If Evolution is Real, Nothing Matters

[@bigbill10]

"I consider myself to be educated enough" proceeds to use the watchmaker analogy

[@Virtualblueart]

Imho Considering yourself educated enough just means you aren't, since you still don't realise there is always more to learn.

[@ziploc2000]

Another dollar in the Dunning-Kruger collection tin. NOBODY who is educated think they can now stop learning new things.

[@Reno_Slim]

I support whatever efforts he makes to be in "the bosom of the lord"...ASAP.

[@hopmajibhohepeajibho7595]

But it fits his argument perfectly. He's not denying evolution, he's questioning abiogenesis

[@yellowbacon69]

@@hopmajibhohepeajibho7595by using an completely faulty analogy.

[@obsleet]

I really don't get the perspective of religious people that say "If there's no afterlife why not just die?". It's the most mental gymnastics I ever see them attempt.

[@mczeljk]

It would make more sense to ask: If there’s an afterlife why not just die?

[@Koz6336]

"If my life isn't the super most fantastical special thing in the entire universe that will last forever, then it's not worth having." Hands down the most humble statement I've ever heard...

[@patriceriksson7924]

I truly TRULY feel sorry for the kids beeing taught by this caller/teacher.

[@yourguard4]

In principle, this guy is asking: "Why is it important to understand, how the world works?"

[@FightFilms]

Sounds like he is questioning whether evolution is real, so your question, which outright assumes he believes in evolution, is just a strawman. But basic logic is black magic to evolutionists. One has to reject basic logic to believe the fairy tale.

[@yourguard4]

@@FightFilms No, I'm not assuming, that he believes in evolution. I'm fully aware, what his position is. He asked "why is it important to accept the truth of evolution?". Which is a already a weird question. First, science never says "this is the truth!". It is just, was the evidence is supporting/suggesting. A reasonable question would have been something like "What is supporting the theory of evolution?". Second, it doesn't make much sense to ask for "importance". Knowledge is knowledge and science doesn't care, if it is important or useful to you. Reality is what it is. All of our understanding is based on "reasoning". Like the theory of evolution. So, in principal, he is questioning "reasoning" (and so logic and causality) in general. He could have also asked: ""why is it important to accept the truth of gravity (or sunlight)?"

[@brandonEAgnew2002]

@@FightFilmsgo back to Sunday school reality ejecting creationist

[@peterwyetzner5276]

@@FightFilms Is there an obvious and quantifiable distinction between the ways that biologists apply logic to their work, and the ways that scientists in other fields do?

[@joevaghn457]

@@FightFilmsThere’s no such thing as an evolutionist, for the same reason there’s no such thing as a gravity-ist or a special relativity-ist.

[@marknelson4615]

The caller claims to teach math, but clearly does not understand statistics or probability. He then explains that he teaches in a private setting with a ‘private’ license. I would hate to have my children in that ‘school.’

[@SleepyMatt-zzz]

Probably a home school tutor/teacher.

[@johns1625]

He thinks evolution is a single cell pops into existence on accident and then survives alone for billions of years before popping into a fish. No shot he's anything but teaching his younger siblings at home 😂😂

[@kylenmaple4668]

Dude is really be like: why haven’t humans discovered all secrets of the Universe yet? We’ve had computers for like 4 decades already!!! 😂😂😂

[@BigJon550]

I'm 34 I was around before the internet was invented. We are still too young of a race still When war and religious wars end, we would advance a hell of a lot imo

[@AdamHedley-v2e]

7 decades

[@TypicalEveningPictures]

Expert in cameras. A 70mm film camera with or without a zoom has more fidelity than the human eye. So we've had that for a while lmao.

[@TypicalEveningPictures]

Also these people are so blown away by the idea that alot of things have to happen for life to occur as if an unfathomable amount of things don't happen every second. They have a complete and utter lack of the scale of events and time. Also to the statistical argument, how are the odds that we exist unfathomable but the odds of the existence of a being with insurmountably more power than us is fathomable?

[@zachrichardson5581]

​@@TypicalEveningPicturesTHANK YOU! They accept the most difficult thing to possibly believe (supernatural magic sky God) without any evidence or second thought, then just can't wrap their head around things that we actually do have at least some evidence for. Do they not see the ridiculousness in that way of thinking? I mean it's just fucking mind boggling.

[@douglasboylan3477]

Not to mention fps, I could be wrong, but the human eye sees around 20 fps. And we obviously have cameras that go waaaaaaay above that lol

[@Andy_Babb]

“I feel like it’s logical”… THAT’S a statement

[@dhavzr23]

the 'probability' argument that these people use is so silly. you could apply that to literally any event that has ever occurred because 'there's too many things that need to happen' for anything. we just happen to exist and understand our world at this time.

[@ChickenHunter08]

Agreed. I also point to: if there’s a 0.00000000000….00001% chance, but there are billions of planets and billions of years then we have had billions upon billions of “dice rolls/flips of the coins”. So statistically we have had enough chances for it to be plausible.

[@lemongavine]

The billions of years is the clincher for me. It’s hard to grasp, but a lot can happen in that ridiculous amount of time.

[@wontdie_]

@@ChickenHunter08also survivor bias

[@bokoura]

I'd also love to know how he calculated the probability for a god's existence, and for that god to have magically poofed everything into existence.

[@Exquailibur]

I mean if the planet has to be a certain way for life to exist then the only way we can exist to know it is if it happens no matter how rare, if something can happen it will eventually happen given enough time no matter how rare. Something with a low probability and evidence is more likely then something with an unknown probability and zero evidence, at least I think so. Honestly the people who say bigfoot is real are more convincing then religious people to me because at its hypothetically possible within the known laws of physics for a hairy and nonhuman hominin to inhabit the woods of Canada, my uncle is 90% there.

[@iSkulk]

The puddle analogy totally destroys any fine tuning logic. If a puddle were to exclaim that the hole it fills is too perfectly shaped, too perfectly sized, too perfectly level to just be a coincidence, you would explain to the puddle that water just flows to the lowest point. The puddle might ask how the water could ever know how to do that, and you'd have to explain gravity and fluid dynamics. The puddle might ask why the phenomena we label gravity exists or works in the ways we observe... In the end the ultimate explanation is that even an uncaused cause, unmoved mover could still be questioned. All good questions, all with answers we may never find, and however uncomfortable that makes you has no bearing on whether or not it's true.

[@bgiv2010]

Complexity is not a hallmark of design. Elegance is. You're spot on.

[@830toAwesome]

I'd say simplicity, not elegance.

[@Detson404]

@@830toAwesomeI think we’re using elegance here to mean “as simple as possible while still performing the task” not “aesthetically appealing.”

[@Ktmfan450]

The desire to fist pump the air when this guy said he only teaches privately was immense

[@Slum0vsky]

Poor theist dodged so badly when you hit him with that 'shortcut to Paradise' thing xD

[@MultiMattRogers]

Fun fact, inorganic compounds have been seen to form amino acids (which are the building blocks of RNA and DNA) in a lab. The origin of life from inorganic compounds being struck by lightning is completely plausible.

[@OceanusHelios]

What theists are completely unaware of when they are scientifically illiterate: Clay, simple clay can act as a catalyst for the joining of nucleic acids as well as proteins. We weren't made of mud as their story goes. We were made ON mud, as our story goes.

[@ianchisholm5756]

I like the way the guest suddenly starts interacting with the Chat whenever he's asked a tricky question.

[@uncleanunicorn4571]

Look out ladies, Your bad choice to eat a fruit might somehow trigger an extinction event for an entire geologic epoch.😂

[@obsleet]

Also, the chance thing. How many chances were there in 4.5 billion years do you think? Every generation? Every year? Minute? Second? Nano second?

[@SabracadabrO]

“This hole fits me perfectly!miracle!”-puddle..Douglas Adams,Our Lord & Saviour(besides the Vogons)👾

[@jamistardust5181]

There is life on Earth whiched evolved so the probability is 100%

[@QuixEnd]

Yeah you always have to go for their most fundamental axiom, otherwise they'll pick and choose when logic or science is okay and when it isn't. It's super hard to nail down any single point when they sidestep everything

[@yourguard4]

The atmosphere of a planet is not directly proportional to its mass. For example, Venus has about the same mass as earth, but like 90 times the amount of atmosphere (even without a magnetic field).

[@deveryday1]

We actually have reproduced the formation of organic compounds and nucleotides in the lab. We've also created new forms of life in the lab. Professor Dave talked about it in a few of his vids.

[@IkarusKommt]

That is bullshit though.

[@jim7831]

@@IkarusKommt good argument there

[@E.J.Crunkleton]

​@@IkarusKommt Naw science works.

[@leerass]

Modern cameras are way better than our eyes

[@OceanusHelios]

Short term, yes. Long term they have planned obsolescence and aren't even designed to work for more than a decade. You can see people fixing the cameras but this sky daddy doesn't seem to ever show up to fix a f*ng thing. It's almost like people using their brains are required.

[@Salamander_falls]

Right. And they always forget how much of visible light we can’t see. If we were designed, why wouldn’t we see more visible spectrum of light? More light perceived means more information, better survival against threats. But we see a limited amount of light and me make use of it. But many animals see more colors than we do, can see infrared, or have keener vision. If God loved eagles and snakes enough to give them better eyesight, why not his “favorite” creation?

[@VC-id1ho]

I had to comeback and watch this again! lol 😂 😂 I lost it when Planet said "That's just what people with wieners do man"

[@planetpeterson2824]

Time stamp?

[@VC-id1ho]

@@planetpeterson2824 @5:26 and its wangs not wieners. lol

[@EricusXIV]

5:25

[@bsmith8166]

Complexity isn't an indication of design. Simplicity is. Things that are elegant and simple, are the ones most likely to be designed. A mountain, for example is not designed. It's obvious that it isn't because its a chaotic mess of rocks and trees and other organic matter. Something like a watch is simple and elegant though. Each piece serves a function that the larger thing needs in order to function as intended. Mountians don't really have intent. Simplicity is a better indication of design.

[@wbalvanz]

12:20 "have we ever reproduced a God in a lab?"

[@Imrightyourewrong1]

Is it ok if I take my goalpost and walk around the entire field? Also how is it logical to think living organisms are to complex and then posit something even more complex as the explanation?

[@uncleanunicorn4571]

More parsimonious to argue because life on earth is finite and needs a beginning; That is why an infinite creator cannot exist.

[@ashlastname-bb4jg]

"you keep saying *insert strawman* but anyway we can move on" - the entire conversation

[@catpoke9557]

Yes, organic things HAVE come from inorganic things. We find them in asteroids. Sugars and such.

[@ziploc2000]

Why is it important to believe true things and not believe false things? Marie Curie was not religious. Something the caller apparently didn't know, because they've given up on learning new things.

[@timandmonica]

This brought up a question for me. The person you're interviewing is talking about how something being not infinite cannot have any meaning. I wonder if he was given a thousand years instead of a hundred, would he say that it was more meaningful? What if he could live for a million years then die? Would it be even more meaningful? What if he could live a trillion years and then die? Would the trillion years be meaningless? What about 10,000 trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years and then you die? Does it have to be eternal or it doesn't count? When I hear people like this talk I want to ask, "Was the moment your child was born meaningless to you because that moment ended, never to be out again?" Religion truly makes it impossible to comprehend reality. That's its power, it's magic. I can't tell you how amazing it feels to be free of it after 40 years! It's like the unbreakable Kimmy Schmitt, where in the first season there are several different scenes of when she was rescued from the end times preacher who had her kept underground and told her the world was destroyed. What she found instead was a beautiful blue sky, soft green grass, and a whole bunch of people welcoming her into the world.

[@jordanmoran916]

Every creationist doesn't understand how vast/unfathomably large the universe is. If something is unlikely in an infinite universe will happen eventually.

[@Virtualblueart]

I love Douglas Asams quite on the subject: Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.

[@elijahrichardson2129]

lovin the shave👍

[@project_nihilist]

9:10 water isn’t an element it’s a molecule that’s made up of elements. 15:44 if we made life in a lab they would just move the goal post and say it’s artificial.

[@David34981]

Caller: "let's talk about evolution. What about the goldilocks principle?".... These guys really don't know the first thing of what they are talking about.

[@AlexPBenton]

“Well you’re taking about organic coming from inorganic, has that ever happened since?” Yes. That’s the Miller Urey experiment.

[@charliecoley2423]

Wow, this is just painful to listen to Willful ignorance

[@jonahprescott8378]

Surprisingly good and productive conversation

[@midnight3630]

If we continued to make bad choices then how is that not bad design? If we were made to be able to do bad things without proper education and knowledge about everything then how could we know we’re making “bad” decisions? Wouldn’t that be a flawed creation?

[@desmond_craddock_5226]

The statistical likelihood for us to evolve as we did is 100%. Because here we are. You can't looks at things that have happened and say they are unlikely to have happened. Because they happened. You can say "If I was back there and asked to predict the likelihood it would have seemed unlikely." But once a thing has happened then it was 100% going to happen. you just didn't know.

[@uncleanunicorn4571]

Like predicting the suits of any particular hand in a deck of cards. Any order of cards is Statistically unlikely, But whatever hand you draw has a probability of a hundred percent.

[@porkramen]

And this clown says he teaches statistics

[@FECtetra1918]

Exactly!!!

[@timandmonica]

This guy's been reading his William Dembski! Also, it would be very helpful if he could see his own special pleading. I don't think he's able to yet. It would be interesting for him to do an assignment on it. He would have to listen to the entire interview after having a 60 minute class about all the ins and outs of special pleading. Then he'd have to write a paper pointing out any examples of that in the talk.

[@AlexPBenton]

“The strongest ones get what they want so why should we care about this life?” Are you the strongest? Do you care about your life?

[@corringhamdepot4434]

Sad to see what binging Apologetics can do to mess up an apparently intelligent person. Surely the maximum definition of the eye is limited to the physical size of the cones. "They are typically 40-50 microns long, and their diameter varies from 0.5 to 4.0 microns, being smallest and most tightly packed at the center of the eye at the fovea".

[@AlexPBenton]

So apparently living for 10,000 years without a creator tinkering with us has inverted our retinas. Fascinating.

[@n8smith390]

Dunkleosteus has to be one of the raddest names for a creature I have ever heard 😂

[@scottbroadfoot3530]

Why does his bible explain nothing about living things or the planets. But he uses the sceince and math he has learned to argue against it. He doesn't even see the hypocrisy. Imagine the poor kids he is teaching.

[@KinKnives]

Survival of the fittest is not about strength , it's about how fit and adapt you are to your environment

[@Davidlee37101]

If behaving in a good way is hinged on the existence of heaven then you are not a good person, you are a bad person on a leash.

[@mczeljk]

„Bad person on a leash“. Thank you for this analogy!

[@Virtualblueart]

As soon as there is one form of life on a planet it stands to reason it would be very hard for another to develop. Life changes things and conditions just by being there. At the very least one of them would outcompete the others over time.

[@isaacbruner65]

A great example of this is the Oxygen Holocaust. One form of life developed a new type of photosynthesis that produced molecular oxygen as a byproduct. Eventually, this substantially altered the makeup of the atmosphere, devastating other forms of life. To anoxygenic photosynthetic organisms that rely on hydrogen sulfide as a reactant instead of water, oxygenated environments are toxic. In a demonstration of the resilience of life, however, such bacteria have still endured to the present day and can often be found in anoxic environments like hot springs. Basically, the reason that organisms that rely on hydrogen sulfide can't survive in environments with oxygen is because oxygen binds with hydrogen to form water more easily than sulfur does with hydrogen to form hydrogen sulfide, so there is simply not enough hydrogen sulfide available in such an environment.

[@misha3872]

It's so funny to me how they say "you don't understand how it happened thus god must've made it" while also saying "I don't understand how God made so that's evidence for God making it"

[@deeterful]

It’s not important to “believe” in evolution. It’s important to accept that which is fact. Knowing what is true about the nature of reality helps us navigate it better. Ultimately nothing matters except what we want to matter.

[@bobmudge4836]

And if intelligent life exists elsewhere, it likely believes it’s in the Goldilocks zone, too.

[@SteveLaw-UK]

It depends how intelligent it is.

[@madara211000]

The guest's points are just arguments from ignorance and incredulity. He doesn't have any actual points to make, just "this thing statistically is not likely therefore it's impossible to happen" is incredulous.

[@ryanmorris5923]

Don't we have planets that we can observe with the same basic color spread as earth? Isn't it likely that at least one of those planets is covered in plants and oceans much like earth? There's a large amount of planets that can sustain life and in my opinion, if it's a big green/blue ball JUST LIKE earth, to me that says planta

[@darkerrorcode]

We have no idea what the colour of exoplanets are

[@ryanmorris5923]

​@@darkerrorcodein 2013 they first identified the color of an exoplanet by measuring the light reflecting off its surface, so that's not true

[@ipercalisse579]

Yep

[@darkerrorcode]

@@ryanmorris5923 Could I have the source for that?

[@Mxxx-ii9bu]

The wiki on Exoplanets cites a paper in an edition of The Astrophysical Journal from 2013 which describes an exoplanet as having a deep blue color.

[@danielklopp7007]

Creationist seem to think that "random mutations" also means "random selection" (e.g. @23:35 "evolution is theoretically possible if someone was steering it"). The combination of random mutations AND natural selection is what makes evolution work.

[@peterwyetzner5276]

There's a lot of talk about "the creator" or "creators", but what about producers or even distributors? What is there to compare to the processes used by humans or other animals to make and employ things?

[@PlatonsArm]

I wouldn’t say it was an argument from ignorance as much as it was an argument from incredulity?

[@bgiv2010]

The caller is right... humans need to stop making choices. Then things will be perfect, again.

[@happilyeggs4627]

Talking of abiogenesis is based on a dataset of one for our type of planet.. As far as we know life occurs everywhere based on it’s 100% success rate here.

[@Exquailibur]

This dude brings up the goldilocks principle as if its not the fact things have to be hospitable for life for life to exist, its the equivalent of a puddle claiming the pothole it sin was "specially created" for it

[@thoracis]

Something about that guest’s voice was really posing me off…

[@misterchef511]

It matters because it's temprary

[@odinson6348]

Entire volumes have been written on why this caller is both wrong and irrational. I have nothing to add to that archive. He's still wrong and irrational.

[@IceWing2002]

On the subject of Abiogenesis, scientists have in fact managed to synthesize self-replicating ribozymes. The study is called: A self-replicating ligase ribozyme by: Natasha Paul and Gerald F. Joyce I'm not sure how link sharing works on youtube, but i can provide a link to the paper as well as many others around this subject.

[@pound4pound380]

Was that ribosome through natural causes meaning that experiment had no human intervention what so ever meaning they simply put molecules in a dish and observe this happen under suggested natural causes?

[@pound4pound380]

Is this what you read about self-replicating ligase ribosome? The R3C ligase ribozyme was redesigned so that it would ligate two substrates to generate an exact copy of itself, which then would behave in a similar manner. This self-replicating system depends on the catalytic nature of the RNA for the generation of copies. The key word in that experiment was "redesigned". So humans redesign it to do that. Sir that human intervention. Do you atheist ever read and understand these experiments at all? When we see these molecules do things on their on then you can repost

[@IceWing2002]

@@pound4pound380 How is that a problem? Every experiment has human intervention. Or do you want the experiments to be done in already occupied biomes?

[@David34981]

@@pound4pound380 You're changing the goalpost. Like all science deniers tend to do

[@pound4pound380]

@IceWing2002 if any experiment is conducted in away where human manipulation is involved that experiment is invalid. The only experiment that counts is doing it outside in nature. Put the molecules in a dish exposed to the whatever natural known to earth and let it do what they claim it did 4 billions of years ago. No pre existing material from a living source is valid. DNA, ribosomes, RNA, proteins have to form on it's own.

[@kwood55]

Caller: i speak slowly and over enunciate, therefore I’m intellectually superior. While talking pure BS.

[@mrcolbyii181]

guest argument sounds very incredulous.

[@johnr3882]

Did he say he is a teacher? That would be deeply worrying.

[@ruseriousdownunder4888]

The guy is hilarious … gets reminded of a blindspot, then says it’s good design to make stuff up you can’t see!

[@unnamedchannels]

This is painful..

[@Andy_Babb]

Goldilocks principle? Obviously it’s “don’t eat other people’s food when it’s clearly not meant for you.” It’s _beary_ rude.

[@ruseriousdownunder4888]

All you need is an energy gradient for things to start happening.

[@myworld_football5778]

Not "IF" it is true. And everything matters. We make our own reason for living, purpose is what we set for ourselves.

[@TitenSxull]

This is sad to me because I was in much the same place as this person at one point in my life. When you are raised to deny evolution and biology there are these built in walls, psychological defenses your mind puts up to not have to give evolution a fair shake or actually understand it. One of the final barriers to come down for me was this idea of admitting human beings are animals and aren't specially created. There is such a desperation to cling to the afterlife and the idea of a greater purpose when you are taught that your whole life. The mental gymnastics are amazing but it feels like this person is actually close to a breakthrough and is reaching. Now if they actually stop and learn the actual science it might get through. The statistics thing is dumb. What are the odds your parents met? What are the odds the exact sperm and egg that made you met to make you? Now what are the odds your four grandparents met? And your eight great grandparents? If you view your existence as one event needing all these exact things of course it sounds impossible BUT each individual event is itself not even improbable let alone impossible. You can't view it in this zoomed out way as if it assumes intentionality, as if you were the intended goal.

[@corringhamdepot4434]

The perfection of Creation is the proof of a Creator. A perfect Creator with an apparent failure rate of 99.9999999999999999999...... . Doh!

[@foolishlyludicrous]

"If you put the pieces of a watch in a box and shake it up, you'll never get a watch. " Yes, but if you put a bunch of strong bar magnets in a box and shake it up...

[@baty7467]

Well if you think about the infinite chimp analogy if you have a chimp enough time be it infinite right with a typewriter, eventually the chimp mathematically would end up writing the entire collection of plays written by Shakespeare, be it millions or billions by chance… so in theory a collection of parts of a watch with enough/ infinite time would construct itself into what we know as a watch

[@lemongavine]

@@baty7467 💯

[@chriscasperson5927]

Put two watches in a box and no matter how long you wait, you will only have two watches. Put a male and female rabbit in a box (with enough food to sustain them) you will soon have a box full of rabbits. If you leave them in the box long enough, they will evolve to better survive in the conditions of the box.

[@foolishlyludicrous]

@@chriscasperson5927 Also, you're an asshole for locking up bunnies. 😝

[@capitalb5889]

New to the channel so a comment to help. 😊

[@incomingincoming1133]

This is the type of guy who would ask you why you would start building a cathedral that you won't live long enough to see the end construction. He can't understand the value in just contributing to human knowledge. The concept of sacrificing for the good of other ppl, is so completely alien and unknown to the caller, that he could not come up with a reason on his own.

[@nateswan9527]

All we are is dust in the wind

[@sonny8456]

A teacher that forms arguments from incredulity…..shun this man

[@Its419games]

But there aren't "a ton of things that have to be exactly right" for life. There are a lot of things that have to be "within this to that range" for life.

[@AlexPBenton]

For *this particular type* of life

[@dross4207]

“Have you ever dissected a human?” My lawyer strongly advises against me answering that question!!

[@samuelburleigh1895]

Not believing in Evolution doesn't make it go away .

[@GerardSharkey]

You were way more polite than I would have been by not telling him he is dumb. The watch analogy was painful.

[@otterpop5551]

Science is our way of discovering and describing(or effecting) that which can be measured by our technological capabilities or ability to interpret Y’all stay blessed

[@peterwyetzner5276]

If phenomena described in the Bible like the Flood may be incorporated into our scientific understanding, then why rely on scientific investigation at all? Or if it's the science that's the foundation, then why should we add even the smallest detail from the Bible to that understanding? Why not just leave the Bible out of it entirely?

[@forestgiest1380]

4:32 *cough* "what?"

[@towerofpower7462]

A system coming to gether to make the eyes work is certainly not good design! having the eyes not have Blind spots and not needing to have sections filled in would be a way better design!

[@davids11131113]

A whole lot of ‘How is it the water was perfectly made to conform to the boundaries of this hole’ is all he’s really saying.

[@Josh17656]

"hi, I'm personally incredulous to evolution and life on earth without creation...... So..... I win right?"

[@ManosphereTV]

A lot of fine tuning argument in that one. I would have made the point that a lot of particular individuals had to have met and mated over many generations for him to have been born. Calculate the "odds" of that.

[@thychozwart2451]

Roughly one in 100 billion if you count from the start of Genus Homo. Or two in 100 billion I guess. That's how many humans have lived so far.

[@niaralosusa]

I’ve watched a number of these types of videos and I think the theists’ confusion comes from not understanding extremely long time periods. It seems to me they think the beginnings of life on earth, and also evolution, happened quickly and not over a very long time.

[@weirdwilliam8500]

If life can only exist in small natural environments that are suitable for it, that’s evidence against a creator with life as its main goal.

[@BigJon550]

He needs to understand (The guest) humans or modern man are only around 200 thousand years old. We are extremely a young race. When we reach 500 to a million years old, then we would have figured out out.

[@MaximusSilentium]

"are you aware whatt a statistical probability is" out of all the grains of sand on earth whats the probability when you pick up 1 grain of sand out of quintilions. its only you now focusing on it that makes it special. life is special because we focus on it 100%. you always gget more of what you focus on, good or bad

[@jeshuamathis9013]

If there is another life than I want two 😊

[@VulcanLogic]

"No cameras as good as the eye" Whose eye? Because I use my camera to take pictures of package ingredients, menu items, and prescription pills when I forget my glasses.

[@rogantu]

So if this life being the only one makes nothing matter, then in the Christian view nothing matters since there is nothing after Heaven. Why are religious arguments always the best at debunking religion?

[@teefkay2]

How about “allegiance to the truth”?

[@tysongalloway5700]

Arguing about the improbability of something that has already occurred is beyond futile.

[@chethanburre6016]

I like how Christians talk about the improbability of events occurring on every level. But for their God, they just assume and hand wave the probabilities. "Oh yeah, there's no probability issue for my specific version of God, in my specific version of religion, where my God has specific powers to create life."