the first organism wheren't complex, they simply didn't get well preserved.. But once live spread competition drive natural selection so it's completely normal to see a high diversity relatively early on..it still took nearly a billion year from the very first microorganism to those complex life form. The recurring problem for creationism is that they don't understand how selective pressure is anything but random. if you don't understand this simple concept, you don't understand evolution by natural selection and you can say anything you want against it, you won't hit the spot.. It's always a little difficult to know if creationist genuinely believe their arguments or are simply trying to discredit a scientific theory they perceive as threat to their belief system. there is very little anyone can do to inform someone who is set on deceiving themself unfortunately .
@friendlyneighborhoodapologist2 ай бұрын
@@ced3763 they didn’t get preserved? That’s an assumption. If you watched the video just a few minutes in, you would find a discussion on artifact theories describing exactly that and the problem with that assumption. Even if you assume life is connected all the way back to the microorganisms, the reality is they are remarkably complex and specified too. All this is discussed in my lecture, but it seems it didn’t watch much of it :/
@ced37632 ай бұрын
@@friendlyneighborhoodapologist I didn't watch pass the analogy with the scrapyard and the tornado, because honestly anyone coming up with it don't understand evolution.Beside it's a very old argument, it's not original. I don't fancy wasting my time with someone who think evolution is random and use it as a argument against it. all the creationist argument are based on approximations , misunderstanding or using some gap in our knowledge as alleged evidence against evolution. I have never seen anyone trying to discredit evolution coming up with a serious theory (or even honest evidences) of their own. in essence creationism is a critical theory. it's just here to sabotage proper science. no thanks
@friendlyneighborhoodapologist2 ай бұрын
@@ced3763 it’s not hard to determine the genuineness of someone who leaves comments on a video they didn’t watch, criticizing what they assume someone else thinks or what their intentions are, and won’t engage with the actual ideas being presented. Just a thought :)
@kinggenius9302 ай бұрын
May I ask how much you have studied evolution?
@friendlyneighborhoodapologist2 ай бұрын
@@kinggenius930 you may ask that. Perhaps a more meaningful question, however, is if you disagree with something I said or think I got something wrong :)
@kinggenius9302 ай бұрын
@@friendlyneighborhoodapologist I would prefer you answer the question I asked, if it's ok.
@friendlyneighborhoodapologist2 ай бұрын
@@kinggenius930 Darwin, Gould, Lamarck, Linnaeus, Mendel, Dawkins, Behe, etc. Did you have something you disagreed with or think I got wrong?
@kinggenius9302 ай бұрын
@@friendlyneighborhoodapologist Several things, hence my question. Have you ever discussed your stance on the matter with an evolutionary biologist?
@friendlyneighborhoodapologist2 ай бұрын
@@kinggenius930 if you watched my discussion then you would realize it’s not just my stance. Would you like to tell me that you disagree with?
@scotthenderson35192 ай бұрын
This isn't a good argument because you can say the exact opposite as well. If life was designed by intelligence why is it full of inefficiencies and design flaws that make absolutely no sense. "We have fossilized Bacteria" Yeah, those are examples of simple non complex life forms you claim don't exists so your debunking yourself in the your own video.
@friendlyneighborhoodapologist2 ай бұрын
@@scotthenderson3519 what makes you think bacteria is simple? These structures and systems are remarkably complex and ordered. Life full of inefficiencies? You can’t call something a design flaw without knowing what the purpose is. My phone doesn’t have as long a battery life as I think would be efficient, but I would be foolish to take that one aspect about it and then conclude it wasn’t designed. While a theist might have to wrestle with the problem of the panda’s thumb (which actually serves the panda just fine) and “junk” DNA (which turns out to serve various crucial functions), the atheist has to wrestle with the vast examples of stunning design and function present in life: birds flight, sea creatures ability to filter oxygen out of the water, the koalas ability to digest otherwise poisonous and toxic food, etc. Where do these systems come from? Random changes? No, functional-coherence to this degree requires foresight and guidance. That seems a much bigger problem for the atheist.
@ChrisPierce-y1r2 ай бұрын
well with out the flaws then there would be nothing to achieve there would never be evolution cause life would already be perfect and we would become stagnet and die off
@ChrisPierce-y1r2 ай бұрын
so id argue that because of the fact life was made by some intelligence it would know we cant just start off perfect we got to earn it we got to get there our selfs or die trying
@ChrisPierce-y1r2 ай бұрын
@@friendlyneighborhoodapologistbut there is a lot of flaws that have no purpose u cant say there is a purpose for down syndrome or Parkinson's disease for cancer of any type pepole born with a mind that will never go beyond 3 years old but will live untill they are in they're 20s pepole born with autism whats the point
@scotthenderson35192 ай бұрын
@@friendlyneighborhoodapologist And you can got back farther to amino acid chains to get simpler. We have clear example of the start of the how animals evolved despite your claim otherwise. We are talking about inefficiency and left overs that can be clearly tracked back to how we evolved.
@_a.z2 ай бұрын
The way complexity has increased in the universe is well understood without the additional need to have to explain how a god might have got there!
@friendlyneighborhoodapologist2 ай бұрын
@@_a.z not really. The universe is in a state of becoming more entropic and chaotic, that’s the second law of thermodynamics. Order has arisen at various points in the history of the universe, but how did it arise? It’s like the universe was rigged.
@stanleylaka66792 ай бұрын
God of the gaps is a discredited argument.
@friendlyneighborhoodapologist2 ай бұрын
@@stanleylaka6679 god of the gaps is arguing from what we don’t know. I’m arguing from what we do know: that life’s systems even at the “simplest” level are remarkably complex and specified, that life arrives on the scene already complex and diverse with no signs of ancestral precursors, and that information, as is found in DNA if known only to come from intelligence. Ironically, many naturalist have a “science of the gaps” argument. Despite not having the fossil record and ancestral precursors, they assume these missing links existed and will turn up. They assume we will find how the first life began, etc.
@hansweichselbaum25342 ай бұрын
It's also called the Argument from Ignorance.
@friendlyneighborhoodapologist2 ай бұрын
@@hansweichselbaum2534 no, based on our empirical and testable experience, we know that information only comes from intelligence. The argument from ignorance is assuming that, contrary to our experience and observation, the information in DNA and the systems in life arose naturally, independent of intelligence. It is arguing from ignorance when we don’t find this reflected in the fossil record, but assume missing links are out there. We are not arguing from what we don’t know, but from what we do know: That life has the most stunning example of information and structures on the planet (even compared to human invention), and that information comes from intelligence - something we can observe, test, and repeat.
@hansweichselbaum25342 ай бұрын
@@friendlyneighborhoodapologist You need to learn more about the meaning of 'information' before you use the term in a way you sound as if you knew.
@friendlyneighborhoodapologist2 ай бұрын
@@hansweichselbaum2534 read up on information theory and shannon information. Good stuff there that helps in understanding this discussion
@zimpoooooo2 ай бұрын
An important note: even if life was created, it does not follow that it was created by God. God is a very detailed and specific claim. The likelihood of the details being correct, even in the face of created life? Personally I put it at ~0% chance.
@friendlyneighborhoodapologist2 ай бұрын
@@zimpoooooo I actually agree with you, if life was created by intelligence, it could be something other than God. Richard Dawkins once stated that it might be aliens who seeded life on earth. However it is possible that if intelligence is responsible, what we call “God” could be behind it. This is part of a cumulative case. Not sure how you got the ~0% though.
@zimpoooooo2 ай бұрын
@@friendlyneighborhoodapologist I get the 0% because that's about how trustworthy humans are. Adding a few thousand years, far, far greater ignorance, and the chances of it all being correct drops to ~0%. At least IMO. If life was created we then have another origin story to unveil. But we would need more information to even speculate on that. Again IMO ;)
@friendlyneighborhoodapologist2 ай бұрын
@@zimpoooooo oh I get what you’re saying now, thanks for clarifying. Your statement makes an assumption that more time and research will ultimately reveal a natural origin of life. Which of course that’s possible, but we need not assume that. In that case we’re putting “future science” on the gap in our knowledge. However, research has continually revealed that the basis of life is far more complex and ordered than previously assumed. If that’s the continued direction of research in the future, then the case for intelligent design would be strengthened and a blind cause for life would be weakened.
@zimpoooooo2 ай бұрын
@@friendlyneighborhoodapologist I wouldn’t be shocked if there was creation somewhere in the universe. Not that it explains anything, it just kicks the mystery down the road. I would be shocked, however, if any religion had the tiniest bit of truth in it.
@friendlyneighborhoodapologist2 ай бұрын
@@zimpoooooo what a closed minded thing to say. 85% of people identify with a religion, and you claim they are all wrong. It is naturalists that lock the mystery down the curb, assuming we will find the missing links and a natural cause to life.
@yetanotherjohn2 ай бұрын
I love the wash God made a book to tell us everything and how to live... and failed to even mention germs. HAHAHAH
@friendlyneighborhoodapologist2 ай бұрын
@@yetanotherjohn if what the Bible teaches is really the Word of God (which your statement takes that assumption on) then it is also true that there is eternal existence past this life. Eternity and how to attain relationship with God, then is much more significant to explain to humans than “germs.” The Bible wasn’t written to be a science book, as that isn’t what we primarily need (if Christianity is true) - what we need is restoration into perfect relationship with God and with other humans. Basically, it doesn’t work to argue against the integrity of a worldview by using a premise you are assuming from your own (naturalism, that this life and world are primary).
@brucetutton78972 ай бұрын
Contemporary biology and the fossil record have NOT provided a VIVID PICTURE of the ORIGIN of life. Only some clues. There is nothing in the fossil record of the origin, nor should we expect to find any as typically soft tissue does not fossilize. Complexity can and does arise from a small set of very simple rules. Humans sometimes figure out some of these rules, but it is very difficult. Moulds can solve mazes, traveling salesman problems, and computationally difficult problems very efficiently but we do not call them intelligent. It is a logical fallacy to think complexity can arise exclusively from intelligence. Define intelligent creator, who, what created intelligent creator.
@_a.z2 ай бұрын
Logic fail! .. Now.. Who made god?
@friendlyneighborhoodapologist2 ай бұрын
@@_a.z the problem in your logic is that you assume God was created. But only created things need a creator. The universe has a beginning, it needs a creator. Created gods are idols by definition. We don’t believe in a created God, but in an eternal self-existent God with no beginning - thus He has no creator. You might ask, “God created you, but who created God?” I’ve answered that. The more pressing question however, that I can turn back on you is, “the universe created you, but who created the universe?”
@ChrisPierce-y1r2 ай бұрын
Zeus and hera
@_a.zАй бұрын
@@ChrisPierce-y1r God made God?
@_a.zАй бұрын
@friendlyneighborhoodapologist OK so you're suggesting that something massively powerful, complex and intelligent has always been there without any explanation and I'm showing you how our knowledge of the universe can very largely describe our existence from very simple beginnings. .. Science wins over the idea of a god!
@hansweichselbaum25342 ай бұрын
Subscribed, just to keep up to date with this nonsense.
@friendlyneighborhoodapologist2 ай бұрын
@@hansweichselbaum2534 thanks for being so open minded 😂
@hansweichselbaum25342 ай бұрын
@@friendlyneighborhoodapologist I would not call it openminded. It just happens that we lose a lot of our young people, who leaving our churches in droves, because they think that biological evolution is something atheistic, and they need to chose between Christianity and proper science. I am busy in the field of fighting creationism in all forms. Biologos is a good source of information for those who are confused.
@CornwallisCornwall2 ай бұрын
@@hansweichselbaum2534 Atheist here, give me a reason why Christianity is true.
@hansweichselbaum25342 ай бұрын
@@CornwallisCornwall Fair question. I grew up in a Christian country. If I had been born in a Muslim country or in India, I would have been exposed to a different religion. I can't get around the question of why there is something rather than nothing. I know that Laurence Kraus has an answer to that, but it doesn't convince me. So I believe that there is an ultimate creator. Religions, all the tens of thousands of them, are just human approximations to try and understand the non-understandable. But yes, I call myself a Christian since it is my limited way of understanding something that is beyond human understanding.
@CornwallisCornwall2 ай бұрын
@@hansweichselbaum2534 Have you considered the possibility that the near-universal development of some form of religion across humanity is just a coping mechanism to deal with the inability of our egocentric beings to accept death? I see religion as a farcical way of explaining what cannot be explained. The answer, "I don't know", is more intellectually honest than simply indulging in self-delusion to ease one's anxiety about the death of the self and loved ones.
@hansweichselbaum25342 ай бұрын
Another ID creationist ....
@secretweapon83672 ай бұрын
every seemingly unlikely coincidence isn't a coincidence at all but a HIGHER POWER HALLELUJAH JESUS CHRIST AMEN.