Still NO Fossils? (Basics of Intelligent Design Biology, Episode 2)

Are there transitional forms and Precambrian fossils which reveal the evolution of the diverse animal phyla that appear in the Cambrian explosion? The history of paleontology shows the answer is no! As paleontologists have learned more about the fossil and geological record, the challenge of the Cambrian explosion to Darwinian theory has only increased.
This video is part of "Basics of Intelligent Design Biology," a video series reviewing scientific problems with the Darwinian (and neo-Darwinian) evolution of animal life. The first four episodes (season 1) will review the basics of the Cambrian explosion and failed evolutionary attempts to explain it using Precambrian fossils, punctuated equilibrium, and the tree of life.
This series is a partnership between Discovery Institute and Lukas Ruegger, creator of the Deflate KZbin Channel ( / deflate2020 , which has lots of great content dealing with science-faith questions and intelligent design.
For more information on the Cambrian explosion and problems with Darwinian explanations for the origin of animals, be sure to also check out the Darwin’s Doubt website and book darwinsdoubt.com/.
============================
The Discovery Science News Channel is the official KZbin channel of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture. The CSC is the institutional hub for scientists, educators, and inquiring minds who think that nature supplies compelling evidence of intelligent design. The CSC supports research, sponsors educational programs, defends free speech, and produce articles, books, and multimedia content. For more information visit www.discovery.org/id/
www.evolutionnews.org/
www.intelligentdesign.org/
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter:
Twitter: @discoverycsc
Facebook: / discoverycsc
Visit other KZbin channels connected to the Center for Science & Culture
Discovery Institute: / discoveryinstitute
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer: / drstephenmeyer
The Magician's Twin - CS Lewis & Evolution: / cslewisweb
Darwin's Heretic - Alfred Russel Wallace: / alfredrwallaceid

[@eswn1816]

"A heavy load of optimism..." That summarizes evolution nicely!

[@jt2097]

Yes, evolutionists must 'believe' in the unseen and unproven. It takes a lot of faith to believe that a therapod grew feathers and learned to fly.

[@bobbart4198]

@@jt2097 It ALSO takes Fossils to believe that stuff - Which HAVE been found ... Also fossils that show skin texture and even traces of specific pigments, such as Melanin that hint at the animals coloration. ALL of this stuff is readily available on the Internet, or - Heaven Forbid - Books ! ... KZbin is NOT the final answer, it's mostly just entertainment.

[@Eisenbison]

You conveniently omitted the transitional fossils, genetic markers, and phylogeny, all of which support evolution exclusively and in brilliant detail.

[@richarddullum2373]

I love this series. Discovery Science succeeds in rational argument. Watching it work here.

[@andrewthomas2353]

Thank you for sharing this with us. Keep up the good work ☺️

[@jamessheffield4173]

Evolutionists have faith despite the facts.

[@chanseyinthehood8415]

They believe in a world were evolution would be taught in every school, but yet refuse to see that it won't.

[@jt2097]

You are correct. Evolutionists must deny science to continue in their "belief"

[@1970Phoenix]

No they don't. You do realise that most Christians accept evolution, INCLUDING THOUSANDS OF CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS, and most people who reject evolution aren't Christians.

[@SuperLeonti]

Thank you! Waiting for next videos.

[@halit2967]

Good work!

[@smithkarine9678]

brilliant young man,thank you for that brilliant video.

[@MrDJHouse]

Thank you

[@jwonderfulsuccess]

Interesting 🙏

[@kenhansew7892]

Well done, sir! Please carry on!

[@ralphgoreham3516]

retired Manager, Henry Gee , former manager of the London Zoo : "The fossil record as asserted by evolutionists may be interesting to some but is NOT SCIENCE, but may serve well as a bedtime story. " At the same time he claims to be an evolutionist.

[@ZolaniZweni]

Cambrian explosion The unparalleled emergence of organisms between 541 million and approximately 530 million years ago at the beginning of the Cambrian Period. The event was characterized by the appearance of many of the major phyla (between 20 and 35) that make up modern animal life. Many other phyla also evolved during this time, the great majority of which became extinct during the following 50 to 100 million years. Ironically, many of the most successful modern phyla (including the chordates, which encompass all vertebrates) are rare elements in Cambrian assemblages; phyla that include the arthropods and sponges contained the most numerically dominant taxa (taxonomic groups) during the Cambrian, and those were the taxa that became extinct. The beginning of the Cambrian Period is marked by the evolution of hard body parts such as calcium carbonate shells. These body parts fossilize more easily than soft tissues, and thus the fossil record becomes much more complete after their appearance. Many lineages of animals independently evolved hard parts at about the same time. The reasons for this are still debated, but a leading theory is that the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere had finally reached levels that allowed large, complex animals to exist. Oxygen levels may also have facilitated the metabolic processes that produce collagen, a protein building block that is the basis for hard structures in the body.

[@ZolaniZweni]

Evolutionary Update Cambrian sediments found in Canada, Greenland, and China have yielded rarely fossilized soft-bodied creatures such as marine worms buried during undersea mud avalanches. Representing the oldest known backboned animals with living relatives, the fossils showed that our vertebrate ancestors entered the evolutionary story some 50 million years earlier than previously thought. The end of the Cambrian saw a series of mass extinctions during which many shell-dwelling brachiopods and other animals went extinct. The trilobites also suffered heavy losses.

[@nathan2friendly887]

Awesome stuff!

[@seaknightvirchow8131]

Evolution is always evolving with billions and billions of just so stories.

[@tabletalk33]

Yes, and it's probably the worst fairy tale ever told.

[@jimborowy8160]

Praise God! This is a beautiful video!

[@semsbicanealtntop5305]

thank you for this great video.

[@bombgardener3118]

Great Job! I'm continually amazed by how the "scientists", can ignore the science that's even obvious to the common man . . . From our staggeringly intricate Biology, (which becomes more so the more we learn), even to the precisely geared machinery operating the flagella on a lowly, one celled creature! But what really cracks me up?

[@mitchellkent1815]

Stop getting your science from creationist.

[@siim605]

What's the punchline? Your comment just ends without a point

[@Andrew-pp2ql]

“I’m continuing amazed how the scientists can ignore the science that’s obvious to the common man”…fortunately….we don’t rely on that which is so ‘obvious’ to the common man….consider it was obvious to the common man that the sun rotates around the earth? Those stupid scientists….they tell us the earth goes around the sun. Or maybe….those scientists actually do follow the scientific evidence?

[@techstuf4637]

You shouldn't be. Amazed, that is. Fear is a powerful paralytic agent. Atheists, at least on a subconcious level, are attempting to hurt God's feelings by denying His existence.

[@TrevoltIV]

@@techstuf4637 Some atheists are, but others are simply living in delusion because to admit the obvious fact that God exists is to admit that you are held accountable for your wickedness, and that you are wicked in the first place. You see, atheists are generally self righteous, in other words they think they are not evil. I was like that for quite a while and only after I realized I was evil did God finally show me the evidence for His existence. It still took a while before I really became convinced, but that just goes to show that no amount of reason or logic will convince an atheist, it truly is a heart problem, although I would've laughed at that finding years ago, which I now realize just proves my point even more so.

[@ellipticalequinox6869]

it will be interesting to see if Discovery institute will further expand into cosmology.

[@KenJackson_US]

DI's work is evidence based. What specific evidence would they report?

[@eniszita7353]

@@MustaphaRashiduddin-zx7rn refutation is useless - you have to have evidence for your theory. missing data proves nothing except that you don't have the data.

[@rvcamping863]

@@eniszita7353 Cosmology is like the fossil record. Not exactly but similar. The stars and galaxies are basically set like a fossil is. The narratives that evolutionists use to describe life are filled with data-lacking words. Words and phrases like "life probably resembled", " could have emerged", "researchers believe", "it seems likely", "presumably around" are examples of these. Evolution research is filled with similar kinds of words and statements. Is cosmology research doing the same thing? I think it is. Take string theory for example. There is no experimental evidence backing it up. But we are being asked to just believe it. The same thing is true for the multi-verse.

[@ellipticalequinox6869]

@@KenJackson_US the whole point of Discovery institute is the show the deceitfulness and corruption prompted by the scientific "community". there are many incorrect theories in modern-day cosmology, that most people assume fact. for example 1: how a star is formed 2: how galactic structures are formed 3: how our own solar system formed 4: the myth of planetary migration 5: the fundamental constants of our universe the fundamental constants in our universe are typically played down and ignored. scientists/cosmologist make it sound simple and easy. of course that's the general aspect. the only people I've seen reference or talk about the fundamental constants are Steven Meyer and Jay Richards. Discovery institute's been on the trend of biology. I was just stating it would be interesting to see if Discovery institute will further expand into cosmology.

[@ellipticalequinox6869]

@@KenJackson_US of course, it most likely won't happen.

[@kfgabriele9852]

Wow! Very well done. 👍 I’m now a new subscriber to the Deflate channel.

[@stephenboshoff8316]

Excellent. More of this please

[@l.m.892]

Excellent information packed presentation. I was pleasantly surprised while watching this. The KZbin filter must have been working well that day.

[@Ghest735]

Thanks you🎉

[@msvvero]

Very informative

[@dongately2817]

So, the fossil record is incomplete and not every stage of life has gone thru the process of fossilization. This is amazing! I’m sure the scientific community will completely throw out the theory of evolution and accept intelligent design 😂😂😂😂😂 This is sophistry plain and simple.

[@xjarheadjohnson]

Even the Catholic Church is discarding much of its own myth, in favor of well-researched understanding & real-world observations. *Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God is not 'a magician with a magic wand'* _"Speaking at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pope made comments which...put an end to the “pseudo theories” of creationism and intelligent design..."_ SOURCE: INDEPENDENT, Adam Withnall Tuesday 28 October 2014 10:43 GMT The Pontifical Academy of Sciences is a scientific academy of the Vatican City, established in 1936 by Pope Pius XI, approx 1,000-years after the scientific method was established. This academy was established because the Church was continually being embarrassed by skill & speed at which the scientific community was understanding the real, physical world around us. The Church believed, with their own scientific academy, it could get ahead-of & be able to contradict, the scientific community.....or at the very least, to establish their own team in order to verify scientific discoveries\understanding, as well as the practices & protocols of the scientific method, itself. Since then, I am not aware that they have ever done anything, but confirm the discoveries of the scientific community & verify the integrity of its methods. ....Because that is all the scientific method simply is: well-researched & verified understandings, based on real-world observations,

[@jounisuninen]

"So, the fossil record is incomplete and not every stage of life has gone thru the process of fossilization. " - In fact there was nothing to get fossilized. Evolutionists are known for their lively imagination which they use to fill the gaps.

[@yodaheabebe3756]

For me, I have major doubts on the very methods we use to measure the age of the earth, fossils and universe... The Cambrian explosion makes more sense as a result of fossilization as a result of a giant flood. The Cambrian explosion is really a mass grave of fossilization.

[@BeYeSeparate]

Thank you friend, Blessings! (Isa. 56)

[@J10098]

"Is preceded by a biological "Pow" "...I couldn't help but laugh! Great video!

[@DivineRevelationsSpiritlessons]

There's no missing link, there's no missing chain, there's an entire missing web in the fissile record!

[@jonathanh1506]

That is just a strait-up lie. Yeah, there's no "missing link," because we have lots of transitional fossils. They're not "missing," they're in the possession of museums around the world. So there's no "missing link" for the opposite reason you're saying.

[@mitchellkent1815]

Stop getting your science from creationist. - Dryopithecus lived 12.5 - 11.1mya, not 15 - 20mya. - Ramapithecus has been found to actually be classified under Dryopithecus. - Sahelanthropus lived 7 million years ago, not Ramapithecus. - Ardipithecus was fully bipedal and had much shorter arms, like humans. - Then Australopithecus africanus. - Australopithecus robustus has been found to actually be part of its own genus: Paranthropus, which is not a part of our ancestry. - Australopithecus boisei (technically Paranthropus boisei) is not part of our ancestry. - Homo habilis still had some fur, but very little amounts. - Homo ergaster. - Homo Erectus a sister species that descended from Homo ergaster. - Homo antecessor. - Homo heidelbergensis. - Homo rhodesiensis.

[@davidmonroe4780]

"Fissile" means easily split.

[@TheCosmicGuy0111]

Crazy how wrong someone can be yet be so confident

[@jounisuninen]

@@mitchellkent1815 Where's a proof for genetic kinship?

[@jkinze]

Thank you, and team for all the hard work!

[@cindyweatherly4501]

Thank you ❤

[@joeashbubemma]

In China, you can question Darwinism, you just can't question the government. In America, you can question the government, you just can't question evolution. Which country is more committed to true science?

[@lynnjohnson2371]

Neither. False dichotomy. Both mindsets are far-left intolerant standards. One difference is the Chi Coms will torture and murder you, the intolerant leftists in the west just cancel you. I suppose they would also murder you if they could, since all leftists are full of murderous rage, but in the west we have a dangerous and disgusting idea: God given rights cannot be alienated by government. Many own AR15s and can do a Ukrainian style push back. You actually see that intolerance quite a bit in science. When I read Ghost Hunters: William James and the search for scientific proof of life after death (title is approximate) I was shocked at the intolerance of James' contemporaries. Opponents of ID are full of that same rage. I've tried to dialog with them, and it is alarming how vitriolic they become. It is easier to dialog between Baptists and Catholics, they both try to adhere to higher Christian standards.

[@jonathanh1506]

That's wrong. You're allowed to question it all you want. The fact that those who claim to "question" it aren't questioning it at all, but just lying about it, and people point out that they're lying, doesn't mean people aren't allowed to question it.

[@shaunmcinnis566]

Well put.

[@LocoGeorge123]

@@lynnjohnson2371 you’re projecting your own rage, there are very few far left people in the US and the majority of people here are center left. China isn’t even communist, the Chinese Communist Party runs the country but their system of government is basically identical to Fascism, which is far right fundamentalist nationalism. They also have a capitalist economic system. Communism is a moneyless, classless, private propertyless society, which China is not anything anywhere close to that. You also put random topics together to make your post grievances against “leftists,” so there was really no questioning of any concept in evolution despite saying that you’re not “allowed” to ask questions. Creationism is fake science, it’s been debunked for a very, very, VERY long time, and it’s easy to find the information on why it’s fake.

[@shanecreamer6889]

@@LocoGeorge123 - The point that the OP was trying to make is that it is well known that if any member of academic faculty tries to openly claim skepticism about neo-darwinism their funding is cut off, they are censured, and they are terminated and ridiculed by their colleagues. That is what he meant by you cannot question Darwinism. Even if you are an Athiest who believes in Panspermia instead of Darwinism as the reason life is present on Earth. To shut down any useful debate upon threat of losing one's job and career is as Orwellian as you can get..

[@les2997]

"It is prima facie highly implausible that life as we know it is the result of a sequence of physical accidents together with the mechanism of natural selection. We are supposed to abandon this naïve response, not in favor of a fully worked out physical/chemical explanation but in favor of an alternative that is really a schema for explanation, supported by some examples. What is lacking, to my knowledge, is a credible argument that the story has a nonnegligible probability of being true.” --- Thomas Nagel (atheist)

[@GreatBehoover]

And yet...the evidence is OVERWHELMING...DNA CODE CAN'T SELF-CREATE AND SELF-ASSEMBLE INTO CELLS. TWO CHROMOSOMES CAN'T COMBINE AUTOMAGICALLY TO FIRM A NEW SPECIES....CAN'T....CAN'T...CAN'T. Yet despite the evidence...silly atheists BELIEVE we are the product of time plus chance plus matter. DNA CODE is the MOST SOPHISTICATED and COMPLEX and VOLUMINOUS CODE ever assembled....and they IGNORE this because it makes them butt-hurt!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 HYPOCRISY MUCH????

[@nunyabisnass1141]

And?

[@GoldsmithsStats]

Are there transitional forms? In many cases there are, and more are being discovered each year. That is the difficulty with the 'absence of evidence is evidence of absence' argument: it can be refuted by new fossils at any time.

[@Golfinthefamily]

First off, it depends on how you determine what is transitional or not. Not one fossil is indisputably linked to other fossils in a line. It is something that is presupposed and injected into the data. It isn't observable or testable. It is all storytelling. The proposed best case is Whale evolution and there are so many problems with that one alone it should cause people to pause. Genetics and "homology" often contradict itself and even the secular timelines for the variety of animals (packicetus) overlap and don't allow enough time. If we zoom out, think critically and use our intuitions it is pretty clear that the main narrative is a creation myth.

[@tabletalk33]

For God's sake, what animal has millions of years to undergo "transitional forms" on the scale of macro evolution??? Such forms would quickly incapacitate the animal, rendering it incapable of surviving! You are talking about radical changes in body plan, locomotion, diet, and survival strategies. In short, a totally new mode of existence. At the first sign of a radical genetic transformation, you have a dead animal!

[@shipwright6122]

My man Lucas gonna be a young earther soon. Do 🦖 🦕 soft tissue next. 🙏🏼✝️

[@JungleJargon]

Evolution is ludicrous.

[@keithallver2450]

Intelligent Design doesn't disprove Darwinian Evolution it just shows that it only produces variations within species and groups.

[@psychedelicearth1239]

It is ludicrous isn’t it, that life may differentiate and choose which attributes to push and which to retract and that the “Will to Power” Nietzche spoke of is the very same process. Randomness is only a tiny part of it, all order is ordained and specific, it has to be. It is supervised by biological architects and Body plans must be extremely specific for them to work, whereas it doesn’t take much energy for wind to blow or planets to collide. This is why Entropy in the universe is increasing towards chaos, yet order must struggle and therefor have sentience and so that is seemingly what we are. The sentient order, increasing in magnitudes of order towards a balance. I think the full knowledge of it is currently beyond our capabilities.

[@davidhawley1132]

@@psychedelicearth1239 There may be some deep "magic" that guides evolution, but explaining that would appear to be even more difficult.

[@GreatBehoover]

@Psychedelic earth . What a load of garbage...Nietzsche...the madmanin a scientific discussion???? Seriously??? You silly NONTHINKERS spout so much NONSENSE that has ZERO to do with observational evidence. Randomness is EVIDENCE of no God or creator... But THAT FANTASY ISN'T ACTUALLY OBSERVED!!! FUNCTIONAL CODE...SPECIFIC ORDER was NEVER EXPECTED to be discovered in Nietzsche's make-believe naturalistic world!!!🤣🤣🤣🤣🙄🙄🙄🙄

[@digitaal_boog]

It’s still true though

[@taylorthetunafish5737]

Even if you could disprove evolution it would not mean intelligent design is real.

[@badfender223]

Superb presentation. Thank You for posting.

[@echo2302]

Since it is evident that species come from somewhere, like birds or mammals haven't existed 200M yrs ago and they do now, do you claim (think) that god "put" them on Earth whenever he(she,it?) felt like it?

[@norbertjendruschj9121]

Sure, just imagine how boring live must have been for God, having to wait 13.8 billion years for the legendary enactment as his own son.

[@urbandesitv3529]

@@norbertjendruschj9121 God is outside time you dolt. Your 13.8 bilion years doesnt exist for him. It might as well be 13.8 seconds.

[@jenniferjones1470]

Fantastic ☺☺☺☺🌈🌈

[@user-yi1hc1jc8p]

No fossils?? 🥺

[@davidmessulam]

👍🏼

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Jerry Coyne would like a word

[@rydrakeesperanza5370]

6:51 if it's a possible precursor than it does not need the shell; that shell then might be an apomorphy of true molluscs. Or maybe animals after kimberella (?) developed it. Furthermore, I've read that a CaCO3 shell was a more passive development, coming with the rise of certain molecules/ions. I don't know which time that was or when kimberella lived, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility that it might be an ancestor or somehow related

[@GreatBehoover]

Assuming your way through the hard parts isn't science...it's FAITH.

[@adriani9432]

That is what science does, we rely on hypotheses as a temporary explanation before new evidence is found (so far no evidence has yet been found due to the extremly fragmentary nature of the fossil record). Only once the evidence is found do we revise the theory accordingly. Science does not claim to know things we have no evidence of yet.

[@michaelcgrasso1986]

@@adriani9432 brain washing. That’s what the indoctrination did of the school system

[@GreatBehoover]

@@adriani9432 No...BIASED SCIENTISTS PRESS ON BY FAITH...skeptical scientists realize when a bad hypothesis is upended!

[@turbobrain1342]

I find no references to "Nature's Glasswork".

[@xjarheadjohnson]

Because it is made up... Even the Catholic Church is discarding much of its own myth, in favor of well-researched understanding & real-world observations. *Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God is not 'a magician with a magic wand'* _"Speaking at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pope made comments which...put an end to the “pseudo theories” of creationism and intelligent design..."_ SOURCE: INDEPENDENT, Adam Withnall Tuesday 28 October 2014 10:43 GMT The Pontifical Academy of Sciences is a scientific academy of the Vatican City, established in 1936 by Pope Pius XI, approx 1,000-years after the scientific method was established. This academy was established because the Church was continually being embarrassed by skill & speed at which the scientific community was understanding the real, physical world around us. The Church believed, with their own scientific academy, it could get ahead-of & be able to contradict, the scientific community.....or at the very least, to establish their own team in order to verify scientific discoveries\understanding, as well as the practices & protocols of the scientific method, itself. Since then, I am not aware that they have ever done anything, but confirm the discoveries of the scientific community & verify the integrity of its methods. ....Because that is all the scientific method simply is: well-researched & verified understandings, based on real-world observations,

[@BradSchmor]

The basis of your reasoning is incorrect in two ways. 1. No picture would ever be considered complete enough to satisfy you. Let's suppose we know of 5 species which are considered to be linear in ancestry. Label them 1-2-3-4-5. You ask - why don't we see anything between 1 and 2? Then one day we discover a new one between 1 and 2. We don't consider it to be 1.5. We consider it to be the new #2. So now it's 1-2-3-4-5-6. You ask - why don't we see anything between 1 and 2? There is no number of new or intermediate species that will make you stop asking this question. When I was a child, the number of known human ancestral species before the last common ancestor with other modern apes was I believe 6. Now it is many more, and no doubt more are coming. But you keep asking the question. 2. The expectation that speciation is some sort of defined point. The lines between closely related species is blurry sometimes, and species change over time without actually becoming new species. You seem to want it both ways - to find an infinite number of intermediates to show a perfect, unbroken chain of evolution, but at the same time are expecting one species to suddenly just begin giving birth to another. It doesn't work that way.

[@lorikauffman8414]

Was the piltdown man one of the ' common ancestors ' known about when you was a child?... Have you really investigated the accuracy of the ' scientific ' reporting of ' common ancestors' ?

[@Joshua-dc1bs]

​@@lorikauffman8414 Certain dinosaur fossils have also been hoaxes; but that doesn't falsify their existence.

[@kylemoore7746]

I'm surprised they haven't taken down your comment, lol

[@saintsone7877]

Really? You answered your own question in point 1 and failed to realise it. You mentioned 5 species considered to be linear in ancestry and labelled them 1-5. Then you say you found a new species and rather than label it 1.5 it got labelled the new 2 and now you have 1-6. What is wrong with that? You have 6 different species and have labelled them as so. He is talking about species 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 etc until 2 comes along. You simply assumed the new one between 1 and 2 was a relative of 1 and not a completely new species. Same with your analogy about 6 known human ancestral species when you were a child. You do know virtually all alleged human ancestral species have been re-categorised as primate variations not ancestral human species. Every so-called missing link found in last 30 or so years were basically proven not to be what was originally claimed. Your second point again does little to further evolution. Species do not change over time without becoming new species. They change colours etc due to environmental issues etc but are the same species. That is NOT evolution but adaptation. They are NOT related but completely different things. Species change is when a dove over time becomes a hawk not a darker shade of grey in colour but a new species. If it were due to evolution you would have examples in the fossil records showing the changes to the doves anatomical body etc which resemble that of a hawk and a progression. NONE of that exists in fossil records. You have a fossil of a finch with a small beak and another of a finch with a longer beak. In the place you found these fossils you see finches with short beaks and finches with longer beaks. They are both the same species(finches). No new species of bird evolved from the short nosed beak or vice versa.

[@throckmortensnivel2850]

Apparently you haven't got the memo yet. Answers in Genesis, in order to shoehorn the expansion of life forms since the biblical flood, are now claiming that evolution happens very quickly. As far as intelligent design, I have a question. Human males, and the males of all primates species, and even many non-primate mammalian species, have mammary glands and nipples. Using the theory of intelligent design, explain why that is.

[@jeffphelps1355]

So it's rational to question evolution.

[@siim605]

Specific details? Sure. The fundamental principles? Not really. That debate is over, and has been for over a century.

[@TaxEvasi0n]

@@siim605 The fundamentals being the weak evolutionary processes to cause change, being mutation and natural selection. They of course do present change, but they are nowhere near as strong as something like phenotypic plasticity, which is an active course for change, prewritten, or laying dormant in the organisms DNA ready for environmental exposure. Phenotypes are known to be responsible or speciation, but have no evidence of creating different class/order.

[@5BBassist4Christ]

If multicellular organisms first popped up at the beginning of the Ediacaran Explosion, then couldn't that mark the spark of a great explosion? Going from one cell to multiple cells is probably evolution's biggest leap of all, but once we've got multicellular organisms, then it's like opening Pandora's Box. We saw how technology blew up suddenly after the invention of the calculator, or electricity after the invention of the lightbulb. It just takes that one spark to kick-start a sudden explosion of development, and the beginning of multicellularism sounds like the perfect candidate to trigger that spark. P.S. I'm actually not an evolutionist, but I try to be reasonable with evidence. I am undecided about my views on evolution, but if what I suggest here is a valid explanation, then it is worth considering in a defense for evolution.

[@PrincipeCaspianX]

I find funny that you gave an example of designed objetcs like tecnology to illustrate your case.

[@saintsone7877]

Interesting concept but it actually flies in the face of evolution. Those supporting evolution say it is difficult to prove as changes are so slight yet so numerous they take thousands if not millions or even more years to happen. Under your analogy there should be visible evolution occurring everywhere that we would easily see. Also interesting that you used maths to explain a blood, bones, tissue etc event.

[@urbandesitv3529]

"then couldn't that mark the spark of a great explosion? magic?

[@fightswithspirits915]

I'm a sponge.

[@yeshua64]

Finally. An actual scientist. Oh wait...

[@MarkNOTW]

appeal to credentials

[@ericbreaux6124]

Scientists did the research that he's telling people about. Moot point.

[@inspiredme7030]

The more you dig, the closer to the Creator

[@anarchorepublican5954]

..won't it be ironic ...when religious eyes turn out to be more open than atheist eyes ...

[@norbertjendruschj9121]

And exactly what kind of religious astigmatism you have in mind? Hindu, pagan, Christian, .....

[@frankdn109]

OK, do you have an alternative explanation? I've watched many videos refuting Darwin (& Wallace, although he is rarely mentioned), but none offering an alternative (and presumably bible-based) one.

[@laosi4278]

The alternative is intelligent design, I think it's already obvious that all who refuting evolution are supporting intelligent design theory

[@chattycorvid2004]

Information theory is an interesting part of intelligent design philosophy rn, because it has nothing to do with the Bible or any other religions, it separates the idea of a creative force being as a mind from all previous ideas of 'God', meaning it doesn't need to turn to theology for answers, just science and philosophy. The idea is simply that everything causing darwinism problems points to there being predefined information imbedded in life - DNA a particularly clear example - and the only thing that can process information is either an intellegent, or at least reasoning mind, or a product of a mind like a computer. No name, form or ideology is placed on that theorised mind, it's not about religion, it's meant to just be an observation about the nature of information and how that might change the way inherent information is viewed.

[@naphtaliliverpool882]

Their beliefs lie in what we don't know YET!

[@GreatBehoover]

First, you must remove the FALSE RELIGION of evolution from being plausible. THEN, it allows the person to accept FACTS.

[@GreatBehoover]

@Naphtali Liverpool We KNOW DNA CODE CAN'T SELF-CREATE and SELF-ASSEMBLE into cells. We KNOW that two Chromosomes CAN'T AUTOMAGICALLY COMBINE to form a new species....NEVER EVER BEEN OBSERVED TO BE POSSIBLE...LET ALONE HAPPEN!!! All experiments fail on this ...ALL...yet they want to BELIEVE it happened accidentally???🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@bombgardener3118]

Whenever they encounter an obvious impossibility, it's MOTHER NATURE! If I was the Designer/ Creator, I would be pretty offended/ Pissed . . . ,

[@Geert305]

“I have children”

[@peskyfervid6515]

Despite the comments, the fossil record is huge and growing. It is also supplemented by many other branches of evolutionary theory. But let's look at 'intelligent design'. It is true that some 99% of organisms that have inhabited earth are extinct. That means the 'intelligent' designer failed 99% of the time. You could call a failure rate of 99% many things, but 'intelligent' wouldn't be one of them.

[@PrincipeCaspianX]

I could say the same of the models of cars that have been designed since the automobile era started, It´s irrelevant to the facts debated here.

[@TheCosmicGuy0111]

@@PrincipeCaspianX well then what you’re saying is your creator is able to fail? But I though god is supposed to be perfection? So what on is it is the creator infallible or able to fail?

[@ericbreaux6124]

That's assuming the designer doesn't have a reason for allowing them to die. There's still no evidence that things assemble themselves by accident and gradually develop parts needed to function and still work.

[@Robinhim2002]

And what exactly is the empirical impact of those organisms not existing ? I suppose you are intelligent...however what or whom created you was not....pure genius?!

[@toddprintz7660]

So Pesky gives another example of someone posting an uninformed opinion with zero empirical data to support it. The typical atheist ploy.

[@LM-jz9vh]

"When we say…Jesus Christ…was produced without sexual union, and was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, ***we propound nothing new or different*** *from what you believe regarding those whom you call Sons of God. [In fact]…if anybody objects that [Jesus] was crucified, this is in* ***common*** *with the sons of Zeus (as you call them) who suffered, as previously listed [he listed Dionysus, Hercules, and Asclepius].* Since their fatal sufferings are all narrated as not similar but different, so his unique passion should not seem to be any worse." *Note how Justin (Martyr) is less of a fool than modern Christian apologists. He admits that differences don’t matter.* Since each and every one of the suffering and dying gods are slain by different means, one cannot argue the mytheme requires exactly the same means of death. “But Osiris can’t have inspired the Jesus myth because Osiris wasn’t nailed to a cross” is a stupid argument. The mytheme is simply death. Being killed. Suffering and dying. The exact mode of death can vary freely. It makes no difference to the existence and influence of the mytheme. It’s simply the particular instantiation of a generic abstraction. *And Justin’s argument (that Satan invented these fake religions to confuse people) entails Justin agreed the mytheme existed: indeed, it was demonically promulgated, multiple times. Intentionally.* *Likewise, Justin notices the mytheme is not virgin birth, but sexless conception. Of which many examples had already been popularized in pagan mythology (there just happens to also have been examples of actual virgin born gods as well). And by his argument (that the Devil was deliberately emulating the Jesus mytheme, in advance), Justin clearly accepted the same principle for “rising again” after death:* the particular exact metaphysics of the resurrection could, like the exact method of death or conception, vary freely. The mytheme consists solely of the abstraction: returning to life. Somehow. Some way. We will say bodily, at the very least. But what sort of body (the same one, a new one, a mortal one, an immortal one), didn’t matter. *If it had, Justin would have made the argument that “those gods” weren’t really resurrected. But that argument, never occurs to him. Nor did it to any other apologist of the first three centuries.* *Ancient Christians well knew there was nothing new about their dying-and-rising god. Not in respect to the mytheme.* Their claims were solely that his particular instantiation of it was better, and the only one that actually happened. *They didn’t make up the stupid modern arguments that dying-and-rising god myths didn’t exist or weren’t part of a common mytheme everyone knew about. For example, in the same century, Tertullian, in Prescription against Heretics 40, makes exactly the same argument as Justin. Funny that. They had better access to the evidence than we do. They knew what was really and widely the case. We should listen to them.* Google *"Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ Google *"Ehrman Errs: Yes, Bart, There Were Dying & Rising Gods - atheologica"* Watch *"Dying & Rising Gods: A Response to William Lane Craig"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica. Google *"The First Easters: Death and Resurrection Before Christ | atheologica"* Google *"The Christs Before Christ: Tammuz-Adonis | atheologica"* Watch *"Asclepius: The Pre-Christian Healer & Savior"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica Google *"Virgin Birth: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier"* Google *"5 Pagan Parallels to Jesus That Actually Aren’t Bullshit - Atheomedy"* Google *"Christian Apologetics: The Art of Deceit - Atheomedy"* Google *"Isaiah 53 & the Suffering Servant | atheologica"* Google *"Defending the Resurrection: It’s Easy if You Lie! - Atheomedy"* Google *"Rising Gods, Pagan Parallels, and Cultural Context: A Response to M. David Litwa | atheologica"* Google *"An Evidence Attested Resurrection? - chromosome two"* Google *"The Empty Tomb: A Rhetorical Dead End - atheologica"* Google *"Majority of Scholars agree: The Gospels were not written by Eyewitnesses - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* A good site written by an actual Biblical scholar. Google *"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"* Google *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"* Also: Google *"How Did The Gospel Writers Know? - The Doston Jones Blog"* Google *"Yes, the Four Gospels Were Originally Anonymous: Part 1 - The Doston Jones Blog"* Google *"Are Stories in the Bible Influenced by Popular Greco-Roman Literature? - The Doston Jones Blog"* Google *"Gospels Not Written By Matthew, Mark, Luke or John - The Church Of Truth"*

[@samuellowekey9271]

It doesn't really explain the sudden appearance of all those new phyla though, does it?

[@jonathanh1506]

No, the fossil record doesn't show completely new forms showing up without any predecessor. It shows many developments that show a gradual transition from earlier forms to more derived forms. The entire video is based on a bold-faced lie. Of course, all these transitional fossils are just icing on the cake. The pattern of homologous anatomy and homologous genes fitting a tree of life shows beyond a reasonable doubt that Evolution is true even if we didn't have a single fossil.

[@danreich4320]

Evolution is absurd.

[@siim605]

@Atheist Deprogramming Explain what a "fish fossil" is. There is no such taxon as a "fish" in biology.

[@MrWeezer55]

Evolution is a fact get over it.

[@khoundoker]

HOw come?

[@MrWeezer55]

@@khoundoker Because it's more pragmatic to accept facts instead of going through life in denial.

[@lorikauffman8414]

Please describe how the first reproducing cell was made.

[@norbertjendruschj9121]

@@lorikauffman8414 Buy a biology book and read for yourself.

[@mr.richardryan7506]

Exactly

[@AWalkOnDirt]

A few points: a random guy on KZbin doesn’t have the knowledge and expertise to overcome any scientific consensus. The video is akin to a flat earth video. Evolution is well supported that the fossil record could be set aside and evolution would still stand above all in explanatory power. The common locations of ERV insertions only make sense with evolution and opposing theories have absolutely no explanation for the shared locations of the inserts. As we sequence and compare DNA of species these insertion trials will only strengthen and not weaken evolution.

[@junacebedo888]

Darwin evolution is NOT science because it is not falsifiable

[@marknieuweboer8099]

@@junacebedo888 It is. Find me a cat fossil that's 80 million years old and voila.

[@edjackson4986]

The evolution is tried to say that a four Legged creature made its way back into the waters and eventually after time mutation and natural selection lost its legs grew fins and a blow hole into a giant whale there’s absolutely no proof of this whatsoever they are just living a pipe dream

[@ericbreaux6124]

Scientists did the research that he read about, doc.

[@GreatBehoover]

I love hearing silly evolutionists try to defend this OBVIOUS ruination of their FAITH!!!

[@siim605]

It comes across as a very desperate and transparent piece of psychological projection to pretend that the EES (extended evolutionary synthesis), an evidence-based model, is a "faith", while you imply yours is not. I would say "good try", but it just seem like such a last ditch attempt kind of move.

[@TheCosmicGuy0111]

Other way around bud

[@saintsone7877]

@@TheCosmicGuy0111 Ok Kevin, please supply one observable, repeatable or measurable test that anyone can do themselves that proves evolution exists and is real and not just theory. That is the scientific method Kevin and if you cannot produce one or more you have no facts just theories.

[@PJToxophilus]

This is patently untrue

[@huntertony56]

Why

[@regvanwegen8416]

Just one example. Forget fossils. There are trillions of organisms currently living on the earth. Plus many more trillions from when Darwin lived to now. We have millions of scientists and even more people with cameras. All I want is one organism that is evolving into a new species. Just one please.

[@chanseyinthehood8415]

Given that *we* choose what is a species or what's not, i could just talk about semantic, but i wont. I've got 2 exemples (there's lot but i will present 2) : -London's subway mosquitoes. When it was build, back in 1830s, there were only mosquitoes living in the city. But as time went on, a population started to settle in, and now they form a distinct species in the sense that they can't reproduce anymore with other mosquitoes that live 5 meter up in the city. -Pod mrcaru's lizards. Scientist put about 20 lizards of the Podarcis siculus species on an island named Pod mrcaru near Croatia. Because of some politcal conflict or something like that they couldn't get there for about 40 years. When scientists came back, lizards' morphology had drastically changed : they were eating mostly plants, their jaw was different, they got a new part in their digestive tube, called a caecal valve, and they formed a symbiosis with wormd to help them digest plant. But i don't know if they were named as a new specie, but i don't think so. We just refer to them as "Pod mrcaru lizard".

[@individual1st648]

you cant see an organism evolve into another in your lifetime, thats just fallacious

[@TheCosmicGuy0111]

Evolution happens over millions of years not like 5 months lmfao, but there are cases of evolution that we can see and it’s in antibiotic resistant bacteria! Who were not resistant to antibiotics but evolved other time to become resistant to them.

[@urbandesitv3529]

@@chanseyinthehood8415 1) theyre still mosquitos. 2) theyre still lizards. Im still waiting.

[@naphtaliliverpool882]

So we just gonna ignore all of the known transition fossils because they haven't found "yet" transitional froms for the precambrian 🤣 so archaeopteryx and protocetus we just gonna throw out of the window 🤣 ok

[@biblicalcreationeducationm3608]

Archaeopteryx was a bird. They have found birds that have four wings in the fossil record and in nature today. Also transitional forms means God is a amazing engineer think about it a plaptus would be considered a transitional form by evolutionist if it was in the fossil record.

[@Andy-ej4bb]

@@biblicalcreationeducationm3608 a platypus would only be considered a transitional form if two other forms were known to exist either side of it in a temporal sense, and it also connected two forms morphologically, ie, it showed transition.

[@ankhenaten2]

Plot twist all the different strata have been laid down in the same month.

[@averagejoe8839]

I know this excellent video is about evolution and technically is not dealing with origins of life but the situation is even more dire for the materialist on this issue as the postulation that life blindly flopped together from raw matter has been also proven by s scientific endeavor to be ridiculous and billions in grants have been blown through by the towering intellects of science over the last 100 plus years trying to show such pathway could have occured only to utterly fail over and over and over thusly proving by the scientific method such nonsense does not happen in reality and complexity such as found in living cells requires an intelligence vastly beyond mans capabilities. Though the materialist in all his illogical ramblings claims when mankinds technological capabilities advance in the future we will be able to build such a system from raw matter ?? They do not realize it will take a technological breakthrough of epic proportion to manufacture this imformation packed self replicating factories thusly proving an intelligence beyond our understanding at this time was the causal agent.

[@denniscliff2071]

An old theory that present day birds evolved from dinosaurs is silly. Present day birds are entirely new designs that in some ways may resemble some dinosaurs. Darwin's theory is the same primitive idea as is alchemy. Just try to imagine the edifice of knowledge and creative intelligence necessary to design and build a conscious, living, reproducing creature, not to mention millions of them and all of different DNA blueprints.

[@gsk5161]

Birds have been proven to be a direct decendan of dinosaurs.

[@kylemoore7746]

Birds are dinosaurs

[@omnivore2220]

Yes, well two things keep coming up in my mind when I see this and similar treaties on the geologic record and the theory of evolution. First is that it would be necessary to understand the process(es) of the formation of the fossil layers before we can begin to think about what they can tell us. Fossilization normally doesn't occur, so it must be seen as a record, not of the history of biology, but one of unusual events. Second, both Jesus and satan are well aware that this world, and all life, was created by God. That's not among the contested the points. Therefore the apparent conflict between scientism, or naturalism, on one hand, and religion on the other, is a false dichotomy. The real conflict is between Christ and his chief enemy. The powers of this world, the beast powers, are going to do everything they can to eradicate both atheism and true Christianity. And so the point you're trying to make here is somewhat beside the real point.

[@andersandersson5815]

Just brilliant! I've had many discussions with evolutionist, and they refuse to see the impossibility of evolution. They are more stubborn than the sin and, an evolutionist, have to have more faith than what I need as a Christian!

[@phoenixmichaels]

Evolutionary theory is something which also evolves. While there are glaring holes in the fossil record to support every species (as pointed out in this video) there are ALSO prime examples in the fossil record showing a definite chain of small changes over time. The theory, whether further adapted, or abandoned over time, isn't really the point. One cannot simply plug the magical panacea of a GROG (insert deity of choice here) into every hole in our knowledge. You could indisputably succeed in debunking evolutionary theory, and still not have advanced your mystic claim one inch. Too many mystics feel that if evolution is disproved, this somehow proves their GROG of choice exists, and is responsible... which is an absolute absurdity. It would leave us back at square one: we do not know as of yet. Same with cosmology: mystics dislike the Big Bang Theory, because it is woefully incomplete. A rationalist is fully prepared to admit "we do not know as of yet, the complete answer. Which is why we continue to research and study evidence". The mystic says "we already know, and we require no evidence".

[@YoungEarthCreation]

If only they were as critical of what they want to believe as they are of any other theory that refutes evolution.

[@nunyabisnass1141]

We have fossils, genetics, thermodynamics, physics, statistical analyisis...you habe a book largely written from a collection of oral traditions. If thats a form of faith, then it's a similar form of faith to your lights turning on when you flip a switch. How often are you astonished by that as a miracle?

[@TheCosmicGuy0111]

They don’t have faith they have actually an immense amount of fossils to support their facts! (Unlike which this video claims)

[@urbandesitv3529]

@@nunyabisnass1141 "fossils, genetics, thermodynamics, physics, statistical analyisis." actualy, you dont.

[@angeliquedianova2266]

This video only succeeds in further miss-educating those who already hold science illiterate misconceptions about evolution theory. Biological evolution is not limited to just animal forms, as the author of this video seems to suggest. The first Precambrian strata were not discovered under the ocean but in places like the Barberton Greenstone Belt in South Africa which is a mountain range. Predating Darwin's Origin of Species publication in 1859, William E. Logan in 1858 display what he called pre-Cambrian fossils which were discovered along the Ottawa River in Canada. If any science in palaeontology proposes that the history of life on earth should be a complete unbroken fossil record of ALL species that ever lived then the author of this video should cite where that is the accepted scientific theory and the expectation. Otherwise "god" is not a scientific explanation, but only a mere belief. The "Intelligent Design" hypothesis can so far show NO scientific methodology explaining HOW a "god" created and designed life. Meanwhile the science of genetics and molecular biology can show by scientific methodology how biological entities mutate and evolve. Darwin's description of evolution biology is simply "descent with modification". Any time someone breeds a new poodle or a new orchid, that is an example of evolution theory.

[@davidhawley1132]

Umm, no.

[@besticudcumupwith202]

@@davidhawley1132 ...😅 well, you've convinced me. 🤣

[@ExNihiloNihilFit319]

He didn't say it was found in the ocean, the contrary, it was found in China. It was suggested that pre Cambrian fossils could be found in the oceans in order to keep Darwinism afloat but it failed. That's a strawman fallacy.

[@nunyabisnass1141]

@@ExNihiloNihilFit319 that strawman is the only way his statment could make sense. So either his statment doesnt make sense, or its just factually wrong. You're free to choose which.

[@lorikauffman8414]

Soo a poodle is still a dog. Where did the first gene come from?

[@billjohnson9472]

:49 missing samples are no basis for discrediting the theory. it is like saying there is no such thing as ancient Babylon because many writing tablets are only fragments.

[@Joh2n]

If you hold to what you just said you can't possibly adhere to A Fossil Record and be intellectually honest. The fossil record of the Coelacanth shows that just because it isn't fossilized it wasn't alive at the time. Why would you expect a bear to be fossilized with something living on the bottom of corral reefs?

[@asgaiyawaya3973]

Funny we used the same logic when proving Jesus to you atheists using written documents historians accept as historical evidence, even according to Bart Ehrman, and atheists, especially mythicists to use Ehrman's language, kept insisting he had to be a myth. Now when someone pokes holes in evolution you say these are not enough to disprove a theory, but if that were true then you shouldn't have any problems with the evidence Christ was a historical figure. It's as if atheists really are using a double standard.

[@vladim73]

I think his point was that there was no evidence before and there's no evidence now, almost 200 years later.

[@davidhawley1132]

Ahh, but if you've been looking everywhere for decades, and all you find are pages 47,39,and 1003 with the same first and last lines, then the non-existence of the rest becomes more and more plausible.

[@billjohnson9472]

@@Joh2n one would be surprised by bears in coral reefs. however bears and dinosaurs actually lived in the same territory more than 100 million years apart. so finding a bear fossilized with a dinosaur would be an exciting finding contrary to the theory since the first bear appeared more than 100 milion years after dinosaurs disappeared. that is an example of an evolution prediction - that one will not find evidence of them co-existing at the same time.

[@ellipticalequinox6869]

FIRST!!!!

[@LM-jz9vh]

*The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.*** *Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.*** ***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service. Google *"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"* ------------------------------------------------------------------ Google *"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"* Google *"**ExChristian.Net** - Articles: The Bible: Primitive Nonsense"* Google *"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"* Google *"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"* Google *"Reasons for disbelief: The top ten reasons I am an atheist - Real Bible Stories"* (Written by a former minister) Google *"Secular Societies Fare Better Than Religious Societies - Psychology Today"* Google *"**ExChristian.Net** - Articles: The Bible - Is it the Word of GOD?"* Google *"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"* Google *"Some Reasons Why Humanists Reject The Bible - American Humanist Association"* Google *"The origins of the Ten Commandments - Carpe Scriptura"* Google *"Does the Ipuwer Papyrus Refer to the Biblical Exodus Account? - Bishop's Encyclopedia of Religion, Society and Philosophy"* Google *"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"* Google *"The Problem of the Bible: Inaccuracies, contradictions, fallacies, scientific issues and more. - News24"* Google *"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"* Google *"40 Problems with Christianity - Hemant Mehta - Friendly Atheist - Patheos"* Google *"The Problem With Faith: 11 Ways Religion Is Destroying Humanity"* Google *"Retired bishop explains the reason why the Church invented "Hell""* Google *"You Need To Consider The Possibility Your Religion Is Mythology"* Google *"No, Humans Are Probably Not All Descended From A Single Couple Who Lived 200,000 Years Ago"* Google *"Adam & Eve: Theologians Try to Reconcile Science and Fail - The New Republic"* Google *"Adam and Eve: the ultimate standoff between science and faith (and a contest!) - Why Evolution Is True"* Google *"Bogus accommodationism: The return of Adam and Eve as real people, as proposed by a wonky quasi-scientific theory - Why Evolution Is True"* Google *"The Shroud of Turin Is Definitely a Hoax - Tales of Times Forgotten"* Google *"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"* Google *"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"* Google *"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"* Google *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"*

[@floridaman318]

So the fact that the Israelites didn't just pop up out of nowhere = Bible is "just" mythology?

[@laosi4278]

So what's the prob? You see Bible is a collection of divine inspired books written by man, so it's make sense that the man who wrote it in the first place would incorporate in their work their views and also the stories from their time, Bible is not Quran which believed by its adherents literally falling from sky and had no errors, and all criticism toward it are considered blasphemy

[@adriani9432]

The fossil record is VERY fragmentary. The Maotianshan and Burgess Shale are extremely rare occurances that require specific conditions, namely that the animals were buried quickly before bacteria could destroy the soft bodied organisms. The fossils of the Maotianshen and Burgess shales were then brought to the surface to be discovered by humans. All the other shales remain locked within many miles of crust or subducted into the mantle to be lost forever. Furthermore, the number of extinct species ever discovered from the cambrian to recent times (50,000) pales in comparison to the 1,000,000+ species still living today. If the fossil record is not fragmentary as Lucas claims, should we expect to find more extinct species?

[@kennethgee2004]

so this is a powerful example of why young Earth creation is also more plausible than old Earth creation as it makes sense that God creating animals in a sequence of days could just simply bring them into existence. With that in place there is also the implication that since the Earth is young that all atheistic claims of chemical and biological evolution are non-starters as scientific theories.

[@leroybrown9143]

Ironically, Creationism certainly has a great deal more non-supernatural explanatory power than the "naturalist" notion of evolution. However, even if Creationism is entirely wrong, this does nothing to improve darwinism, which is incorrect on its face and remains incorrect even if placed in a vacuum. Darwinism isn't wrong by comparison (and I don't here suggest that's your meaning), darwinism is wrong on the basis of factual merit. Even if I was a non-believer, the factual evidence in the fossil record alone would preclude me from subscribing to darwinism.

[@kennethgee2004]

@@leroybrown9143 Well the point was that there are those that believe in theistic evolution by saying we need to embrace old earth creation. I am using the point that evolution and Darwinism does not even get off the ground as a scientific theory so there is no need to push for old Earth creation. We can still have that discussion, but it won't be about trying to stay relevant with supposed current science. The Bible has been right about everything it mentions, so I believe God when He says that the Earth was created in matter of days.

[@Yuyup7334]

Agreed!

[@keithallver2450]

The problem with young-Earth Creationism is it not only fails scientifically but also theologically.

[@rubiks6]

@@leroybrown9143 - Biblical Creationism is right based on the Word of Gᴏᴅ who cannot lie.

[@griffen556]

I HATE THIS

[@johncollins8304]

You give a knockout punch to the hypothesis that we find no fossil evidence of Cambrian predecessors simply because they were too soft and delicate and girlie to survive the thumping maniacal forces swoshing around: we find that evidence of 'delicate' items like silk and lace and velvet and satin has survived the vicious 1,000 rpm spin cycle intact so absence of evidence in the deep sea cores really IS evidence of absence. That site in China even preserves, mind-blowingly, the teeny-tinyest components is those "small and delicate" life-forms. And they've remained as they are now - fit and healthy as fossils go -- for bazillions of years, which requires a LORRA credulity. It's one thing to be stunned that a link camisole has survived the wrong wash cycle; it's another thing not to bat an eye when told, 'Yeah, and it came out of the machine a thousand years ago'. And it's still intact!!?? Why not question your presuppositions about the age of creation, suppositions which I don't suppose you've ever questioned. Young Earth makes much more sense. Make sense of it.

[@johncollins8304]

No edit button! "link camisole ' --> pink camisole

[@junacebedo888]

Atheist's science backfires

[@billjohnson9472]

why are you talking about Darwin? if you want to prove your theory you have to show how it fits with all observed facts in geology, paleontology etc. even were you to prove evolution wrong, that would offer no support to whatever other theory you are proposing. so, what theory are you proposing, and what is your evidence for your particular theory? waiting........

[@hxhdfjifzirstc894]

To prove a theory wrong does not require an alternative theory. Proving theories to be wrong is how science works. You don't just cling to some obsolete idea, because that's what was in the books 50 or 100 years ago.

[@grahamguest6506]

Hi Bill its ok scientifically to tear down a totally inadequate theory without proposing anything else. He's not trying to prove anything other than neo darwinism is a joke. It doesn't seem like you have listened to his post. You can't get away from the LACK of evidence in the fossil record and the inadequate explanations some scientists put fwd to get around this. That's his point

[@BibleResearchTools]

bill johnson wrote, "why are you talking about Darwin? if you want to prove your theory you have to show how it fits with all observed facts in geology, paleontology etc.." Fair enough. There is no verifiable evidence for common ancestry in observable life, in the fossil record, or in the genome. Everything appears to have simply "showed up," without any evolutionary history. Therefore, the best of the multiple competing hypotheses is an intelligent designer. bill johnson wrote, "even were you to prove evolution wrong, that would offer no support to whatever other theory you are proposing." A rational person might consider the fine-tuning of the universe for life to provide at least some support for the existence of a superintellect. Further, mathematicians have known for decades that even the existence of a single, average-size protein is all but impossible by random chance. Biologists are typically free to ignore the math, or excuse themselves from it, because they are not mathematicians. However some devout atheists who are mathematically-inclined have "thrown in the towel" after finding no way to explain-away the numbers. This is the great physicist Fred Hoyle on the likelihood of an intelligent designer: _"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that _*_a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology,_*_ and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me _*_so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question_*_ ." [Fred Hoyle, "The Universe Past and Present Reflections." Engineering & Science, Vol 45, No.2; November, 1981, p.12]_ Some of Hoyle's calculations involved the probability of the right combinations of amino acids showing up in the so-called primordial soup: _"Consider now the chance that in a random ordering of the twenty different amino acids which make up the polypeptides it just happens that the different kinds fall into the order appropriate to a particular enzyme. The chance of obtaining a suitable backbone can hardly be greater than one part in 10^15, and the chance of obtaining the appropriate active site can hardly be greater than one part in 10^5. Because the fine details of the surface shape can be varied we shall take the conservative line of not 'piling on the agony' by including any further small probability for the rest of the enzyme. The two small probabilities we are including are quite enough. They have to be multiplied, when they yield a chance of one part in 10^20 of obtaining the required enzyme in a functioning form."_ _"By itself, this small probability could be faced, because one must contemplate not just a single shot at obtaining the enzyme, but a very large number of trials such as are supposed to have occurred in an organic soup early in the history of the Earth. _*_The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes,_*_ and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)2,000 = 10^40,000, _*_an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup_*_ ."_ [Hoyle & Wickramasinghe, "Evolution From Space." Simon & Schuster, 1981, Chap 2, p.24] One in 10^40,000 is a crazy small number. Dan

[@truthseeker5447]

@@BibleResearchTools there aren't even 10^40,000 atoms on our planet. Lol to call it a small number is an understatement. That happening once for one single mutation is ridiculously improbable. For it to happen millions of times across millions of species, effecting male and female types at the same moment in time is impossible.

[@athonyhiggins3117]

The cambrien explosion exposes the myth of evolution.

[@Gzeroy]

Since the discovery of the Radio Active Constant 20 years ago which is 1.188962% of every element and isotope and with Vanadium was responsible for life and intellect, the whole Biblical creation idea died sure death permanently.

[@KenJackson_US]

Hah! What a funny guy. Where did the encoding for proteins come from?

[@eniszita7353]

@@KenJackson_US from their parent's proteins.

[@BibleResearchTools]

Gzeroy wrote, "Since the discovery of the Radio Active Constant 20 years ago which is 1.188962% of every element and isotope and with Vanadium was responsible for life and intellect, the whole Biblical creation idea died sure death permanently." _"The reports of my demise are greatly exaggerated." -- God_ BTW, how might you explain the presence of radiocarbon in diamonds, coal, and dinosaur bones? Dan

[@Gzeroy]

80% of your genetic origin or 157ppm is from the environment and 20% or 39.5ppm from your ancestors. Together it is the mass of the Radio Active Constant (RAC). Daily you take in 20 micro grams of it and also the same out. The nasal conchae in your nose is connected to every cell in your body by the CNS. The electromotive principle of the RAC ensure that it's impulses take precedence by the speed of light to activate your senses and chemically force every molecule to action. The RAC was identified in 2005 after the discovery and explanation of the chemical creation principle on 940422CE in South Africa. At that time 2 systems in Europe and and 2 in the States have done the same work trying to isolate this. On 070105, the info was handed over to speaker Pelosi which led to Stem Cell Research. In 2012 Silicon Valley was in conflict with the Neocon lobby on Capitol Hill. In 2013 Time got the info which led to the explosion of art and intellect. Today it forms the basis of the 4th IR.

[@Gzeroy]

"The system of cell chemistry…cannot be divorced from the environment any more than it can be separated from a code. All the basic chemicals and energy come from the environment and this remains true to this day" R. J. P. Williams and J. J. R Fraústo da Silva (Journal of Theoretical Biology, 2003). 80% of our genetic origin is from the environment (157ppm) and 20% from our ancestors (39.5ppm). The mass of the elements is exactly the same as the electromagnetic rays of the sun. With the mass of the RAC (Radio Active Constant,1.188962% of every element and isotope). In the formula E=hv (Max Planck), the formula E x V = H (1-255) explains the fusion wherein all elements and isotopes of the periodic table formed. The CNS of the nasal conchae up to every cell carries the electromagnetic waves of the elements on the electromotive principle on which the elements and isotopes follow each other in chemical reactions, with the RAC that appear on top of the list. This is how everything functions, from the single cell Amoeba or the 1st identified cell Euglena, which has the characteristics of both plant and animal, in other words, functioned with or without sunlight. Separation thereof explains why plants and animals are dependent on each other.

[@ariffbasri]

So, so far Darwinian still remain as another faith with absurd claims.. hahahaha

[@individual1st648]

ironic comment, really ironic

[@floridaman318]

Ah one of those wise people that believes in nothing.

[@ariffbasri]

@@floridaman318 yea, they believed the whole universe was created from nothing too

[@individual1st648]

@@MustaphaRashiduddin-zx7rn even more ironic, some people just love hypocrisy these days edit: stop pretending your "very scientific totally not bs" *beliefs* have even remotely as much claims backupped by observations or history as evolution and natural selection. and i dont read a book full of claims then afterwards say "thats definitely true, im not gonna argue that", no, thats what your people do.

[@mitchellkent1815]

When you have evidence, you don't need faith.

[@refuse2bdcvd324]

The irony of atheistic darwinism is that if the Bible was to say, "Nobody designed animals, God allowed a simple life form to evolve into more complex lifeforms over time, and eventually apes became humans," atheists would be able to say, "no scientist has observed the transition of a non human to a human, all we ever observe is that animals reproduce after their own kind, therefore the Bible is false." If the Bible stated that God designed life to develop from nonliving material atheists would actually be able to say "that's nonsense, we know through observation that living cells only come from preexisting living cells, therefore what the Bible says is false." If the Bible was to say, "God allowed fossils to exist to prove the transition of one kind of animal to another." Atheists could say There are monumental gaps in the fossil between the fossils of humans and any other creature and fossils can't tell us what characteristics their parents had, let alone what characteristics their great, great, great... grandparents had, therefore it would be illogical to look at the bones of a human and assume they came from a nonhuman; Therefore the Bible is false." If the Bible said, "The transition between apes and mankind took millions of years," atheists could say, "No scientist has observed millions of years, therefore what the Bible says is not credible." The only reason why atheists believe in darwinism is because they don't want to accept what the Bible says. It's not that darwinism is a credible ideology. It fails the standards of science in every way. the Bible stands up to the test of science time after time regarding what is testable, observable, repeatable, and verifiable. Trust documented history and observable science; embrace Christ.

[@taylorthetunafish5737]

Atheism has nothing to do with evolution.