distanc eof a sound source; indeed, a few blind persons have _learnt_ to echolocate by making clickign noises and listneing to the echo. Evoltuion does not lead to perfect solutions, nor superfluous ones. All that is needed is something that works well enough for the species to reproduce in sufficient numbers not to go extinct. Creatuires that echo-locate typically operate in envirnoments where vision is impaired - bats who live by night, for example, or dolphins where water restricts vision much more than air does.

[@bluemarble2458]

@@richardgregory3684 Wrong. Echolocation, along with the complex eyes, would have provided a real and significant survival and reproductive advantage than the one having complex eyes only. We could have a discussion with military about the huge advantage of having a night vision goggles at night. No night vision goggle? Echolocation is the next best thing any organisms could have and evolution could have easily delivered it if it is true.

[@richardgregory3684]

@@bluemarble2458 _Wrong. Echolocation, along with the complex eyes, would have provided a real and significant survival and reproductive advantage than the one having complex eyes only._ Not for a species like humans, it wouldn;t. The human evolutionary line comes from jungle living apes - echolocation is not much use there. And humans themselves evolved to live on plains - echolocation being even less use there. And humans are diurnal, we are inactive and asleep during darkness. That is also why our night vision is relatively poor. _We could have a discussion with military about the huge advantage of having a night vision goggles at night_ Except humans are not _naturally_ active at night. In our evolutionary history there was no evolutionary pressure to develop echolocation, or low-light vision. Evolution does not produce perfect solution, just ones that work well enough. In humans the primary sense is visual, our other senses are really quite poor. Because they did not need to be anythig more than that. _Echolocation is the next best thing any organisms could have and evolution could have easily delivered it if it is true_ Echolocation is inferior to sharp vision, or excellent hearing, or sense of smell, for most animals. You'll be asking next why evolution didn;t lead to x-men style superpowers. All living things occupy a niche and are adapted to fit it. Humans are a weird exception, in that our intelligence leads us to do things which really are not natural to the species. Soldiers do stuff liek night-raids because operating in darkness is something we're not adapted for, and function poorly in. Our intellieence and technology allow us to develop tools to overcome these "weaknesses".

[@eggriceggrnesto23]

simple, it was not necessary, if a species does not need it to survive then it will not happen or it will disappear, echolocation would have helped us almost nothing to find food, so even if a human had a basic version of it in ancient times, it would not have survived more than the others without it

[@Woopor]

Because we do not need to have echolocation. It would help us, but developing a whole new bodily system would take so much time that, by the time it might ever hope to evolve into a simple version of echolocation, another bodily system could have evolved and solved the need for echolocation to happen. We don’t need echolocation because we sleep at night, and sleep in safe and secure places where we are less in danger. Apes didn’t need to evolve echolocation because honestly, they don’t really need it, nor do we. Echolocation would require more brainpower devoted to it, we would need to be in quiet areas where echolocation won’t get distorted into oblivion, which bustling jungles full of talkative monkeys are not very good for, it would just be too many changes required for a problem that doesn’t affect us so much

[@TheGhostchaser8]

But what about the sea creature fossils that have eyes exactly the same eyes as those same creatures today?

[@nathanwhite704]

That computer simulation of the eye reference was made in 1985. Note that 1985 was 39 YEARS AGO. There's at least 150 times more processing power in an Iphone 11 then there is that Cray-2 Supercomputer.

[@spamm0145]

He explained it would take 100 years of the crays processing power to equal the processes of the eyes, do you think a modern supercomputer can match 100 years continuous processing of the 1985 cray in 1 single second? Lets use your iPhone 11, it has 1 second to flex its processing power, the cray has 3,155,760,000 seconds, which one would execute more instructions during their respective seconds? Here are some amazing facts about how special God made each of us. The human body processes more instructions per second than every computer on Earth combined and does so using a meagre 20 watts of electricity. The number of processes that occur between your eyes and your brain exceed all the processing power of every PlayStation 5 combined. DNA contains the most complex code known to mankind and is the worlds most compact data storage system, if DNA's code was written into an average size book, the stack of books would reach to the moon and back 500 times. The information in DNA can be read in multiple directions, utilizes encryption, and bizarrely for a process that supposedly relies on random mutations has a sophisticated error correction system. It also uses a unique folding technique that reveals new instructions that is so complex it cannot be replicated using todays supercomputers. This level of design is way beyond human capabilities and we know from thousands of years of using OBSERVATION that the greater the level of complexity, the higher the level of intelligence required. It's clear to anyone without a blinding world view that all of life was designed, to dispute this means you believe blind, purposeless, random mutations without intent creates systems so complex, utilizing unparalleled levels of efficiency and exquisite design, that it supersedes anything man has achieved using purpose, design, intent, knowledge, and genius levels of intelligence. Don't take the word of man over God, he alone created everything there is, including you.

[@nathanwhite704]

@@spamm0145 Yes any modern computer can render in a second what that cray-2 could do in a hundred years. It had a max performance of 1.9 Gflops thats 1.9 billion floating-point operations per second. Nowadays we have computers capable of 1100 PetaFlops thats 1100 quadrillion or in other words 100 quintillion floating-point operations per second.

[@itkirk]

I watched this and it just reinforced my belief in evolution, thanks AIG! Creationist’s arguments: , “they say it’s evolution . . . Well nuh-uh! I’ll just straw man the arguments and say it’s god because I have no other explanation!”

[@rossmac8743]

" we find eyes at all these stages of development " enough said really .

[@joejackson6205]

Science without acknowledging the Devine, and supernatural forces is akin to blinding oneself, then describing an elephant, paraphrased, Saint Thomas of Aquinnes.

[@jonasmlgaard-asmussen9844]

How would you go about proving, or just providing evidence, that the supernatural exists?

[@joejackson6205]

@@jonasmlgaard-asmussen9844 start with subscribing to this channel. Then maybe reserch and read the writings of Thomas of Aquinnes. Or maybe, you could do what most people do, and just down on your knees, and pray-- Dear Lord Jesus please provide me that which I need to see to give me the confidence I need to put my faith in you Jesus, Amen. Dont be surprised when things happen that you cant explain, nor can find evidence for. God love and protect you.

[@johnryan6658]

There are no supernatural forces, and you have no evidence that there is.

[@hah-vj7hc]

Describe a virus! Because we can. And that's because intelligent people came up with the idea not to rely on our eyes alone.

[@joejackson6205]

@@hah-vj7hc actually a virus is a great example of nonevolution, but speciation. Though mutating every generation it remains the same virus, just reducing the speed of fatality in the infected host, with each generation. It is still the same type of virus. Answers has some great videos and Doctrate level dissertations you may want to look up. Seeking to find answers, like germ theory., is more proof we are created with a desire to know. You really need to research Thomas Aquinnes and his writings on physics, and Socrates, and Aristotle. In short, the microscopic, nor the macroscopic worlds do not disprove creation nor the supernatural.

[@Taehc]

Yeah, the right chemical, got mixed with another which somehow got there in the same place, somehow got energized just right to pop living organisms, which then grew eyes, limbs and lungs to explore the dry land while singing ♪Wish I could be part of your world♪

[@Taehc]

@@Moist._Robot And of course it's our resident bending unit again. You've never been taught in actual science that provides products or services, have you?

[@katamas832]

Strawman fallacy.

[@Taehc]

@@katamas832 It's not a strawman, and the fallacy is to think that what you believe actually had a chance to happen on its own in nature.

[@Taehc]

@@Moist._Robot That's where you took the wrong way, no proper guidance as to what's scientifically probable and what's not. Again, why are you still here?

[@katamas832]

@@Taehc Yes, it is a strawman. It is not what Evolution is, (you even included Abiogenesis into it very inaccurately) not what scientists state it to be, nor what anyone but creationists believe it to be. That's not a fallacy lol. Learn what logical fallacies are. Also what chances are you speaking of? I believe the universe on a macro scale is deterministic. What chances?

[@jtwattsmusic]

Is it just me, or did this video offer more evidence FOR evolution than it offered against it? I'm a creationist, and I love AIG and what they're trying to do, but Dr. Mitchell's speech doesn't really offer any real rebuttals. e.g. At 3:45 They say the retina is backwards and tell you why they say that, and he basically just says, "Yeah, it looks that way, but it isn't." WHAT?! How is that supposed to persuade me? I was looking forward to him telling me how the backwards design actually makes our eyes better, but all he said was essentially, "Maybe, but it's still really cool, though." I just rewatched the video to make sure I wasn't missing anything. I'm not sure if it was Dr. Mitchell's speech or just the editing of the video, but there is literally no evidence provided against any of the evolutionist claims. The whole thing is more like a sermon than an apologetics video. I agree with his conclusion, but I literally feel the need to go find a different apologetics video to understand the creationist answer to these claims. I feel the need to make clear that I have heard many AIG presentations in-person (I've worked for AIG seasonally at the Ark Encounter), and they are often fantastically persuasive and apologetically substantive. Both the Ark Encounter and the Creation Museum are great bastions of creationism, but I am not willing to claim that something is good simply because they made it. Nor am I willing to accept an argument as solid simply because I agree with its conclusion.

[@annieoaktree6774]

Eyes evolved independently several times in the history of life. All vertebrates inherited the vertebrate eye which has a blind spot due to the placement of the optic nerves in front of the retina. Cephalopod eyes evolved to be similar in function but have no blind spot as the optic nerves run behind the retina. Evolution explains the observed data perfectly while creationists have no explanation for the different types of eyes.

[@drsmapdi]

Agree, and the whole point about the computation of a "Cray" computer is an argument from 1985... computation has come such a long way in the last 50 years that this entire segment should not be repeated, as it is misleading.

[@Yipper64]

yeah that would be the issue with this channel as a while, in general the arguments presented seem to not really work. Lots of mis-representing arguments, lots of circular logic. Doesnt mean the conclusions arent true, but I dont think it takes that long reading these comment sections to see that their approach is not working.

[@Yipper64]

@@Moist._Robot I mean yeah I understand that but youre also just using it as confirmation bias to build up your own views.

[@Yipper64]

@@Moist._Robotnot exactly. The bible can still work even if you take genesis as a metaphor. Genesis is far from the most important book in the bible, its just the only one a lot people have read half of because people cant be bothered to do more than that.

[@mst3k751]

How were the Sun and Moon created on day four?

[@SCARLETTT555]

The Hebrew word they used isn’t actually “day”. it was yom or aeon, which means eon. Eon means Long periods of time. 7 eons could easily make room for the 13 billion year time frame that scientists present us with

[@mst3k751]

@@SCARLETTT555 ...point being the Sun and Moon were created AFTER Earth and liquid water and AFTER vegetation requiring photons to grow and live? Nonsense! Horticulture 101. Your book is a phony, sorry to break it to you.

[@SCARLETTT555]

@@mst3k751 It seems you’re taking the story of Adam and Eve to be absolutely literal. It isn’t. The only 2 stories that aren’t written in the literary style of historical narratives are the story of Adam and Eve, and Revelations. The story of Adam and Eve convey truth through the literary style of Hebrew parable.(which isn’t meant to be literal) And the book of revelations convey truth through the literary style of Apocalyptic literature (also not to be taken as absolutely literal) …. Therefore, both stories convey the truth, but they aren’t to be read and consumed outside of the literary style/context in which they were written in

[@mst3k751]

ALL plants were created on day three. The Sun and Moon were created on day four. The Book of Genesis is an early children's book, nothing more.

[@dowalt]

The day they can make a eye then they can start saying its build wrong.

[@astinscience]

Can you build a skyscraper? Probably not (though maybe you can, this is just an example). So, would you therefore not be able to tell one was built wrong if it collapses during construction? Of course we can see where things are clearly not "designed", and definitely not by some being with "perfect" knowledge. Bad 'designs' abound. Evolution doesn't care about perfection, on being good enough for an individual to survive and reproduce.

[@Jeremy9697]

This makes no sense....yet this is the level of critical thinking most so call Christians have. So makes sense this doesn't make sense lol

[@user-bv3cl2cl8b]

How long for mutations, the bedrock of natural selection, to form a billion times billion piece eyeball puzzle in only a limited time of life on earth according to the evolutionist? Takes more faith to believe in evolution than in the the beginning God said.

[@rockyhill9965]

Add to that ALL of the thousands of specialized proteins that a life form needs. The hit and miss of the mutation and natural selection hypothesis then compounds geometrically to where we then have an impossibility. Will say that creation is the only plausible explanation.

[@hah-vj7hc]

It's not a puzzle. That's like saying no car was actually driving until the year 2024

[@hah-vj7hc]

You understand evolution as little as the other guy. Are you actively trying to ridicule yourself?@@rockyhill9965

[@Jeremy9697]

Puzzle? An eye is a light sensitive organ..that it. A cell that can detect the faintest hint of light is basically an eye... there are still fish with primordial eyes. No lens pr anything just a organ hanging out there body that detects changes in light around them... it's not a complicated puzzle... it's beneficial mutations getting better for niche roles in an ecosystem... educate yourself

[@rockyhill9965]

@@hah-vj7hc Cars are intelligently designed by man. Eyesight is intelligently designed by the creator.

[@wadenovin2479]

The evolution of the eye through natural processes is well understood.

[@gatolf2]

It makes no sense to believe that a thoughtless process did this out of chance but also believe it got such an important part of the eye “wrong” but somehow made it work… what point are they trying to make? How many huge problems, in the process of the eye evolving, could have happened that screw up the entire thing? If it can screw up bad enough to wire something backwards then it can for sure screw up something bad enough to stop the entire process all together and, given the amount of time and little changes that have to be made to get us to the human eye, the probability is pretty much 100 percent that something should have gone wrong to cause the eye to go extinct.

[@eltomas3634]

When trying to explain the incredible complexity and design that we see everywhere in the natural world, the need for an external highly intelligent designer is so strong, that skeptics are willing to accept the absurd possibility that the source of design is of alien origin. But, their aversion to a creator God that might hold them accountable for their actions in life is so strong, they are unable to accept the possibility that a Creator God is the alien origin they are willing to consider. In other words, aliens could have done it as long as God is not included as alien.

[@roscius6204]

What BS I don't see any evidence for your claim. So I treat it like any other claim without evidence... And that's it.

[@Woopor]

If people are averted to YOUR god, it is not because they fear returning to him, but because they have determined that your god either isnt real or isn’t even worth looking into being real

[@ThatGuyTheOriginal]

Heat your oven to 325 F. Throw in a 13x9 pan, eggs, flour, sugar, butter, and water. Shut the door and wait an arbitrarily amount of time. Do this millions of times. You will still not get a cake.

[@wingednut2283]

Have you tried or are you coming up with a conclusion. What if your mum mixed some of those ingredients your dogs accidentally mixed the others and then a dude in a batman costume swooped in to take it out of the oven? Is that not a possible scenario?

[@msquiggle3590]

Cake ingredients don't reproduce and accrue mutations, that's the difference.

[@wingednut2283]

@@msquiggle3590 eggs?

[@msquiggle3590]

@@wingednut2283 An unfertilized egg can't reproduce

[@mr.commonsense]

abiogenesis@@msquiggle3590

[@sbukosky]

The best thought-provoking question I've heard about humans is if we evolved from the apes, then, why are there still apes? As far as the eyes go, what other creature can make corrective lenses, microscopes and telescopes? It's all by the grace and glory of God.

[@annieoaktree6774]

If Australia was founded by Englishmen why are there still Englishmen?

[@nathanwhite704]

If thats a thought-provoking question to you then you should see a doctor. I know 1st graders that have better critical thinking and reasoning skills.

[@richardgregory3684]

_The best thought-provoking question I've heard about humans is if we evolved from the apes, then, why are there still apes_ If you find that thought provoking you likely need someone to tie your shoelaces for you. First, humans did not evolve from apes, we ARE apes. All modern and extant apes are just as evolved as us - they are simply different. Human evolution promoted intelligence, gorilla and chimpanzee evolution, not so much (though they are VERY smart compared to most animals). _As far as the eyes go, what other creature can make corrective lenses_ If god designed and create dour eyes, why do almost all of us need corrective lenses to make them work properly, sooner or later?

[@razark9]

If that's what you consider thought provoking you really ought to go back to school. We are STILL apes. 🤦‍♂

[@mickeyguide3112]

cause 🐵 are evolutionists cousins lol...

[@magnetotwister]

What is a time to The Almighty God in our own perception? I don’t understand what this man was arguing for or against

[@blazenlights]

Just think about everyone who chooses to ignore what they see and yet they will still have to answer to it in the end. God's proof is all around us all the time and people choose to misinterpret their feelings of their last meal versus their spirit calling to out God.