If Darwin Knew This, Would He Still Be a Darwinist?

[@kathleennorton2228]

Once upon a time, there was a flying spaghetti monster named the theory of evolution. Though he had no mind nor goals, he could and did absolutely everything. No matter how complex beyond comprehension, beautifully seemingly designed, or mathematically improbable, he could do it. All he required was enough time, even though the time required for the miraculous things he did there was not enough of since the beginning of the universe. It didn't matter. He is believed in with the same mindlessness he consists of. He can never be disproved, saying that something is impossible for him to have done it, because there is absolutely nothing he can't do. After all, the theory of evolution is the quintessential flying spaghetti monster!

[@OlegLankin]

​@jockyoung4491 are you considering being a theistic evolutionist, since you consider the origin of life unrelated to evolution?

[@triggerhappydad65]

I see what you did there 😜 Through the years, I've always chuckled when hearing the old "fsm" or "sky Daddy", and someone finally rightly used it AGAINST the atheists😂

[@OlegLankin]

@@jockyoung4491 how it began is obviously 10 times more important than evolution. I see why some evolutionists try to avoid it, because it points so strongly to God, and that then topples evolution, because of what God said he did in the Bible - created each kind of creature, perfect from the start.

[@OlegLankin]

​@@jockyoung4491 no, the God of the Bible makes evolution impossible. You apparently didn't finish reading my previous reply - the Bible said that he created all the kinds of creatures, perfect from the start. Can you explain what you mean? Does that not contradict evolution?

[@OlegLankin]

​@@jockyoung4491 biological evolution is fictional, so it can't show anything. Genesis can't be false, because God can't lie.

[@kjhgfdfghjkdrtyuiwewe]

These videos are such a blessing. My mom is an atheist but loves watching scientific videos like this. Trying to open her heart to the truth of the Lord. Please pray for us!

[@akmurf7429]

The heart is deceitful (Jer 17:9) and blinds us to the truth. I pray the Holy Spirit will hound her until she listens. It really boils down to giving up one's self-will. Without self-will, there can be no love, and that is what god wants from us the most. We were created out of and for a loving relationship.

[@KristianHannler]

I will pray for you!

[@refuse2bdcvd324]

May God grant your mother a heart of repentance to accept Christ and his will for her life!

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

Praying for her 🙏🙏🙏 be encouraged

[@bevanbasson4289]

The message of Jesus was ,repent your sins look after the poor the weak, the hungry and the forgotten, sell your possessions to help your fellow man because the kingdom of God is near. If Jesus was here would he be a Christian? Good evidence? watch a moonlanding or flat earth video, and you will be convinced, so much "real" and compelling evidence, yet here we are, with rovers still on the moon, rock samples and a round planet orbiting a sun, and your explanation is a sky God, creating beings so he can torture 90% of them for eternity, because 1 man and 1 woman disobeyed him.

[@AWBepi]

The Origin of Species will put you to sleep, The Voyage of the Beagle, the personal Journal of Darwin, is off the charts incredible.

[@TickedOffPriest]

They thought that the cell was a fluid filled membrane with a nucleus and nothing more.

[@timothykeith1367]

They think evolution is magic without a magician

[@blaster-zy7xx]

No, that is another example of how wrong you are. Lookup “strawman”

[@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440]

You're looking at 4.2-billion-year-old cells and claiming that they couldn't be simpler. That's a haughty delusion, buddy!

[@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440]

​@timothykeith1367 You think that your magical god can explain Biology.

[@TickedOffPriest]

@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 You are imagining that the cells are 4.2 billion years old. My God has power over science, but you are conflating science with evolutionism.

[@Jim-o4t]

"They thought life was simple" I laughed so hard... There is nothing simple about life or anything the creator has done. It is wonder upon wonder.

[@kjhgfdfghjkdrtyuiwewe]

The Lords creation truly is beautiful and infinite :)

[@blaster-zy7xx]

I laughed too. No one claims life is simple. The issue is that complexity does not mean god.

[@globalcoupledances]

What is life? Is a virus alive? Multiplying is essential for life. Is RNA essential for life? Is a computer virus alive? Is evolution essential for life? Life can be simple if you know what life is

[@Jim-o4t]

@globalcoupledances life is being a biological organism capable of dying. No a computer virus is not alive.

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

Amen! Our God is amazing.

[@jimschlaegel8454]

I appreciate the gifts that God has given some people [not me] to be able to rattle off an abundance of technical and historical information without notes in a coherent manner, yet still come across like a neighbor talking to you. Yet another well done presentation.

[@BeefT-Sq]

"Who created the creator ?" -Christopher Hitchens-

[@terrifictomm]

I love the parallelism of fractal patterns with the complexity of creation. Also, if this interests you, you MUST READ Chapter 17 of C.S. Lewis' book, "Perelandra." "There seems no plan because all is plan."

[@sanidan2010]

What would I tell Darwin? “Sorry Charlie” try again.

[@1969cmp]

'Go back to Genesis and talk to Gregor Mendel, he'll explain a few things about limited changes'.

[@blaster-zy7xx]

What would I ask God? Why did you chose to hide amongst so many other Gods? Why did you allow for so much evil? Why didn't you help write a holy book that didn't conflict with reality (modern science)? Why did you allow your followers to go so far astray in their claims of speaking for you without you intervening?

[@richiejourney1840]

@@blaster-zy7xxyour asking questions to the God you are an atheist to. Shouldn’t you be asking your own goddesses-Lady Luck and Mother Nature why they are so messed up?

[@l.m.892]

@@richiejourney1840 I would think so. But then, it's easier to blame someone else than it is to blame yourself. Conservation of energy principle.

[@w12ath040211]

Tell him thank you for breaking ground on one of the most important discoveries in biology ever.

[@MarcelinhoTheRock]

Excellent explanation, thanks dr.

[@raghavrwarrier7785]

The world feels as though it’s moving backward, with evolution appearing to reverse course. Even after 150 years, many people have yet to catch up to Darwin's insights. Charles Darwin surely stands as one of the greatest gifts to humanity. Intelligence is a rarity throughout human history sadly even today!

[@007gracie]

He literally piggy backed on Lyles uniformitarianism in rebellion against against God. Totally ignorant of dna. It’s so backwards. Adaptation ≠ “evolution” Zero evidence. If you study medicine you’ll see mutations on the scale he spoke of would kill a life form.

[@Torby4096]

Even in 1974, the new high school biology textbook said the cell was filled with protoplasm with some complicated chemistry going on.

[@akmurf7429]

Complicated chemistry? That's the understatement of the century!

[@Torby4096]

@@akmurf7429 he he

[@rizdekd3912]

Let's say something like that was true. If the cells were actually filled with homogenous protoplasm but still functioned as a cell does now...ie with no internal chemistry but from the outside the cell did everything a cell does now, would that make you more or less inclined to think it evolved naturally?

[@Torby4096]

@@rizdekd3912 No. I already knew God and understood, "The Bible is true. If it looks like it might not be, then we must not understand what we are looking at."

[@rizdekd3912]

@@Torby4096 "No. I already knew God and understood, 'The Bible is true. If it looks like it might not be, then we must not understand what we are looking at.'" So the complexity of the cell is irrelevant?

[@Vernon-Chitlen]

That the only known way proteins are made is by a molecular machine made of 40-80 proteins and 4 rRNA's that provide the code for the specific arrangement of only 20 particular of over 500 kinds of amino acids.

[@globalcoupledances]

Correction: rRNA doesn't provide code. It just scans another RNA. Mostly (50 : 1) that RNA doesn't contain code.

[@Vernon-Chitlen]

@@globalcoupledances So what is being transferred from DNA by tRNA>mRNA>rRNA for the particular and specifically sequenced amino acids to be assembled, defining a particular proteins function and folding into it's 3D shape? Ever heard of protein coding genes?

[@globalcoupledances]

@@Vernon-Chitlen I see you are confused by all those biochemical terminology. I don't know where to begin. I remember that Professor Dave Explains has a biochemistry playlist. I can also advise the Amoeba Sisters

[@globalcoupledances]

@@Vernon-Chitlen Very short answer: RNA-polymerase makes a copy mRNA (m = messenger). Ribosome scans the mRNA for the *start* codon. If not found then that mRNA is discarded

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

​@@globalcoupledances professor Dave needs Jesus. He is in dire need of salvation.

[@cosmictreason2242]

Darwin and Marx: Copium of the masses

[@blaster-zy7xx]

You misquoted. It was “religion is the opium of the masses”. It still is.

[@joecheffo5942]

So you think Jesus was a capitalist?

[@blaster-zy7xx]

The quote is: "Religion is the opium of the masses." And it still is. What is with theists who conflate socialism with evolution? They have nothing to do with one another.

[@benellenberger5610]

@@joecheffo5942 not exactly. He was probably a Bitcoinist.

[@BeefT-Sq]

"Yet there are hundreds of millions of people who belive they are born sinners because according to some completely anonymous author, aeons and aeons ago, someone ate some fruit they weren't supposed to". -Vincent Bugliosi-

[@1969cmp]

Darwin was wrong, Mendel was correct. The latter understood limited changes and was a creationist. Devoted evolutionist needs to start from ground zero and ask 'how did we get here', 'what assumptions were believed that became the foundations that evolution was built upon and are they firm foundations'. Cheers, ex-atheist and former believer in materialistic evolution.

[@rizdekd3912]

If God created DNA, it appears it was created specifically so it could support evolution. Why else would God create such a complicated and tenuous mechanism...one fraught with problems (mutations, mistakes, folding, duplication) when replicating...if not to support evolution? Why would an omnipotent God make the mechanism to pass on life so fragile and complicated when he could have made it simple and invulnerable to corruption?

[@1969cmp]

@@rizdekd3912 The complexity of DNA is what allows for speciation of a kind which is handy after the fall and even more so in a post flood environment. This also translates into specialised breeding that we see in livestock and dogs. Perhaps if DNA was too simple, life may not have been able to adapt to the post flood world, at least not in the diversity we have before us. In the end, I leave it to The Creator. It's His design and what do I peeny brains comprehend as of we know better and can create stuff from ex-nihlo.

[@joecheffo5942]

@@1969cmp Don't go burning any witches please. This superstition sounds like fun and games until people take it all the way.

[@MainBrainDaneInsane]

@rizdekd3912 God is omniscient, aka, all knowing. IMO, God knew full well the fall and sin would happen, so He made sure life was preprogrammed with enough genetic information that it could have protections against debilitating mutations, and for the variety of environmental and social pressures. Think how from only a few species of wolves we got all manner of dog species. That's because the information to make new forms was already present. Oh, and for God knowing, but doing it anyway? We could only love God as He loves us, only by willfully choosing so. But that opens up the freedom to reject Him too. Through that rebellion, we have sin and all the degradation it has caused. If we had no free will, we'd be nothing more than servile golems. Perfect, but not free in any way.

[@l.m.892]

@@rizdekd3912 "Why else would God create such a complicated and tenuous mechanism...one fraught with problems (mutations, mistakes, folding, duplication) when replicating...if not to support evolution?" You were not paying attention. There are numerous systems that perform error correction on DNA. How did you miss that?

[@KristianHannler]

Great video!

[@BeefT-Sq]

"...by and large, the religious beliefs about God are a rich and intoxicating brew of myth, superstition and nonsense". -Vincent Bugliosi-

[@tdzenda]

I believe that Darwin would choose to believe what he did 150 years ago. Once, you choose the path he took, you never lack arguments to stress your point.

[@brunobastos5533]

You did it 2000 years ago

[@blaster-zy7xx]

Darwin would not lack evidence to support his idea today. Today the evidence fills universities and natural history museums around the globe. The problem is that theists now are on the losing side of evidence for their superstitious and anachronistic ideas of our origins.

[@Reg_The_Galah]

That is right, I come to that realise after refuting arguments for evolution, that many people have just made their minds up and don't care what evidence is brought forth. People who genuinely seek the truth will find it on their own.

[@w12ath040211]

You don't choose to believe in something. Go ahead and choose to believe the sky is Red. And while you're trying to understand that imagining the sky as red isn't the same as believing it is red.

[@rizdekd3912]

What 'path' did Darwin choose? You sound like evolution is an ideology instead of an observable phenomena and that speciation by natural selection is an ideological stance rather than a scientific stance.

[@evktheartist]

People are the slaves of excuses and the master's of none.

[@l.m.892]

Ha. This is the first time someone has explained ATP synthase on YT. Say goodbye, NCSE. Great job sharing the science, guys!

[@numbersix9477]

Indeed. Back to the good old 11th Century we go!

[@l.m.892]

@@numbersix9477 That's where the NCSE took us. My appreciation is that the video has taken us where the NCSE refused to go: to real science. The empirical evidence supports a divine creation.

[@numbersix9477]

@@l.m.892 It's impossible to determine whether you are a nut or a troll. Keep this up and we'll eventually figure it out.

[@l.m.892]

@@numbersix9477 The NCSE has a trolling history. We already know you're associated with them.

[@numbersix9477]

@@l.m.892 I'm leaning heavily toward "troll" but I haven't yet ruled out "nut".

[@tomesplin4130]

When Darwin proposed his theory, he did by observation. Over the past 150 years his theory has been modified but essentially it has stood the test of time and now accepted as fact by the vast majority of the scientific community. The fossil record has revealed the gradual evolution of all life forms from simple to more complex, with an amazingly complete fossil record showing a continuous process without ‘missing links’. I think Darwin would be more convinced than ever despite the complexity of the basic living cell.

[@RodericGurrola]

Good points. 👍🏻👍🏻. God bless.

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

Love you guys! God bless, CMI 🙏🙏🙏✝️🕊️

[@alinucalinuc4124]

Awesome!

[@BeefT-Sq]

"...there is much more evidence that man created god than that god created man". -Vincent Bugliosi-

[@bigbluebiblebus]

Thanks for doing this. Could you do another one that has more concrete descriptions of the complexity of life so that we can use that to help nonbelievers see. It seemed you were going that way but then spent tmost of time on debunking evolution. Thanks again!

[@obiwankenobi2520]

“Debunking evolution” as if it is a fringe science. Every accredited university will teach you evolution is true and you can understand it more if you took biology

[@l.m.892]

@@obiwankenobi2520 Evolution is pseudoscience. Doesn't matter how many universities teach it. No different than flat earth theory. In view of current knowledge, all colleges and universities teaching evolution should be ashamed. It's like colleges and universities are a scam promoting propaganda rather than truth. $$$ is the object.

[@rizdekd3912]

'nonbelievers' in what?

[@l.m.892]

@@rizdekd3912 The truth?

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

41:00 "Charles, open your eyes....."

[@globalcoupledances]

He did! He saw evolution

[@l.m.892]

@@globalcoupledances No. He saw what he wanted to see.

[@BeefT-Sq]

"When does the silliness end when it comes to Christianity ? Answer : It doesn't" -Vincent Bugliosi-

[@Vernon-Chitlen]

What would you call Darwin's speculating that life originated in a warm little pond? The non living chemicals became living?

[@Vernon-Chitlen]

@@jockyoung4491 An individual totally ignorant of the prebiotic chemistry required for life. Who's speculations encouraged Karl Marx, and Margaret Sanger.

[@globalcoupledances]

warm little pond makes sense because no sign that it occurred in the oceans

[@Vernon-Chitlen]

@@globalcoupledances I mostly use that term because those are Darwin’s words in a letter to Joseph Hooker, Feb 1871

[@Vernon-Chitlen]

@@mcmanustony I attended a democrat dominated public school. They believed it more important to practice putting condoms on cucumbers than grammar.

[@globalcoupledances]

@@Vernon-Chitlen you are correct about the term. Whole Wikipedia article with that title

[@refuse2bdcvd324]

Still waiting for someone who believes he evolved from a nonhuman to show us who in his lineage was not human.

[@refuse2bdcvd324]

@@jockyoung4491 still waiting....

[@globalcoupledances]

The parent of the first human was nonhuman. Children of that first human are always human. The question is if something like molar pregnancy counts as human

[@riverbank2193]

@@globalcoupledances the change is very gradual. It's like saying you can't take a step in Maine and wind up in California. It's impossible. But if you put together enough steps, you can do it. That's the difference.

[@globalcoupledances]

@riverbank2193 - yes, that is evolution: change over many generations. First human, first chimp and their common parent look the same. It took 7 million years (700 thousand generations) to come to modern chimps and humans. The difference is that current humans have that single allele not found in current chimp and vice versa

[@kjhgfdfghjkdrtyuiwewe]

That would be peak LOL

[@mikehorton3664]

male and female are so differant that they would have to evolved separatly! 2 evolutions? evolution is man's fantisy. God bless, matthew6:33, proverbs 3:5

[@ronaldmorgan7632]

Yeah, they never talk about that. That and that fact that to create another human requires that absolute cooperation of these different things.

[@globalcoupledances]

What about sexual reproduction without gender? Like fungi, fern, paramaecium. Have you heard from Bill Nye why sexual reprduction had been selected by nature?

[@blaster-zy7xx]

Wow. The level of willfull ignorance of creationists is jaw dropping. No wonder we have a convicted felon leading the Republican Party.

[@brunobastos5533]

Really

[@mikehorton3664]

@@brunobastos5533 impossible!

[@subst4nce973]

Darwins life at the end reminds me of the verse 20-124 from the Quran "And whoever turns away from my remembrance - indeed he will have a depressed life and we will gather him on the day of resurrection, blind"

[@markmetternich7629]

Darwin would be a full fledge Creationist today.

[@numbersix9477]

Explain.

[@dwightdonnelly8662]

God Bless your ministry!

[@DonswatchingtheTube]

Everyone knows that if you get a blasted with gamma rays you become a super hero.

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

Happened to me!! I got better, though.

[@unletteredandordinary]

Rejection of the Trinity is not evidence of a corrupted mind. If Darwin’s family was Unitarian that just means they believed what is explicitly stated in 1 Cor. 8:6 “But for us, There is one God, the Father, by whom all things were created, and for whom we live. And there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things were created, and through whom we live”. The fact is, if your church does not affirm a belief in “one God the Father” then you’re technically not a Christian church.

[@unletteredandordinary]

@@graemeross6970 No, the trinity was not formed in the second century. It was gradually formed over several centuries. Some argue it wasn’t completely formed until the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE/AD in which the hypostatic union was adopted. My point is even if you can trace the formulation of Trinity doctrine earlier than the 5th century it still contradicts the earliest creedal statements Christians are required to believe. So if you teach, for example, that there is only “one God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit” as opposed to what the apostle Paul elucidated, namely, “one God, the Father” then you have gone beyond what is written and fallen under a curse. You have departed and ostracized yourself from “the Way” of the first Christian church. If you can’t affirm everything Paul says in 1 Cor. 8:4-6 without adding to it or redefining the words used then you need to stop calling yourself Christians and identify as Trinitarians because the two are mutually exclusive terms. You can’t be one and be the other. Sorry…

[@edwindundas863]

All the wars and atrocities that were perpetrated by “Christians” since Christianity became the state religion of Rome have been perpetuated by Trinitarians. The idea that actual Christians, even of the same denomination, would kill each other in the service of an earthly ruler or government is absurd. Remember Jesus said his true followers would be a little flock and would be no part of the World. A true sign of Christianity is the love they have for one another and even their enemies. Most of the men slaughtered in Europe during WW1 were devout Christians by today’s standards. They were fighting for their respective economic elites who also believed they were Christians. Satan’s a wily Devil.😈☮️✌️

[@fredcalledbygod]

You’re awake✊🏿

[@robertmcclintock8701]

X-< This is an artistic proof of a created universe. When you paint a shadow it's the opposite color of the object that made the shadow. Nobody knew what the opposite color of white was so the artists avoided painting white on white. The opposite color of white is baby blue and baby pink. The first artist to figure it out was Norman Rockwell. I was the second artist to figure it out. I saw it in the corner of a white room. The lighting was perfect to see it.

[@l.m.892]

???

[@AhmedanterElsayed]

Biology exemplifies the hand of an amazing creator

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

We can always hope that Darwin would come to find salvation but I think Darwin was more interested in "sticking it to the church." He was searching but he was searching in all the wrong places. I would hope thag he would find Christ and believe Gods word but it's hard to say. Charles had his shot in life. Hopefully he had a death bed confession and repented for his life. 42:00 ok, maybe not

[@seanmckenna6122]

Absolutely correct sir .wish more people could see that😢

[@1969cmp]

'Achilles Heel' documentary is excellent.

[@boni2786]

Great!

[@jacksparrow-us1km]

Main question is which make me doubtful about this theory is fossils are found how can we tell those were humans or not humans, i mean we can say this changed to this and that and so on using that, and there should be much more in billions fossils present about these who were present in non human form, i mean period between dinosaurs and humans but we have none. I said a query to chat GPT look what that tells :. I understand your point now. You are questioning the origin of life itself-how the first living cell came into existence and how it could "know" what to do. This is a different question from evolution, which deals with how life changes over time once it already exists. The question you're raising is related to **abiogenesis**, which is the scientific hypothesis about how life could have arisen from non-living matter. It's important to note that **abiogenesis** and **evolution** are two separate concepts: 1. **Abiogenesis**: This refers to the idea that life could have originated from simple chemical compounds under certain conditions in the early Earth's environment. The process is not fully understood, and scientists are still researching it. Some propose that basic molecules combined into more complex structures (like RNA and proteins) through natural chemical reactions, eventually leading to the first living cell. But you're right that **this is not fully explained yet** in science. 2. **Evolution**: Once life existed (starting with the first living organisms), evolution by natural selection explains how life became more complex over billions of years. But this does not explain how life started in the first place. Now, addressing your point about **non-life never producing life**: - **Abiogenesis** is still a hypothesis, and no one claims that it's a process we fully understand today. Scientists are trying to figure out how the right conditions could have led to life. It does not suggest that a simple cell "decided" what to do. Instead, the chemical processes that led to life might have been driven by natural laws, not by accident or intentional design. - You are correct in pointing out that it's an open question. Some people believe that life’s origin required some form of **guidance or design**, whether divine or otherwise. This is where many people turn to **religious or philosophical beliefs** because science hasn't yet fully explained how life started. In summary, scientists do not yet have a complete answer for how life began. Abiogenesis is a possibility being studied, but it does not mean life "accidentally" formed without cause. You are raising an important question about the limits of science in explaining the **origin** of life, and this is still an area of deep inquiry.

[@jacksparrow-us1km]

@@lepidoptera9337you people think some scientists from few years is science that is the main problem. These scientists never proved anything that was not known by early people like, gravity was well known before Newton and people blindly believe in lies when it comes to so called today's science he just did work on old work and made up his laws of gravity. There are countless things that could not be done without knowing about gravity, like Even Galileo's work was based on gravity. And even in today's world if you pick 200 scientists 100 will say one thing and the other 100 will say the opposite of that, and let's say about time, Islamic belief was always time is not absolutely it is relative, like prophet traveling with the speed which Einstein said if anyone can travel with that speed, time will be totally different for him and that is exactly what muslims claim, they clearly say time was different for him within few seconds or minutes he traveled for years, similarly many things like at the day of judgment time will be (our normal 50 thousands years = only one day) similarly talking about dajals first day will be = 1 year and next day = one month and bla bla many many countless things, and the most important things that makes my heart to accept islam day by day is probagada about Islam when I start researching like 911, terrorism, islam about women, and many told me Quran was copied from bilble and from this and that when I researched those books have countless errors scientifically like bible said moon has its own light and countless wrong things, and thise all books saying clearly without even a single doubt that last prophet will come (and telling each details like address name, mothers name, father's name and everything needed) as I I say many debates between Christans scholars and Ahmad dedad I never see anyone winning with Islam, so from many years of research I am thinking of accepting Islam but I am waiting for few things and researching deeply I am Fully conveninced that everything against Islam is just probagada.

[@jacksparrow-us1km]

@@lepidoptera9337 @lepidoptera9337 you people think some scientists from few years is science that is the main problem. These scientists never proved anything that was not known by early people like, gravity was well known before Newton and people blindly believe in lies when it comes to so called today's science he just did work on old work and made up his laws of gravity. There are countless things that could not be done without knowing about gravity, like Even Galileo's work was based on gravity. And even in today's world if you pick 200 scientists 100 will say one thing and the other 100 will say the opposite of that, and let's say about time, Islamic belief was always time is not absolutely it is relative, like prophet traveling with the speed which Einstein said if anyone can travel with that speed, time will be totally different for him and that is exactly what muslims claim, they clearly say time was different for him within few seconds or minutes he traveled for years, similarly many things like at the day of judgment time will be (our normal 50 thousands years = only one day) similarly talking about dajals first day will be = 1 year and next day = one month and bla bla many many countless things, and the most important things that makes my heart to accept islam day by day is probagada about Islam when I start researching like 911, terrorism, islam about women, and many told me Quran was copied from bilble and from this and that when I researched those books have countless errors scientifically like bible said moon has its own light and countless wrong things, and thise all books saying clearly without even a single doubt that last prophet will come (and telling each details like address name, mothers name, father's name and everything needed) as I I say many debates between Christans scholars and Ahmad dedad I never see anyone winning with Islam, so from many years of research I am thinking of accepting Islam but I am waiting for few things and researching deeply I am Fully conveninced that everything against Islam is just probagada.

[@jacksparrow-us1km]

@lepidoptera9337 you people think some scientists from few years is science that is the main problem. These scientists never proved anything that was not known by early people like, gravity was well known before Newton and people blindly believe in lies when it comes to so called today's science he just did work on old work and made up his laws of gravity. There are countless things that could not be done without knowing about gravity, like Even Galileo's work was based on gravity. And even in today's world if you pick 200 scientists 100 will say one thing and the other 100 will say the opposite of that, and let's say about time, Islamic belief was always time is not absolutely it is relative, like prophet traveling with the speed which Einstein said if anyone can travel with that speed, time will be totally different for him and that is exactly what muslims claim, they clearly say time was different for him within few seconds or minutes he traveled for years, similarly many things like at the day of judgment time will be (our normal 50 thousands years = only one day) similarly talking about dajals first day will be = 1 year and next day = one month and bla bla many many countless things, and the most important things that makes my heart to accept islam day by day is probagada about Islam when I start researching like 911, terrorism, islam about women, and many told me Quran was copied from bilble and from this and that when I researched those books have countless errors scientifically like bible said moon has its own light and countless wrong things, and thise all books saying clearly without even a single doubt that last prophet will come (and telling each details like address name, mothers name, father's name and everything needed) as I I say many debates between Christans scholars and Ahmad dedad I never see anyone winning with Islam, so from many years of research I am thinking of accepting Islam but I am waiting for few things and researching deeply I am Fully conveninced that everything against Islam is just probagada.

[@ATBej]

Image a robot powered by AI. Can we expect it to come into being via evolution? Or did iylt require an intelligence 🤔?

[@souljarain17]

We need to share this to all the unbelievers! God bless all❤ P.S. God created man in his image so it makes sense that when God created the animals he would use the similar traits for eyes, ears, faces, organs etc. That just shows me that there is a Creator and he is our Triune God! King of the Universe!

[@ShoestringRacer]

Mankind created all the gods in his image. An obsession with obedience and worship and control over others with threats and rewards are all sad unsophisticated human traits

[@erikt1713]

“The Origin of Species” allows us some insight into how Darwin’s mind worked. Based on that I think he would be thrilled by the advances in classification in zoology with so many new existing species described, and especially the numerous new finds of fossils beyond his wildest dreams. I think he would travel to China to look at dinosaur fossils. Given that “The Origin of Species” does not contain any speculation about the origin of life, I think Darwin would still not work in that area and leave it to others, especially people who know more chemistry. He would not be impressed by our findings about possible “abiogenis” beyond the admission that it could have been that way. Darwin fully acknowledged that he could not explain the origin of life. In a letter he pointed out that Sir Isaac Newton could not explain the origin of gravity, either.

[@ianmonk6211]

Newton believed in God and knew the law came from God. Darwin rejects God. Abiogenesis was disproves by Louis pasture I believe. Yet they refuse to accept this truth like they refuse to accept the truth of God our Creator

[@erikt1713]

@@ianmonk6211 Louis Pasteur found out many things about microorganisms, but he did not disprove abiogenesis. He only proved that when mold forms on our food that's not a case of abiogenesis as many believed at the time, but that there is something in the air that carries the life - spores as we now know. It must have happened at least once, though, billions of years ago, as earth was without life at first, but it now has life.

[@ianmonk6211]

@@erikt1713 so prove to me there was no life in earth at first? Where's your evidence? And you're wrong about Pasteur. AI Overview +15 Yes, Louis Pasteur is widely credited with definitively disproving the theory of spontaneous generation through his famous "swan-neck flask" experiment, which demonstrated that life only comes from pre-existing life and not from non-living matter.

[@amaizenblue44]

Indeed, and he'd be giddy with the genetic confirmation of his theory.

[@ianmonk6211]

@@erikt1713 actually if you Google it His swan neck flask experiment did just that . I thought I had posted this to you with a link a few days ago. I'm wondering if it got deleted. But you're wrong 100%

[@omarvazquez3355]

All glory to God

[@dougsmith6793]

I dunno. Used to be a believer. The more I learned, the more naturalism made sense. Under creationism, there's no reason whatsoever for naturalistic explanations to be successful at all -- God simply does not have to abide by naturalistic laws. But naturalistic explanations are monstrously successful, down to the highest possible degree of scientific precision / accuracy. This cannot be coincidence, but has to be God's intention. So either God is a naturalist, or naturalism itself is the creator.

[@numbersix9477]

12 seconds in and I had to comment. OF COURSE Darwin wouldn't be a "Darwinist" today. The Darwinian model of evolution was replaced by the modern synthesis three quarters of a century ago! (Given the horrendous start, I don't hold much hope for the remaining 42 minutes and 30 seconds of the video but I'll watch at least some of it.)

[@philipd8868]

The modern synthesis that does not explain anything ... look at the statistical improbability for a start.

[@numbersix9477]

​@@philipd8868 You are a statistician?

[@Jasmine-qv9gq]

Wow, Darwin was a piece of work. All for himself

[@JimWilliams-s8z]

Exactly. It's like a Neanderthal finding a space shuttle in the desert and deducing it flopped into functionality by swirling clouds of sand then trying to convince the world Such absurdity is possible while failing at every attempt to replicate the process over and over and over and over...

[@BeefT-Sq]

"Most non-fiction subjects written about in life are amenable to verification. But because verification of God is not possible, most of what is written on the subject is nothing more than sophisticated ignorance". -Vincent Bugliosi-

[@JimWilliams-s8z]

@BeefT-Sq such as believing in a magical universe where random non intent could out engineer intellect? , Such as a reality where mindless non intent could set up the strict parameters of the cosmos?, Such as a reality where thousands of individual specified functioning parts can mindlessly build themselves and unknowingly coalesce themselves into a information packed self replicating factory with a singular goal( aka life) .? Yep I agree Such zero proof illogical extrapolations are nothing but hot air. Aka meaningless noise.

[@akmurf7429]

Darwin was a philosopher. Hmm, isn't most religion, at its core, a philosophy (Budisim for instance)? So evolution is an alternative religion concocted to challenge, primarily, the Holy Bible, a historical narrative. Evolution is a religion that, requires, (not an option) death and dying BTW. Judeo-Christianiy is an exception in that it contains a historical narrative and is about a relationship with God, our creator, for eternity. Evolutionists would say religion isn't science. But they are the ones who made it that way by turning their religion into pseudo-science. Inconsistent at best!

[@blaster-zy7xx]

I always thought it was hilarious that theists attempt to insult science by calling it a “religion”. So theists must suspect their worldview is comically wrong.

[@afuzzycreature8387]

No. But you do you. Philosophy is just a point of view. Science is about testability. Religion does not care about the ability to test. I'm not even anti religion.

[@blaster-zy7xx]

Never warmed the chair of a college level biology class, hummmm?

[@akmurf7429]

Yup. I skipped the brainwashing class. I don't need a PhD to see the just-so stories make no sense. Evolution takes a far bigger miracle than intelligent creation. I was once one of you and read everything I could get my hands on, but the, how, was always missing from the stories Evo's told. just believe me. Well, that's not good enough for me.

[@akmurf7429]

Neither I nor Robert Carter are not calling science religion. We love science and would never insult it, but The theory of Evolution is not science! It is in fact an alternative story of beginnings in place of the bible and neither can be observed or repeated, This is the the definition of science (look it up). Evolution is nothing more than an alternative history of our beginnings from men who were angry with God. Science is done in the here and now and cannot prove history. The argument is about differing versions of historical accounts. In my view, evolution doesn't stand the test. We see what we want to see. I saw the observable evidence better fit the bible narrative. I don't see landforms being created today like those of the past. All the missing links are still missing from the fossil record, and how do you get a fossil, anyway. Not the way Evo's explain it. And these are just a couple of many examples. I don't think you understand the issue, no matter how well educated?

[@Steve101747]

When David looked into the nighttime sky he marveled at the majesty of God. If he could have seen into the microscopic level it would have buckled his knees.

[@numbersix9477]

Ra is indeed an awe inspiring creator.

[@HW13590]

The entire biological world is greatly complex. Charles Darwin makes it very simplified. Even the great creator of the universe is amazed to believe that Charles Darwin makes it from a primordial soup magically.

[@blaster-zy7xx]

Funny how the religious make fun of people who they belief are relying on magic for their explanations.

[@tikaanipippin]

There is a great vacuum in the universe that is not filled with virtual particles. It is filled with the minds and prejudices of self-proclaimed believers.

[@dennisferrara8395]

Life is very complex. How did life begin? What was the original creation from God? Is Evolution God’s way of creation after the spark of life? If there is a designer, what is it? Where did it come from? Is the spark of life the same on different planets?

[@globalcoupledances]

Search for the simplest form of life

[@numbersix9477]

God is very complex. How did God begin? Who was the original creator of God?

[@dr.deverylejones1306]

WOW Alex is getting smarter people now.

[@jimschlaegel8454]

Don't miss the free access to the 2009 Darwin movie they offer in the notes. It's a great movie, and worth it just to not recognize Dr. Carter... before the beard.

[@timothykeith1367]

Alfred Russell Wallace

[@Pyramidalist]

Information is somehow just usable content ... H²O is just like that ... the result is using the unique structure of it ... repeatedly ... in an unimaginable amount of parallel and in time following processes ... so the result may then somehow a stable molecule ... containing more content/information ... even this parallel and in time repeatedly ... so there starts a sequence of information ... becoming more complex. Of course this is not random and caused by laws of physic and chemistry ... the combination of molecules may be random ... but the result is following this laws. The amount of atoms/molecules and billions of years made it to humans. The law or rules of physics and chemistry ... here is a fundamental question left for science.

[@BeefT-Sq]

"It is well-known that Darwin's theory has been accepted by the scientific community as one about whichthere can no longer be any reasonable doubt. In other words, his theory has been accepted as fact by most scientists on how man evolved, and they therefore reject the notion that God created man". -Vincent Bugliosi-

[@sl-rt5kv]

Darwins's theory is not considered "fact". There are no proofs in Science. Proofs are reserved for disciplines like Mathematics or Logic. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation was considered "fact" until it was oveturned by Relativity, Relativity explains a great deal, but Einstein himself said that it too will be overturned one day. In fact, science produces models of reality that change as new evidence comes to light. Science is based on the premise that our knowledge is limited and imperfect and we must strive to increase it.

[@sl-rt5kv]

@@lepidoptera9337 The question of whether older theories were "refined" or "overturned" is a matter of semantics. The 2,000 year-old geocentric model of the solar system can still be used to predict natural phenomena such as eclipses, so in that sense it has merely been refined. If I could somehow be transported 500 hundred years in the future I would be amazed, but not completely surprised if I learned that science now concludes that it only looks like the Earth moves around the Sun when viewed in 3 dimensions, but when seen from the perspective of the 10 dimensional universe, this is not the case. I am not suggesting that this will happen, but it is conceivable and I believe likely that our view of nature will be radically different in the future.

[@numbersix9477]

​@@sl-rt5kv You're saying that the 2,000 year-old geocentric model of the solar system is an unfalsified scientific theory because, 500 years or so from now mankind possibly, maybe, might find that there was nothing wrong with it in the first place.? ... Makes perfect sense to me.

[@sl-rt5kv]

@@numbersix9477 I didn't say that at all. What I pointed out is that even though the heliocentric model provides a better explanation for observed phenomena than the geocentric one, this does not mean that the latter was wrong about everything. The same would be true if some new model surfaces in the future. You can see a similar pattern in theories of gravitation. The fact that Relativity provides a better explanation for gravity than Newtonian Physics, does not mean that the latter was wrong about everything. If some new theory emerges in the future that replaces Relativity, that won't mean that the latter was wrong about everything either.

[@numbersix9477]

@@sl-rt5kv I've never hear ANY scientist claim that a modified or falsified law or theory was "wrong about everything." You've created a straw man argument to defend an indefensible assertion. As for the heliocentric model, it was about as close to "wrong about everything" as models get. Much as you might think otherwise, there is ZERO chance that 500 years from now scientists will announce that new information has validated the heliocentric model. ... Zero!

[@sinclairj7492]

Well, his successor Dawkins still holds to the same belief.

[@Pyramidalist]

Selection IS working ... how do you think is changed from wulf to chauchau or colly ... it was man made selection ... but nature works the same.

[@Salimkeshavjee]

That took a weird turn. Yes to intelligent design, but I wouldn’t narrow it down to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism - maybe an investigation of consciousness.

[@lastchance8142]

"The heavens declare the glory of God" and the cell displays His handiwork. "The fool has said in his heart...there is no God".

[@Cory-u7h]

Darwin never said life is complicated

[@Cory-u7h]

I mean simple

[@BeefT-Sq]

"As far as reason and logic are concerned, existence exists and only existence exists". -Leonard Peikoff-

[@onceamusician5408]

to answer the question in the title of this video: it depends on the extent of his dishonesty and his determination to find an imagined scientific basis for atheism. let us not think that he would necessarily have had the integrity to admit defeat and abandon his theory when faced with the evidence we have. after all scripture makes it clear that he had no excuse for his unbelief even back then as there was SUFFICIENT information even then too many apologist types seem to assume an innate honesty on the part of everyone whereby they would indeed by persuaded by evidence

[@joecheffo5942]

Well if they is a god I certainly hope it is a deistic one. To think a being made this nightmare on purpose, or allowed it in any way, is horrifying. Why anyone would want to believe a god that loves people stands and watches children get raped, millions of times, it so disgusting and appalling there are no words for it.

[@dunstanlindsay6348]

PHENOMENAL PHENOMENAL PHENOMENAL.

[@BeefT-Sq]

"Both reason as a source of knowledge and rationality as a practical ideal are today under attack ." -Brand Blanchard- [ from Reason and Analysis ]

[@johngillatt2740]

As a geologist why couldn't he see the Flood

[@johngillatt2740]

@@richardgregory3684 where you there?

[@w12ath040211]

​@@johngillatt27409/11 were you there?

[@raf952]

Darwinian Evolution helped to fill the vacuum of knowledge. New information has refined and extended Darwin's theory, but the core principles of evolution through natural selection and common descent remain well-supported by scientific evidence.

[@ianmonk6211]

Wow you missed the whole enchilada here. They just shot holes in the theory of Evolution. And you prove God by fulfilling his prophecy of being willingly ignorant and deceived by Satan.

[@HuFlungDung2]

Evolutionists love carts. They dream of carts, can't imagine the world without carts. But they know nothing about horses. Makes it really hard to understand why there'd be such a thing as a cart.

[@spatrk6634]

yes because cart is created with a purpose. horse is not. horse evolved.

[@numbersix9477]

@@spatrk6634 GREAT reply.

[@richardpickersgill3434]

The instructions for life is within our dna or spirit. What would God do to preserve his work? He would "create a "book" to keep the faith". The instructions for life is within us.

[@ForeverBleedinGreen]

This man is far TOO respectful to Darwin. I mean it's one thing to treat the man like a good Christian should, but it's another to anoint him by showering him with praise he does not deserve. I have always given credit where credit is due - and that INCLUDES bad credit, the kind of credit only the man who knowingly murdered God deserves. Need I say more? Yes! When you can make your opposition look bad with the truth why not? Is it unChristian-like to give bad credit where bad credit is due? I will answer that with a question - do we praise our children when they lie, cheat, or steal as Darwin did? Of course not! So tell me - why do most apologetics heap so much misguided praise and respect on the man who murdered God?

[@numbersix9477]

@ForeverBleedinGreen "the man who murdered God" I must confess, I didn't know God was dead. I certainly didn't know that an 18th Century naturalist had taken Him out. I learn quite a bit from KZbin contributors. Thanks.

[@poliincredible770]

Please accept Christ, everybody!

[@AWalkOnDirt]

Should a good faith provide a hedge against misleading arguments? If it can’t change behavior to promote forthrightness then what good is religion?

[@rarajj655]

​@AWalkOnDirt if your talking about religion "saving a person ' then your lost. Religion DOES NOT SAVE. Only a "RELATIONSHIP " With Our Lord JESUS Christ will save. No religion saves or helps anyone. Religion is hypocrisy RELATIONSHIP is change. It's only a relationship with the Creator of the universe through His Son our Lord Jesus Christ, upon repentance (in order to repent you have to be humble and accept you have sinned against the Lord God). Check yourself if you have ever lied, stolen anything (pencil & pens also count), ever had a sexual relationship outside of marriage or looked at the other sex with those thoughts, those are sins. The penalty or wages for sin is death, but then comes judgment without Christ it's eternity in Darkness, and torment "where the worm dieth not". These things used to be taught when we were kids in churches but because people didn't want to hear truth anymore "pastors wouldn't get paid for giving the message of salvation ". The idea of you say a prayer and you have insurance is not in the bible it's myth. Read the Bible for yourself then try to disprove it.

[@dougsmith6793]

Biological complexity would shock Darwin? No doubt, he'd also be shocked by its simplicity -- just a few basic abundant chemicals ... carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur ... as building blocks for every kind of life.

[@mullahosk585]

Dr Carter should debate Dawkins. Dawkins needs a real opponent.

[@globalcoupledances]

Dawkins doesn't want to give a platform for creationists. I myself would ask Robert Carter why he claims 60-100 mutations per generation. I calculated that it was calculated based on human-chimp common ancestor 8 million years ago

[@mullahosk585]

@@globalcoupledances Dawkins is too afraid of debating opponents who can answer back with science

[@globalcoupledances]

@@mullahosk585 You still don't see that Dr Carter wants you to rejects science?

[@numbersix9477]

@@mullahosk585 Have you actually discussed with Richard this alleged fear of debating scientifically literate creationist interlocutors? Have you seen or heard Richard admit to being afraid of debating scientifically literate creationists?

[@mullahosk585]

@@numbersix9477 I've heard him make BS excuses to avoid real opponents. I've seen him avoid questions due to fear too. He did his best to destroy Christianity and then goes on about loving Christian things like churches and hymns. The King of the Atheists is nothing more than an immature confused nerd.

[@АлександрГодзиковский-ь1р]

God Bless you guys. God gave us the knowledgeable Worrld, science and Mind. Thank you Jesus Christ for your salvation. Amen 🙏

[@obiwankenobi2520]

“Evolution isn’t true because it doesn’t align with my feelings”

[@l.m.892]

Darwin came to a conclusion based on "science of the gaps". Our existence is a marvel according to the extent of our knowledge. The more we learn, the more wondrous God is shown to be.

[@globalcoupledances]

Not based on science of the gaps, but on observation. Our existence is the result of natural selection

[@l.m.892]

@@globalcoupledances How much are you getting paid to post propaganda?

[@globalcoupledances]

@l.m.892 - Leading people who are mislead back to the truth is making good deeds, I don't need to be payed for that

[@l.m.892]

@@globalcoupledances Propaganda is not truth by definition.

[@globalcoupledances]

@@l.m.892 This video is propaganda

[@epicofgilgamesh9964]

*The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.*** *Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.*** ***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service. *"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"* *"Sumerian Is the World's Oldest Written Language | ProLingo"* *"Sumerian Civilization: Inventing the Future - World History Encyclopedia"* ("The Sumerians were the people of southern Mesopotamia whose civilization flourished between c. 4100-1750 BCE." "Ancient Israelites and their origins date back to 1800-1200 BCE.") *"The Myth of Adapa - World History Encyclopedia"* Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her 1st lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from 8:50 to 14:30 minutes, lecture 3 from 28:30 to 41:35 minutes, lecture 4 from 0:00 up to 21:30 minutes and 24:00 up to 35:30 minutes and lecture 7 from 24:20 to 25:10 minutes. From a Biblical scholar: "Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."* *"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ In addition, look up the below articles. *"Genesis 1:1-2 --- not a creation ex nihilo"* - Dr Steven DiMattei *"Yahweh was just an ancient Canaanite god. We have been deceived! - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* *"Hammurabi - World History Encyclopedia"* (Hammurabi (r. 1792-1750 BCE) was the sixth king of the Amorite First Dynasty of Babylon best known for his famous law code which served as the model for others, *including the Mosaic Law of the Bible.)* *"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

[@TroublezAhead00]

@epicofgilgamesh9964 Well, if the Tower of Babel incident did happen, then maybe those stories are based on truth. As they split, they took truths they knew to be true and over time changed to match their own culture. It seems that a lot of cultures have similar arching themes. Kinda like how Thor, Zues, Ba'al, and Marduk use lighting as their weapons and are also sons are a higher god. If you read the Baal cycle, some of the characters described have strong similarities with Hindu and Greek gods. Perhaps instead of looking at their "myths" as solely made up and false, we may need to see that there are some truths in there that have been confused. I mean, it is named the Tower of Babel(Confusion).

[@ankyspon1701]

Great video, but giving Darwin more credit than he deserves! Darwin struggled at school, flunked college, failed medical school and theology college, he was not academic! (That's a polite way to put it!) They bundled him onto the Beagle to save the family embarrassment!

[@satisfiedatheist8762]

Can someone give me a credible explanation of geographical distribution?

[@globalcoupledances]

Like polar bears only on the North Pole but Penguins only on the South Pole?

[@numbersix9477]

God is all powerful. He could easily have picked up all of the kinds as they exited the ark and dropped them individually in regions of the world where they would thrive.

[@joelsterling3735]

Never know. If he were alive today he could have green hair, call himself a woman and be completely and hopelessly addicted to tik tok 🤷‍♂️

[@rogersacco4624]

Read Heavens On Earth by Michael Shermer especially chapter 7 "soul stuff"...If ancient minds knew this would they believe in immortal souls and resurrections to a life that never ends?

[@dodavega]

Darwin had two concerns that went against his theory: the Cambrian explosion and the evolution of the eye. To him the cell was a black box. He believe the first was a sampling issue and would evaporate with time. It has not. He believed there was not sufficient time for evolution of the mollusc, insect and chordate eye. Today we understand how complex is any cell. Darwin would not hold the same view as he did.

[@globalcoupledances]

Dawkins has a video about the eye. The Cambrian "explosion" now can be explained by the Hox gene

[@noles9998]

Don’t be surprised by Darwin’s hate for God

[@christtheonlyhope4578]

Like, support and prayers for you. God bless. 🙏

[@timothykeith1367]

So-called "simple" life would have no DNA. Is there even a conception of a "simple" cell without DNA could have been like? Before Watson and Crick how did they think of "simple" origin of life? Why would proto-life become extinct? If its not actually living as we know life, but can reproduce - the proto-cell seems unkillable to me.

[@erikt1713]

Life would quickly consume proto-life. Nowadays you cannot leave a piece of an apple outside in the sun without bacteria starting to consume it and fungi settling on it. In the primordial ocean, more complex molecules would have had a far greater chance to stay complex as they were not gobbled up by something. There is a general tendency of decay, but by far not as fierce as our current micro-organisms make it.

[@rarajj655]

​@@erikt1713how do you know this? Is their proof of what the environment was like before? Or is this "theory "? It would seem to me "science should be repeatable, evidence based " if those are not met then everything else should be considered "theory " period.

[@erikt1713]

@@rarajj655 I know some from experience some by definition. Experience shows me a strong tendency of decay, but looking closer it's most often life that does it, like spores and bacteria. Before there was life this did not apply, by definition.

[@w12ath040211]

Life that doesn't possess DNA DOES exist. And life that doesn't possess RNA DOES exist. And one of them IS pretty difficult to kill. So there you go.

[@w12ath040211]

Now THE one that you're talking about. Who knows? I'm not sure why you think It would be invincible. And you just chastised this other guy for making a guess so now I'm doing the same to you. That's just a "THEORY" because you don't have a repeatable.....bla bla bla.

[@MrLogo73]

Creationism's claim is, that everything was created. Then this appeal to complexity makes no sense, because it proposes 'complex therefore created'. But you already claimed, that everything was created, not only complex items. Unless you think, each and every thing is complex, which would make you a confused person. First, think your argument through before turning it into a youtube video.

[@DepletedUrbranium]

You need the contrast between canvas and painting even though you create both. Proteins are just nanorobotic machines. It's the holy grail of SETI, just here at home.

[@MrLogo73]

@@DepletedUrbranium When you claim, that simple things are also created, then your line of argumentation, that creation follows from being complex is not an argument.

[@DepletedUrbranium]

@@MrLogo73 That's not my argument. I disagree with his method. I've talked to him at length and so I know he could have easily espoused his position more clearly, but he just depended on his audience being more intellectual than critical. You can't see what he's talking about unless you learn how these proteins interact with each other, epistatically and pleiotropically, along with their mechanical nature. In this case, it's mostly not your fault, it's his fault, because of what he knows but failed to communicate. Most of his other interviews are better, but this one he messed up because he expected too much intelligence from his audience. I've talked to him at length about his knowledge on this topic, and he did not represent it well here because he expected lay people to understand that protein networks are highly integrated but he kept using the word "complex". Your objection is well founded, and I believe he will do better in the future. It's the mechanical nature of these basic protein structures that provides the evidence he's talking about, and he did not articulate that as well as he should have.

[@globalcoupledances]

@DepletedUrbranium - If you have the opportunity to meet Robert Carter again then ask him why he made the mistake with his claim that every generation has 60-100 mutations? I have calculated that he knows that is a calculation of human-chimp common ancestry

[@w12ath040211]

What part of this interview does pleiotropy or epistsis apply?

[@JohnSmith-gy4qj]

Did Darwin even have a microscope??????

[@globalcoupledances]

Microscope was invented in the 17th century

[@richardpickersgill3434]

G at es has worked it out

[@BeefT-Sq]

"A mystic is a man who treats his feelings as tools of cognition." -Nathaniel Branden-

[@markpelham168]

anybody believing random selection process need to read up on irreducible complexity. Throwing more time at it doesn't work.

[@numbersix9477]

I'd like to read some of the peer reviewed scientific papers supporting the scientific theory "irreducible complexity." Can you direct me to some of them.

[@robertmcclintock8701]

(;;) Artifacts of a swastika is flobby with stazzle and a jumble that tumbled. That is a skeleton, human heart, signature, internal combustion engine, animation of the big bang and a wave. That unify the universe you can't do with math. A swastika is the simplest rendering possible for those artifacts and needs to be saved. ( ´-ω-)

[@psychologicalprojectionist]

"Invented in a vacuum of knowledge" He literally collected evidence for decades from all over the world travelled all over the world and collaborated with whomever he could. Do you know what is a vacuum of knowledge? A belief system which excludes all evidence that is not contained in ancient book of dubious sources and editing.

[@edwardjackson9791]

The theory of evolution would have been abandoned 100 years ago if not for the cross of Jesus Christ.

[@edwardjackson9791]

@@graemeross6970 sure. Evolutionary theory has so many difficulties and major issues that it can’t be logically defended without more faith than I could possibly muster. The main reason that it has continued to today is the alternative is to believe in a creator. If a creator is required then you are responsible to that creator. The God of the Bible gave us the history of the creation but also the only way to salvation in Jesus Christ. So man does not want to believe that so he can be god in himself. Evolutionary theory gives him that false belief that he is not accountable to the God of the Bible and the cross is linchpin to that. Evolutionary theory from the beginning is to try to reject the Bible, which is also to reject God, and in particular the saving work of Jesus Christ. An example is the flat earth theory. There are people that still hold on to that but we know by the evidence it is not a viable theory. The difference is there is no alternative reason to believe in a flat earth. No religious reason. Whereas the Theory of Evolution is a religion and that is why it will not die no matter what evidence is found to disprove it.

[@rickdelatour5355]

Not sure who told you this but evolutionary science has made great strides in recent years. It is the best supported theory in science. What seems to be failing is the notion of divine or supernatural creation. Everything we have come to understand has been a result of natural forces that we can explain in great detail. Not once have we found a divine or supernatural cause for anything, ever. These facts would seem to make materialism the logical default for the things we don’t yet understand until some evidence for an act of divine creation is found. Got any? Further, coming to better understand nature has nothing to do with rejecting a god we don’t believe in and everything about being curious about the universe we live in.

[@edwardjackson9791]

@@rickdelatour5355 Romans 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. All true observable classical science will point to God. The made up historical, unverifiable theories of the religion of scientism is exactly what Paul explained 2000 years ago. If you read the rest of Romans 1 you will see that the consequences predicted are exactly the consequences we see in society today. Your comments are to be expected for those who deny God. This is pretty good for a 2000-year-old prophecy.

[@edwardjackson9791]

Romans 1: 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. All true observable science will point to God. The made up historical unverifiable theories of the religion of scientism is exactly what Paul explained 2000 years ago. If you read the rest of Romans 1 you will see that the consequences predicted are exactly the consequences we see in society today. Your comments are to be expected for those who deny God. This is pretty good for a 2000-year-old prophecy.

[@rickdelatour5355]

@@edwardjackson9791 you forgot to answer my question. Is that a tacit admission that you understand that you really don’t have any evidence for your god? Nor did you respond to my point that denying your god has nothing to do with the advancements of science. Almost as if you didn’t read my post at all. Not listening to another point of view would explain a lot about how you seem unaware of what is going on in biological science. “Life is a banquet and most poor suckers are starving.” A. Mame

[@Cory-u7h]

I mean simple

[@K-lINE-76]

God 🙏👍

[@ShoestringRacer]

Yes !! Praise Zeus ❤🙏

[@BeefT-Sq]

"Even a hypothesis has to have some factual basis , some factual evidence indicating that it might be true. " -Nathaniel Branden-

[@Cory-u7h]

I mean simple.

[@inquisitive_stranger]

You poor, poor creatures.... It's 2024, yet you continue to try to prove, and ultimately fail, to prove that there is a god...

[@sbgtrading]

I was an atheist for my first 27-yrs...then God proved himself to me. Make no mistake, God is real! And he loves you and is willing to pay for your many crimes and moral failures!

[@inquisitive_stranger]

@@sbgtrading I have done no crimes nor have any moral failures.... That's something that is taught in the bible to keep sheep in line... You can say that anything is real.... I.e. Easter Bunny, Santa, Tooth Fairy, yet, if you provide no evidence, then it's just in your imagination... 2024 and yet no solid proof of a god exists....

[@VisshanVis]

@@sbgtrading Make no mistake, God is real! If god is as real as you claim, prove it by getting it to re-grow the limbs of amputees.

[@sbgtrading]

@@VisshanVis I provide no proof, and I provide very little evidence. I'm merely telling you what I've discovered. I believe God has proven enough of his existence so that all people might come to the truth. If you want proof of God, then you must come to him on his terms. You are a rebel against him, and you will lose your rebellion. So the best thing for you to do is surrender, come to him on his terms, and then he will give you all the proof you need!

[@VisshanVis]

@@sbgtrading I provide no proof, and I provide very little evidence. I'm merely telling you what I've discovered So what you're really saying is, I can't provide any proof because there is no proof and because I don't want to admit that I just going to go on the defensive and try and bullshit my way of the situation.

[@robertmcclintock8701]

(　・３・) We need to popularize the idea of getting God married. Getting God married is a good use of someone's time. You are supposed to make the environment intelligent so no God is needed. We fixed the video and audio for the best experience possible. Cameras are supernatural and all of them captured 3D that not a gimmick. The audio loud don't make violence so has depth. Nobody has to buy anything for it to work.

[@LandaverdeJR]

Transubstantiation is the Greatest Miracle: Bread and Wine turns to Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ the Son of God. John 6,52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

[@BillMurrey]

I have to voice my objection to the film the voyage that shook the world, first the narration is so faint you can hardly hear it and secondly it starts out talking about how good a "scientist" Darwin was which is baloney. It goes right against what this clip says about him. He was NO scientist and to have some evolutionist on there 'singing his praises' when he was a little boy...bullcrap. A lot of people believed he was mentally ill and he was agoraphobic. He knew nothing about life and was not a 'very inquisitive and inventive youth', check out all the schools he flunked out of. I don't know if I'll finish watching this junk or not.

[@dianeglover479]

So we wonder why Darwin came up with his ideas. Lots he didn't know. But what about someone like Dawkins who knows all this stuff. How can he think what he thinks?

[@DepletedUrbranium]

He doesn't. He bluffed predicting phylogenies of gene trees and got that largely wrong. He guessed the retina was wired backwards but didn't understand the function of choroid and Mueller cells or the requirements of the system. He thinks fitness landscapes have gradual slopes of ever increasing fitness and peaks are easily traversable and was proven wrong. His "methinks it is like a weasel" program shows he doesn't understand epistatic and pleiotropic interactions in genes. If he thinks he can improve even one of the 20,000 genes or the 100,000 spliced proteins from them, then let's see him get to it.

[@globalcoupledances]

Best idea from Dawkins is the "Meme". Religions are memes. Religions are evidence that evolution is true

[@numbersix9477]

@@DepletedUrbranium It's nice to have a scientist on board. What is your specialty?

[@robertmcclintock8701]

(*T^T) Natural selection is the character flaw in evil that is integrity is more important than life otherwise evolution is tragic circumstances with nothing intelligent happening. Almost everyone survive until they reproduce. Nothing is getting selected except for the character flaw in evil. I found a replacement for the character flaw in evil that I liked but God makes me forget things that will cause me trouble.