The Origin of Life: Evolution vs. Design [Full Debate]

Michael Ruse and Fuz Rana square off to debate the question "Are natural processes sufficient to explain the origin and the complexity of the cell?" Moderated by Craig Hazen, and recorded live at the University of California, Riverside.
Sponsored by Biola University's Christian Apologetics Program, The Well Christian Club at UCR, and Come Reason Ministries.

[@causedefect3432]

“I’d rather have unanswered questions than unquestioned answers.”

[@Goldwingerkim]

1, a question, 2, a closing argument

[@emmittzahir8427]

i guess im asking randomly but does anyone know of a method to get back into an instagram account?? I stupidly lost my password. I appreciate any assistance you can offer me

[@chaimaryan2366]

@Emmitt Zahir instablaster =)

[@patrickkparrker413]

Evolutionism is full of those .

[@jerrylong6238]

@@patrickkparrker413 Those what? Oh, you talking about true facts, I agree with you on that fact dude.

[@PsycheDismantled]

This has the be the first debate that I have seen where the debaters were actually respectful toward each other. Well done gentlemen.

[@marklivers5907]

lol, this grey bearded man thinks hes inteligent, maybe but he as no common sense wbu lol

[@landofthefree2023]

Thank you for noticing and noting this fact. A quality too often absent

[@laeequenadvi4746]

@Un Passant Y don't know. It is revelation from Almighty Allah to all humans. Allah says : ... These are verses of the book , that which is revealed unto thee from they Lord is the Truth,but most of mankind believe not". ( Qur'an,13:1) Like this in many verses Almighty Allah has mentioned that this book is from Allah: The revelation of the book wherein there is no doubt is from the Lord of the Worlds". ( Qur'an,32:1) It is in the interest of mankind to believe in Almighty Allah and to submit to Him and believe in His last and final messenger Mohammad (pbuh). Read the Holy Qur'an.

[@jamesreilly5183]

They always end up talking about the nature of God, which is completely outside of the intended focus.

[@darrylparkinson1501]

Because they are BOTH evolutionists - if God said he took 6 days to create everything, then that is exactly how long he took. Why try and force fit this into fantasy of billions of years? In fact the question you should be asking is why did He even take 6 days.....

[@hectorestrada9877]

Congrats to both gentleman for an honest and respectful debate.

[@ii.gondolkodo3169]

On this issue, both sides cannot be respectful, because one side is wrong: Proverbs 14:12 There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death

[@gosolpeter5147]

we

[@carloisidoresalcedo6325]

I love these gentlemen. Opposite poles but so proper both of them.

[@Ken.-]

It's hard to believe there are still people in this world that think that magic is real. "I can't understand it, so .... whatever I make up is true!"

[@sombodysdad]

Only magic could produce a coded information processing system using blind and mindless processes.

[@lepidoptera9337]

@@sombodysdad Hey, kid! Here is some attention for you. :-)

[@sombodysdad]

@@lepidoptera9337 Maybe you should get a brain.

[@lepidoptera9337]

@@sombodysdad I actually have a PhD in physics, kid. ;-)

[@TheSpacePlaceYT]

@@lepidoptera9337 Thanks for sensibly adressing all the arguments.

[@Becca_Lynn]

In my opinion, science is just discovering how God did things. 😊 this was a very respectful debate and enjoyable to listen to. I pray Dr. Ruse comes to know his creator and finds salvation in Jesus. ❤️✝️

[@paulrichards6894]

think its more we are finding out jesus probably never existed...we know yahweh was the caananite wind god who had a wife fathered kids and when jews left their ancestors the Canaanites evolved from being human to more god like though it took the jews 400 years droping other gods to just yahweh.....even hebrew is the Canaanite language.....nothing in judaism is original to them...its all borrowed or stolen from other cultures

[@Becca_Lynn]

@@paulrichards6894 99% of scholars, both Christian and non-Christian will tell you that Jesus of Nazareth was a real human who walked the earth 2000 years ago. He’s literally one of the most documented persons in history.

[@paulrichards6894]

@@Becca_Lynn 99% of Christian biblical scholars...... were the same people who said moses was a real person...turns out he was not....there is far too much money in jesus to rock the boat

[@paulrichards6894]

@@Becca_Lynn a priest to the vatican wrote a book you can google him saying jesus was a myth....he was quickly shut up and retired...

[@paulrichards6894]

@@Becca_Lynn where is this most documented...there is ZERO evidence for jesus OUTSIDE of the bible....you can't use the bible to prove the bible....the gospels were written 40 or 50 years later in a different country in a different language

[@avedic]

I find it odd how Rana _is_ convinced of Evolution by Natural Selection as a means of explaining how very simple single-celled organisms evolved into the stunning diversity of life seen today and throughout time...but he simply cannot believe that organic compounds themselves became that first single cell...without referring to a cosmic _person_ who did it. But, think about it: If we did *_not_* have the theory of Natural Selection...then the mystery of how a single cell literally became ALL the organisms we see today would seem *impossible* and surely the work of a god. But...once we understood how it _actually_ happened, it finally all made lucid perfect sense. If Rana accepts that 1 single cell can in fact turn into EVERYTHING we see today _purely_ through natural means...how is it that the evolution of organic compounds to a single cell strikes him as impossible??

[@natee8573]

Its the time issue. The proposed billions of years is not enough time for random mutations to add up to the complexity of the cell and the interactions between cells.

[@dastr9596]

@@natee8573 How do you know? And with enough molecules and time, of course it's possible. Sure, it may be unlikely that something works, but the more molecules we have the more chances we have of something working out. And then those continue.

[@hamidhamidi3134]

Let's say people believe that there was or is a designer. Who designed the designer? And how many designers ?

[@shelledwalnut1960]

Took the words right out of my mouth.

[@tomekczajka]

"Some of the details of the natural explanation are unknown therefore we should reject this idea, let's assume God did it instead". "How exactly did God do it?" "God works in mysterious ways".

[@danilmamaishev5476]

These two were so respectful and this made this debate amazing to listen to. It didn't devolve into rude arguing and this is a perfect example for others to fallow.

[@jackcalkins4232]

I see what you did there

[@jimicunningable]

PS 137, and many other places, shows Yaweh's great love of destroying, killing and torturing children to death. See also the great flood, passoever, etc. If you respect this baby killing monster, you don't deserve respect or rudeness, you deserve to not exist.

[@paulrichards6894]

this debate was over 200 years ago

[@evanscott1194]

How are there not more debates on this subject??? Hard to find anyways

[@Thunder9987999]

This has been one of the best debates I have ever watched in terms of the behavior of the participants. Both are highly educated men that bring up evidence and facts. They never- if not never than very rarely- resort to fallacy, "bible thumbing", emotional appeal, ext. They not only treat each other with dignity, but show a great deal of intellectual respect for their opponent's position.As an aspiring intellectual, I was deeply moved by their performance especially on a subject such as this

[@grantmccrea7742]

Yes

[@justinkimberlyrowley4465]

Glad to hear that I guess I'm in for a treat.

[@jimicunningable]

If you are defending an invisible sky daddy there are no facts. WAKE UP.

[@emilianv3169]

You still did not show any opinion!

[@TheSpacePlaceYT]

@@emilianv3169 .

[@tomk3620]

Life on earth "Could be an experiment being conducted by a grad student from Andromeda just to see what happens!' Brilliant line and that is what I take away from this lively give and take! Well done gentlemen! We will never KNOW IT ALL! Have a piece of cheesecake occasionally and be compassionate to each other! LAUGH AND LOVE and be grateful to be alive! PEACE!

[@nataliejames1964]

When he said that, my first thought was "quite possibly! But who created the Andromedans? They obviously must have come somewhere. Where they evolved? And what faraway aliens made the Andromedans for their own grand school studies". We all believe this: In the beginning there was something that had NOT been created. And that increased thing that always was, went on to make everything else. The question is, was that uncreated thing a sentient being or not.

[@williamspringer9447]

Natalie James •••• Here s the question that bothers me : Why do they teach our kids big bang and evolution theory in school, and yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century? Is it because they want to enlighten us? "The public is a ferocious beast; one must either chain it or flee from it." -Voltaire "Their central dogma is the immortality and transmigration of the soul. A doctrine which they regard as the finest incentive to courage, since it inspires contempt of death." -Julius Caesar, "The Commentaries", regarding the spiritual beliefs of the ancient Druids, 51 B.C. Here's an argument for the existence of God that you may enjoy. Premise #1: The universe was created by either a directed (intelligent) or undirected (random) process . Premise #2: The proposition that the universe was created by an undirected (random) process runs squarely against numbers that are so astronomically improbable that we can not reasonable entertain them as a possibility . Conclusion : It is therefore a practical certainty that the universe was created by a directed (intelligent) process. "A high degree of probability is often called 'practical certainty.' A reasonable man should not refrain upon acting upon a practical certainty as though it were known to be true. In England, for instance, it is customary for a judge, at the trial of a person accused of murder, to instruct the jury that an adverse verdict need not be based on the belief that the guilt of the prisoner has been ' proved ', but upon the belief that the guilt has been established ' beyond a reasonable doubt .' To be ' beyond reasonable doubt ' is to have sufficient evidence to make the proposition in question so much more likely to be true than to be false that we should be prepared to act upon the supposition of its truth. Many of our most important actions have to be performed in accordance with belief of such a kind." -L. Susan Stebbing, "Logic in Practice", (1934) pages 98 and 99 •••••••••• The following is a quote of Dr Frank Turek, taken from a debate between Frank Turek and Christopher Hitchens on KZbin. •••• "This is sometimes called the teleological argument for design. Not only did the universe explode into being out of nothing , it did so with extreme precision . In other words, the big bang was not a chaotic explosion. How incredibly precise was it? Atheist Steven Weinberg put it this way. He said, "life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values." There are dozens of these quantities . One of them Steven Hawking identified was this: He said that if the expansion rate of the universe changed by one part in a hundred thousand million million, a second after the big bang , we wouldn't be here . The universe would not have expanded, or it would have collapsed back in on itself, or it never would have created galaxies . That's how precisely designed the big bang event was. Not only was the big bang event precisely designed , so are many constants about our universe right now . If you change the gravitational force by one part in ten to the forty , we wouldn't be here . What's one part in ten to the forty? Illustration : Take a tape measure ; stretch it from that back wall to the front wall ; in inches. If you set gravity at a particular inch mark on that tape measure, and moved the strength of gravity one inch in either direction proportionally , we go out of existence . But the problem is that the tape measure doesn't go from that wall to this front wall; it goes across the entire known universe . You change gravity that much , across the entire known universe, and we don't exist . For you Navy people out here, (I was in the Navy many years) think of an aircraft carrier , like the John Stennis or the Ronald Reagan, which displaces a hundred and ten thousand tons ; has a runway on it that is about three lengths of a football field ; has five to six thousand people on it ; several stories high. If you were to change the weight of that aircraft carrier by less than a trillionth the weight of one electron , it would be uninhabitable , if the aircraft carrier was the universe . That's how incredibly designed the universe is."

[@DoctorShocktor]

@@williamspringer9447 Wrong. Just be cause the numbers may be large, it does not stretch to impossibility. Neither does the fact that our extremely limited knowledge of the immense universe does not currently know of any other forms of life make ours more or less probable. And the fact that this type of life occurred here is simply due to the circumstances of what existed here - NOT that it was created specifically for this type of life. See hole:puddle

[@jimicunningable]

We VERY CLEARLY F know there is no invisible dude in the clouds. Grow up. omg.

[@colonelradec5956]

I agree regardless of what's true this world could use more compassion and love always. I'll tell you one thing I do know. Us humans, even the animals. Us living beings. We're here on earth with each other. We should remember that every living being is deserving of respect and love. All living things feel and experience. Life's hard enough. We need to uplift each other as fellow earthlings. As fellow living beings. Love your post!

[@Buggerme75]

I wish, now that I'm older and wiser, that I spent my youth actually learning in school and going onto uni and studying further :(

[@stinksterrekerinski4450]

I studied up to a masters in science and graduated with honors. I have a job and serve people. You can do that without college.

[@michaelbrickley2443]

Immortal, there is so much you can do online. Regarding degrees or not. Stay teachable…keep learning all of your life

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

Learning is wonderful but please don't feel you missed out on any genuine learning in school. The majority of what's taught in school is provable deception. All these supposedly "scientific" theories have absolutely no scientific evidence supporting them: 1) Macro-evolution (theory that one kind of life form can evolve into a new kind) 2) Heliocentric theory (outer space) 3) The theory of gravity (the theory for WHY heavy objects fall down) 4) Globe Earth theory (All independently verifiable evidence shows Earth's surface does not curve) And many more... especially related to health and medicine. Geocentric Flat Earth is reality, not Heliocentric Globe Earth theory & we didn't evolve from any animal. Heavy objects fall down due to relative density & buoyancy with the downward vector caused by incoherent electrostatic acceleration. There is no new virus and there's no need to get the jab... those ideas are promoted by corrupt Scientism, not real science. The general idea of Materialism is false but functional as creating the illusion of this reality with physical rules in which nothing is actually "real" but the experiences we have within it are. You are not your body, you're much more than that. No one really "dies" or "suffers" in this game we're playing. Guard your thoughts carefully as they're much more powerful & consequential than we've been taught to believe. Choosing love over fear is #1 most important thing you can do.

[@dolam]

I don’t know how old you are, but I went back to school at age 40. I remember sitting in school at community college wondering if I could actually do it. Now I am on the last semester of graduate program getting my masters in applied behavior analysis. It’s never too late, trust me, I know.

[@erikumble]

@@lightbeforethetunnel I'd be interested in seeing one of those proofs, if you have it available. (At least, I interpreted your second sentence to mean that there is proof that some of those ideas you listed are deceptions; if you meant that they are deceptive yet still provable, then perhaps I misunderstood your point.) Could you also explain what you mean by "scientific evidence"? I would like to better understand your view, since according to the definition of scientific evidence that I normally use, there is quite a bit for at least several of the ideas you listed.

[@livesofthefreemasons]

I appreciate them not disabling comments like most other debates.

[@57Carlibra]

I really wish the videographer would have tapped his audio input to the microphones being used rather than from the speakers which introduces considerable echo.

[@Vogda]

I just wonder: is there new debate on the topic uploaded, now is 2018?

[@CHAD-RYAN]

Kent hovind has debates on his channel

[@AlmostBasian]

Well actually I've done a bit of research on ID and actually it's just a rebranding of creationism. It's an attempt to make it sound more scientific so it can be taught in the science classrooms. The book on ID, pandas and people, is very similar if not almost exactly the same to earlier creationist books. Most people who believe in ID would disagree with you're first statement.

[@sawboneiomc8809]

Abiogenesis is impossible at any level. Spontaneous generation was disproved hundreds of years ago.

[@Xaran_Atheria]

Well with such an unfounded and blanket statement as that, how could I not be convinced of your assertion?

[@biddiemutter3481]

Fantastic

[@Ryattt81]

I love Dr. Ruses' lumberjack appearence, mixed with the posh accent. Delightfully entertaining.

[@stinksterrekerinski4450]

Intellectual luxury is defined by articulation/sophistication of argument and not accent.

[@jerrylong6238]

@@stinksterrekerinski4450 Well Creation lost out the gate then. All they have is a God they can't even prove exists. lost cause if you ask me.

[@peli_candude554]

@@jerrylong6238 Can't prove to who? You? I can prove God exists to me and that's all that I'm expected to prove it to. I can tell you how to prove it to yourself but I feel that would be wasting my time and yours considering your attitude. Humility goes a long way...much further than your pride...parading around like you know something but you have no clue how to prove it to yourself. You will learn...hopefully.

[@DoctorShocktor]

@@peli_candude554 Lol what a load of garbage. Something that you “can only prove to yourself”. LOL That’s useless by definition, so who cares? And yes, you’d be wasting EVERYONE’s time. Then the “humility”, “parading around”, “like you know something”. Yeah, that’s how SCIENCE WORKS, it doesn’t give a shit about your attitude, it works HARD to PROVE TRUTHS. No one has any need or time for YOUR self indulgent internal fantasies about how things work.

[@justreadjohn6_40]

​@@peli_candude554 It all comes down to pride

[@PaDutchRunner]

That opening joke about the webcams went over like a led balloon lol.

[@eniszita7353]

so just as a start evolution is not a theory that describes anything about the "origin of life" so the entire premise of the discussion is invalid. The field of "biogenesis" studies the origin of life, and there is no firm conclusion from this field at this point.

[@PosskoonFTW]

Anyone else extremely bothered by the woman who called the Big Bang “evolution’s miracle”? When will people get it through their head that biology and cosmology are completely different?

[@patldennis]

That's some Kent Hovind level derp right there

[@ab_ab_c]

Two of the worst theories ever created are the Big Bang theory & Evolution theory. Neither are worth the paper they are written on.

[@atleastimnotgae2124]

A B yeah but a man walking on water is legit

[@ab_ab_c]

​@@atleastimnotgae2124 Your disbelief does not mean it never happened. Witnesses documented that it did happen--so, whatever you think is really your limitation. More importantly, is that your response is a deflection because even you don't believe evolution is true--but you put up with the fraud because you despise the consequences of the truth. Evolutioners pretend their beliefs are 'scientific fact'--when pressed to show compelling/convincing proof or evidence & a cogent explanation for verify their purported 'evolution is a scientific fact'--they can only produce half-baked evidence that no sane, intelligent, honest, rational, & informed person would ever consider to be valid/true--you know--except for atheists & other nitwits--they don't require such information to believe & falsely promote their 'fact' claim lies. They would have us believe we evolved from microbes to mankind & our ancestors crawled up out of the seas & eventually morphed into mankind--which is pure fiction/rubbish. Tossing in unlimited time also doesn't result in their myth being a reality--it just results in lots of time.

[@benwheeler4223]

A B expansion of universe - observed. Background microwave radiation - observed, gravity waves - observed. BBT is THE current theory for good reason, there is data to support it.

[@AdilJustinTheriault]

To each their own. Agreeing to disagree is a reasonable way to conclude our discussion. As we say in my religion, JazakAllah Khairyn

[@dja-bomb6397]

"You cannot appeal to hypothetical solutions that have not been discovered in order to solve a problem." YES, IT WAS THE CREATIONIST THAT SAID THIS IN Q&A!!!!

[@williamspringer9447]

Adam Courtney ••• People who believe in an intelligent designer , based on the overwhelming evidence, do not necessarily subscribe to the beliefs of organized religion. Have you ever wondered why they teach our kids big bang and evolution theory in school,and yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century?(The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto) I guarantee you that if our government thought that making us believe in Zeus would make us twice as productive and easier to control , they would be teaching Zeus in our public schools right now. Our government has turned its back on Christianity because atheism makes better drones . They can't have hundreds of millions of heavily armed ignorant peasants running around thinking they have a soul and there's a God. That could get ugly. That's the stuff revolutions are made of. P.S. There is overwhelming reliable evidence to prove the existence of God, regardless what government stooges say. "The public is a ferocious beast; one must either chain it or flee from it." -Voltaire "Their central dogma is the immortality and transmigration of the soul. A doctrine which they regard as the finest incentive to courage, since it inspires contempt of death." -Julius Caesar, "The Commentaries", regarding the spiritual beliefs of the ancient Druids, 51 B.C.

[@flutterwind7686]

@@williamspringer9447 let me guess, you're a young earth creationist Christian

[@williamspringer9447]

Raiyyan Siddiqui••• Have you ever wondered why they teach our kids big bang and evolution theory in school,and yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century? Do you think it's because they want to enlighten us ? Here's an argument for the existence of God that you may enjoy. Premise #1: The universe was created by either a directed (intelligent) or undirected (random) process . Premise #2: The proposition that the universe was created by an undirected (random) process runs squarely against numbers that are so astronomically improbable that we can not reasonable entertain them as a possibility . Conclusion : It is therefore a practical certainty that the universe was created by a directed (intelligent) process. "A high degree of probability is often called 'practical certainty.' A reasonable man should not refrain upon acting upon a practical certainty as though it were known to be true. In England, for instance, it is customary for a judge, at the trial of a person accused of murder, to instruct the jury that an adverse verdict need not be based on the belief that the guilt of the prisoner has been ' proved ', but upon the belief that the guilt has been established ' beyond a reasonable doubt .' To be ' beyond reasonable doubt ' is to have sufficient evidence to make the proposition in question so much more likely to be true than to be false that we should be prepared to act upon the supposition of its truth. Many of our most important actions have to be performed in accordance with belief of such a kind." -L. Susan Stebbing, "Logic in Practice", (1934) pages 98 and 99 •••••••••• The following is a quote of Dr Frank Turek, taken from a debate between Frank Turek and Christopher Hitchens on KZbin. •••• "This is sometimes called the teleological argument for design. Not only did the universe explode into being out of nothing , it did so with extreme precision . In other words, the big bang was not a chaotic explosion. How incredibly precise was it? Atheist Steven Weinberg put it this way. He said, "life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values." There are dozens of these quantities . One of them Steven Hawking identified was this: He said that if the expansion rate of the universe changed by one part in a hundred thousand million million, a second after the big bang , we wouldn't be here . The universe would not have expanded, or it would have collapsed back in on itself, or it never would have created galaxies . That's how precisely designed the big bang event was. Not only was the big bang event precisely designed , so are many constants about our universe right now . If you change the gravitational force by one part in ten to the forty , we wouldn't be here . What's one part in ten to the forty? Illustration : Take a tape measure ; stretch it from that back wall to the front wall ; in inches. If you set gravity at a particular inch mark on that tape measure, and moved the strength of gravity one inch in either direction proportionally , we go out of existence . But the problem is that the tape measure doesn't go from that wall to this front wall; it goes across the entire known universe . You change gravity that much , across the entire known universe, and we don't exist . For you Navy people out here, (I was in the Navy many years) think of an aircraft carrier , like the John Stennis or the Ronald Reagan, which displaces a hundred and ten thousand tons ; has a runway on it that is about three lengths of a football field ; has five to six thousand people on it ; several stories high. If you were to change the weight of that aircraft carrier by less than a trillionth the weight of one electron , it would be uninhabitable , if the aircraft carrier was the universe . That's how incredibly designed the universe is."

[@dja-bomb6397]

@@williamspringer9447 I must reject the premises of your argument from the outset. Is gravity a "guided process"? I ask this question because it seems creationists believe the only alternative to a guided process must be randomness. But, gravity is not random. We know exactly what happens when we let go of something we're holding: it falls. This natural constant allows us to make observations and predictions with repeatable results. The laws of physics are consistent, unguided, but also not random. If the theory of gravitation were somehow disproved, would the new answer automatically be that angels have been pulling objects towards the earth at 9.81 meters per second squared, OR, is "we don't know" an acceptable response until further study can be done? The answer is obvious. So, when ID proponents attempt to poke holes in evolution, why do they think this lends ANY credibility to their own position by default? I'm sorry, but you need to support your own position. There is always some kind of fallacious reasoning involved when appealing to a supernatural cause for anything, particularly because the supernatural is so ill defined and unfalsifiable. Bayesian probability is the most dishonest of all apologetic attempts because it plugs in variables for which we have no precedent or parallel to reference. For instance, if you have a six-sided die, you know you have a one in six chance of rolling a 4. The probability changes with the number of sides you add. If you flip a coin 100 times and each time it lands on heads, what are the chances it will land on heads the next time? The answer is always 50/50. There is only one universe that we know of... a one-sided die. No calculations can be made for things that we know have only occurred once. It's even worse for events that have never happened before, such as a resurrection. How would a theologian determine the difference between something that is truly supernatural and something that is natural but just outside of our current realm of scientific understanding?

[@williamspringer9447]

DJ A-BOMB ••• The premises of my argument are true. Premise #1 is self-evident . Premise #2, I could support with mountains of evidence. The conclusion logically follows. “The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.” -Ilya Prigogine, chemist-physicist, recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. 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. In terms of complexity, an individual cell is nothing when compared with a system like the mammalian brain. The human brain consists of about ten thousand million nerve cells. Each nerve cell puts out between ten thousand and one hundred thousand connecting fibers by which it makes contact with other nerve cells in the brain. Altogether the total number of connections in the human brain approaches 10^15 or a thousand million million. Numbers in the order of 10^15 are of course completely beyond comprehension. Imagine an area about half the size of the USA (one million square miles) covered in a forest of trees containing ten thousand trees per square mile. If each tree contained one hundred thousand leaves the total number of leaves in the forest would be 10^15, equivalent to the number of connections in the human brain! Despite the enormity of the number of connections, the ramifying forest of fibers is not a chaotic random tangle but a highly organized network in which a high proportion of the fibers are unique adaptive communication channels following their own specially ordained pathway through the brain. Even if only one hundredth of the connections in the brain were specifically organized, this would still represent a system containing a much greater number of specific connections than in the entire communications network on Earth." -Professor Francis Crick, awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of DNA “From 1953 onward, Willy Fowler and I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 Mev energy level in the nucleus of Carbon 12 to the 7.12 Mev level in Oxygen 16. if you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you have to fix, and your fixing would have to be just where these levels are actually found to be. Another put-up job? Following the above argument, I am inclined to think so. 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.” -Sir Fred Hoyle, Cambridge Astrophysicist, “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections “Perhaps before going further we should ask just how probable is it that a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters will contain stars. Given what we have already said, it is simple to estimate this probability. For those readers who are interested, the arithmetic is in the notes. The answer, in round numbers, comes to about one chance in 10^229.” -Lee Smolin, American theoretical physicist, "Life of the Cosmos"

[@FlgOff044038]

What are the two positions in respect to Chirality?

[@BorisNoiseChannel]

Evolutionary change by _natural_ mechanisms can be observed. Please show us _your_ "designer', whom you claim to be _orchestrating_ it all. (even though he/she/it doesn't seem to be needed for it)

[@kalebredick9591]

I will flip this around. You want us to show you God. I would like to show anything beyond microevolution. Simply assuming it so because we observe small changes is not sufficient. Show me proof that an animal of one kind (ie a dog) produces (or came from) a non-dog. It is a big mountain to climb.

[@tonymak9213]

Or show how information is added to a gene to improve an organism, or how the complex organism came to be formed, or how the codes were formed within DNA, or how chirality works, or.....etc etc.

[@jerrylong6238]

@@kalebredick9591 No such thing as a kind, do you mean species? micro and macroevolution are both the same things. Both are evolution, one is just further along than the other is all. But they are not separate things. After so many small changes some species no longer resemble each other. You simply do not have a good understanding of how evolution works.

[@AMomentOfClarity2011]

"I think your saying that through trial and error the cells keep what was beneficial to life." Not quite. The cells had no decision in the process, they just churn out options constantly. If some worked they got carried to the next generation and had new options (populations evolve remember) and if those offered benefits (which vary on circumstance - thus diversity of species not one giant homologous organism) they were passed on.

[@roberttormey4312]

James Shapiro has laid out the basis for natural genetic engineering pretty well in Evolution 2.0. The Nobel Prize was awarded in 1983 to Dr. Barbara McClintock for her work which demonstrated the genome is a read write organelle of the cell. Jumping forward to the maturation of epigenetics, systems biology and so forth, at this point saying the cells had no decision in the process is a perspective which science hasn’t held for easily 50 years or more.

[@FramedArchitecture]

Debates like this bring up interesting questions about the nature god, questions the religious seem oddly uninterested in answering. For example, why would god hide its creative abilities in such a way?

[@jacobhodge7402]

So men search God out, building character

[@DoctorShocktor]

@@jacobhodge7402 yeah, the whole “mystery” thing is absolutely the language of con men. (The writers of the bible and consequent religions)

[@Rinebo]

If only Presidential Candidates were this mature.

[@rogerwelsh2335]

Believing the earth is 4 million years old eliminates you from any intellectual debate

[@MutsPub]

The Earth is 4.5662 +/- 0.0001 billion years old.

[@ozowen5961]

Believing the earth is young puts you at the intellectual level of a concussed sheep.

[@AdilJustinTheriault]

That aside, there is an amazing magnitude of order in the Universe, for example solar systems, including ours. This order in itself could not exist without the seemingly incredible fine tuning of all the cosmological constants.

[@meditationlimits796]

Is god aware or ask also himself if where he comes from? This question will be infinite if we are aware whether god or human being.

[@lawlaw295]

That's the point. The only locations where life will emerge in the first place to ponder questions like origins of life is where the conditions are already conducive. But some ppl take it farther than that, and go on to say that: the arrangement MUST have something to put it together...that something MUST be a single conscious being, and that conscious being MUST be the deity of the religion they have chosen. They say it's silly that ppl think simple fundamental particles can just pop into existence or always existed, but at the same time want ppl to accept that a complex, conscious god-thing just popped into existence or always existed. Mind games is all I see.

[@AdilJustinTheriault]

@@lawlaw295 I am not one for creation ex nihilo as per monotheistic beliefs, but if we are to be honest, it's not even close to as philosophically absurd as believing in the Big Bang theory, which presupposes that everything in an instant came from nothing, or further ideation of a multiverse (more religion). To me, it's still a bona-fide mystery. If anything, I lean towards the metaphysics of the ancient Greek emmanationists (Pythagoras, Plato, Plotinus).

[@AdilJustinTheriault]

@@lawlaw295 Check out a KZbin channel, Theoria Apophasis. Ken Wheeler has some pretty interesting ideas to this effect. Highly recommend.

[@lawlaw295]

@@AdilJustinTheriault Well those persons who are saying that the Big Bang says that everything popped into existence from nothing need to be called out for misrepresenting the theory of cosmic inflation (which is what ppl call the big bang).

[@Harmonica68]

I love the conversation that is happening. When Dr. Ruse and Dr. Rana talk at the table, this is truly more of a conversation than a debate. Also, that Dr Rana explains the "made" of Day 4 concerning sun, moon, and stars. It's like saying ... "The manufacturer made Michael Ruse's shirt". Yes they made his shirt ... but not on the day of the debate ...

[@colinoneill3659]

Dr. Rana claims Genesis the sun was made visible to a hypothetical earthbound observer on the fourth day. And that 'day' means an undefined long time. He hypothesis is in response to creation of the Sun following the creation of the Earth being demonstrably false. Yet he provides no evidence of the revealing of the Sun. He doesn't even provide a mechanism of how the Sun was hidden and then revealed. I find Rr. Rana's arguments from ignorance unconvincing.

[@sonsoftheedelweiss72]

Has the universe always been here; or did it magically just appear in an instant? Did time and space exist before, after or at the same time of creation? If so, who or what casual force created time and space? Was this casual space outside of the universe? Thank you.

[@JeramyRG]

Dunno; dunno; next two are Inappropriate questions because of the prior honest answers.

[@justreadjohn6_40]

1. In an instant (according to scientific teaching and the Bible) 2. At the instant the universe came into being. 3. The only thing that could cause absolutely nothing to become something is a being that is not constrained by time and space, God. There is no other solution. 4. It had to have been as the universe didn't even exist, something became of nothing so it had to have been outside of the nothing. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

[@cogitoergosum3433]

@@justreadjohn6_40Sadly you’ve got everything here completely wrong. The only book that argues for creatio ex nihilo is the bible. There is and can be no such thing as outside of nothing by axiomatic definition, even on your own definition, because if this god you posit possesses a single attribute, such as power, the possession of a single such attribute would render it as something that exists, which in turn would render what you call nothing to be something. Aside from the fact that this is logical, philosophical and theologically incoherent nonsense this is NOT either what the science claims (irrespective of William Lane Craig quoting P C Davies) or informed atheists claim about the origin of the universe or the fine tuning argument. For the record, and so we are crystal clear, both the theist AND the atheist agree that it is impossible for anything to be created from nothing, that nothing has no potentiality etc. (Even though in logic there is ironically nothing that forbids this, just as in logic there is no reason why light speed cannot be exceeded). If you are unfamiliar with philosophy you will understand what necessity and brute facts are. That is whatever exists of what we call the universe (or its prior non space time state) has to exist necessarily by definition. It is impossible for it not to exist. Furthermore this necessary state has to exist in a form whereby the cosmological constants which are observed must (and can only) take the form they take. Craig has misled you and many others on the origin of universe and fine tuning. And all this confusion could have been so easily avoided if instead of Craig saying chance, physical necessity he said the universe (or its prior condition) existed as a brute fact, it existed necessarily. But, of course, his theology and presuppositions dare not admit this because he knows it negates every one of his arguments for gods existence. So to be clear when Craig claims a god did something, explains something (forgetting that a noun ‘god’ explains precisely nothing), he is in fact committing the philosophical sin he accuses atheists of when they ask who created god, which is to try to explain the explanandum. The point of a brute fact, of necessary existence, is that the explanandum does not require an explanation. QED. Finally, none of this is to say some kind of god might not exist, it’s just to say that those arguments and evidence marshalled to support the claim fail to do so. In other words theists have failed to make the case, which is a shame given that many believe based on these enfeebled arguments. 😮

[@thestudyofchristianity]

2:01:45 How does Yom = Period of time if there is evening and morning

[@Melkor3001]

According to the Bible, God created the universe in the indefinite past. (Genesis 1:1) Also, the days of creation described in chapter 1 of Genesis were epochs whose length is not specified. In fact, the entire period during which earth and heaven were made is also called a “day.”​-Genesis 2:4.

[@mjolniron]

@@Melkor3001 Excellent reply, you beat me to it. There are many instances in archaic Hebrew where the word Yohm can refer to indefinite period of time or a day. Perfect reply my friend.

[@kaltrex9465]

When the student asked about completing the rna strand why did I think of 2 covid vaccine’s utilizing mRNA?

[@biddiemutter3481]

I don't know, why did you? 😅

[@kaltrex9465]

@@biddiemutter3481 Probably because it’s the closest thing that fits reviewing public info/life to this day? Were you really looking for a response? I don’t think there’s a true answer.

[@biddiemutter3481]

@@kaltrex9465, no not really. .. sorry

[@kaltrex9465]

@@biddiemutter3481 Might want to ask yourself why you asked

[@giuffre714]

Evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life.

[@Aspire7]

You speak of evolution as if it's an entity in itself. "Evolution" doesn't attempt to explain anything because it is a figment of the imagination. A theory within the minds of men who refuse to acknowledge the truth of our origin. Micro evolution is apart of life, yes, but macro is an idea of the mind.

[@giuffre714]

Aspire7 That's like saying you believe in minutes but not days. Why are there 30,000 different species of spiders?

[@Aspire7]

+Joe Giuffre You can't use logic (minutes in a day) to define a fallacy. There is evidence for how many minutes are in a day. There is no (empirical) evidence for animals mutating into another. There's no doubt that there are a variety of different kinds of animals, but that's no evidence for them changing into another animal over time. 30,000 different species of spiders is a model of adaptation. They're still spiders, no matter how much time you give them. Same with snakes, birds and so forth. They have a built in genetic code designed for adaptation.

[@giuffre714]

Aspire7 But one minute doesn't change into a day. It takes many minutes. Those spiders aren't the same species. They can't mate with each other. That's the definition of macro evolution. There are 30,000 different species of spiders. There are 5,000 different species of mammals, of which humans are one. Using your logic, humans have evolved from earlier forms of mammals. That's good enough for me.

[@Aspire7]

Joe Giuffre Using my logic, humans have evolved from earlier forms of mammals? Haha, that's cute (and religious). The ole swicheroo... That's your logic my friend, but if that's good enough for you, it's good enough for me. Your faith is amazing.

[@TheErik150x]

I want to say that I appreciated the very civil manner of this debate. It was refreshing from the hostile nature of many others. I realize people are very passionate about each side of this debate, but trying to beat one side into submission is never going to be productive, and in fact counter productive. I happen to be on the side of a purely naturalistic evolutionary process for the origin of life, however when you do look at the complexity of the cell it is nothing if not intuitive to think there is a designer there. But I still don't give the ID position very much merit, (especially as an actual scientific position). As Ruse puts it, when you look at everything in the proper context its seems immeasurably more likely that we simply mistake what our ignorance on the whole story of the evolution of the cell as design. What we have learned if nothing else in the age of reason is there seems to be no end to what we can learn, understand and explain. After what amounts to a measly blink of the eye in the existence of humanity, we have made so much progress in the advancement of our knowledge and understanding through naturalistic reasoning only, that it would yet appear as surely miraculous to humans only a few hundred years ago as to make us current humans to appear as gods our selves. To, at this point in time, start calling some of these evolutionary problems intractable and necessarily the result of divine intervention seems very unreasonable. Having said that, obviously many ID proponents in the scientific community, (the small minority they may be), for various reasons are doubting the claimed all encompassing domain of naturalist science. Many of these people are clearly very intelligent, as intelligent as and in many cases more intelligent than those who reject ID. I still don't think ID is ready to be, nor may it ever be ready to be called an actual reasonable scientific theory, but the reasonable doubting of all science should be encouraged. Science itself should never be above doubt, else it does merely become a faith of a religious and dogmatic nature.

[@ReligiousG]

I noticed you mentioned that the cell is complex enough to appear to require a designer, but you still don't give the ID position very much merit. Let me ask you this. All us human beings, with the exception of a few here and there, have the same basic/main body parts and move/function the same way. So if we came to exist over time and chance, as the evolution viewpoint suggests, why are we all the same? Because if you leave intelligent design out of it, aside from one or two things, there's no guarantee that nature would've came to exist and work exactly like does now. It's like with Artificial Intelligence. If Artificial Intelligence requires intelligence to come to exist, then why should intelligence like ours be any different? Wouldn't it take a being, even if it is supernatural, with intelligence to make/create another being with intelligence? Just a thought...

[@DoctorShocktor]

@@ReligiousG ??? You’re not a making a point even though you think you are. Why are we all the same? Because we ALL REPRODUCED ALONG THE SAME TIMELINE. Why would we be different? Makes no sense. “There’s no guarantee that nature”… no kidding. There wasn’t and ISN’T a PLANNED OUTCOME. It’s all happenstance and you’re part of it, end of story. Artificial intelligence is a term coined by mankind to describe man made systems to simulate real world intelligence. Other than some functions, one has NOTHING to do with the other as far as origins, goals, outcomes, etc. Your comment has nothing to say.

[@DoctorShocktor]

The entire process of science is ABOUT testing and disproving concepts, and it is NEVER above doubt or changing. That’s the POINT. It’s also what lifts it above non-moving, irrefutable religion.

[@Z4RQUON]

Rana also makes a glaring fallacy of scope, at the beginning Michael Ruse says that you have to look at the motion within the context of everything else we know. Rana takes on each bit of evidence individually instead of the larger picture they draw, when looked at together.

[@RogerZerne]

The thing is that you fail to see in these experiments is that they were intelligently designed and defiantly not in conditions that would have existed in nature... as a matter of fact the molecules used in these experiments were carefully and painstakingly created and then inserted into an place conducive to replication.

[@colinoneill3659]

Assuming you could recreate primitive earthlike conditions in an earth-sized lab, it would take ~1 billion years for life to emerge. Is that the experiment you are proposing?

[@InfinityBlue4321]

Fantastic! Thank you Fuz Rana. Simply great enlightment!

[@3dmoddeler]

did you watch it all the way through? the christian University advertisement at the end says it all..

[@peteross9433]

the more interesting is 1) which signification was applied in the english version of the Bible and 2) who decided that this signification was what God actually meant.

[@blockhead0834]

Interesting to note, Ruse's questions to Rana are about Biblical interpretation and theodicy, not science. I would have liked to hear the conversation stay on the topic at hand.

[@lauroneto3360]

That's a well known modus operandi.

[@ab_ab_c]

You didn't really expect a philosopher to actually concede anything, did you?

[@williamspringer9447]

Theologos ••• Intelligent design theory can be logically defended , while scripture not so much. It is wise in a debate to focus on the weakest elements of your opponents argument , if your intention is to persuade your audience . Have you ever wondered why they teach our kids big bang and evolution theory in school,and yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century? Do you think it's because they want to enlighten us ? Here's an argument for the existence of God that you may enjoy. Premise #1: The universe was created by either a directed (intelligent) or undirected (random) process . Premise #2: The proposition that the universe was created by an undirected (random) process runs squarely against numbers that are so astronomically improbable that we can not reasonable entertain them as a possibility . Conclusion : It is therefore a practical certainty that the universe was created by a directed (intelligent) process. "A high degree of probability is often called 'practical certainty.' A reasonable man should not refrain upon acting upon a practical certainty as though it were known to be true. In England, for instance, it is customary for a judge, at the trial of a person accused of murder, to instruct the jury that an adverse verdict need not be based on the belief that the guilt of the prisoner has been ' proved ', but upon the belief that the guilt has been established ' beyond a reasonable doubt .' To be ' beyond reasonable doubt ' is to have sufficient evidence to make the proposition in question so much more likely to be true than to be false that we should be prepared to act upon the supposition of its truth. Many of our most important actions have to be performed in accordance with belief of such a kind." -L. Susan Stebbing, "Logic in Practice", (1934) pages 98 and 99 •••••••••• The following is a quote of Dr Frank Turek, taken from a debate between Frank Turek and Christopher Hitchens on KZbin. •••• "This is sometimes called the teleological argument for design. Not only did the universe explode into being out of nothing , it did so with extreme precision . In other words, the big bang was not a chaotic explosion. How incredibly precise was it? Atheist Steven Weinberg put it this way. He said, "life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values." There are dozens of these quantities . One of them Steven Hawking identified was this: He said that if the expansion rate of the universe changed by one part in a hundred thousand million million, a second after the big bang , we wouldn't be here . The universe would not have expanded, or it would have collapsed back in on itself, or it never would have created galaxies . That's how precisely designed the big bang event was. Not only was the big bang event precisely designed , so are many constants about our universe right now . If you change the gravitational force by one part in ten to the forty , we wouldn't be here . What's one part in ten to the forty? Illustration : Take a tape measure ; stretch it from that back wall to the front wall ; in inches. If you set gravity at a particular inch mark on that tape measure, and moved the strength of gravity one inch in either direction proportionally , we go out of existence . But the problem is that the tape measure doesn't go from that wall to this front wall; it goes across the entire known universe . You change gravity that much , across the entire known universe, and we don't exist . For you Navy people out here, (I was in the Navy many years) think of an aircraft carrier , like the John Stennis or the Ronald Reagan, which displaces a hundred and ten thousand tons ; has a runway on it that is about three lengths of a football field ; has five to six thousand people on it ; several stories high. If you were to change the weight of that aircraft carrier by less than a trillionth the weight of one electron , it would be uninhabitable , if the aircraft carrier was the universe . That's how incredibly designed the universe is."

[@Mindboggler123]

@@williamspringer9447 I mean, the rate we believed the universe expanded at was recently discovered to be wrong and the issue with your argument and amny arguments against atheistic views is the idea of a beginning, when that's not what science believes it is, they believed it was the earliest point we could find evidence for and couldn't know what happened before that, but now there is a theory called conformal cyclic cosmology, advanced by Roger Penrose, who found evidence of an older universe through hawking points and the energy radiated from the black hole discovered(he also assisted in that) that theorizes that the universe is an infinite cycle of expansion then compression and decay and each iteration is began with "bing bang" removes removes the idea that something had to create the universe, and if you are unable to believe that the universe just always existed, why are you able to believe that for a creator and not what has been physically observed?

[@DoctorShocktor]

@@williamspringer9447 Same nonsense bill. Doesn’t get anymore valid by reposting it.

[@hankchinaski_]

Michael Ruse is fantastic. A true educator and a gentleman. A rare breed.

[@Edward-bm7vw]

Michael Ruse is certainly a character. I bet he's great fun to speak with

[@DripStopShop]

what is the difference between information and patterns?

[@laurencehugo5910]

I'm an early earth creationist but always enjoyed Michael Ruse's presentation.

[@ii.gondolkodo3169]

If you enjoyed the atheist position, how can you be a believer? The two are opposites.

[@blurryimage4585]

I think Dr. Rana was attempting a proof by verbosity fallacy. The setting is intelligently designed, indeed: lay audience, proffesor of the philosophy of science who understandably assumes the discussion will not be technical as an opponent, and him - an expert on biochemistry who invokes technicality constantly. And them false analogies... everywhere. Blind watchmaker, information system optimization, researches "proving" intelligent agency, Kekule´s case as an evidence for divine inspiration. A subtle take on naturalistic fallacy arriving infallibly at 0.59 (beautifully rebutted though, in my view). And much more. Transcribed into a written form, it can all be deconstructed, piece by piece, on all levels. That promises enjoyment. Moreover, the civility of them both contributes to this discussion being even more pleasant.

[@bananimal45]

mary me?

[@midnjerry1]

Faz is my boy, but I was also looking forward to him debating a biologist too.

[@TheErik150x]

I agree completely with you, Lenka. Also, Dr. Rana near the end compares science's claim that solutions to today's "unsolvable" problems are just yet to be solved problems by naturalistic methods is the same type of "faith" if you will that creationists believe in. In other words when we say well we just haven't figured that out yet, we are no better then the ID proponents saying it was God. I have to disagree vehemently with that idea. We have demonstrated by all the we know in science and all the problems we have solved in science today so far that there is a precedent that we can solve these problems. With the age of reason manifesting only a few hundred years ago, this is the blink of an eye, (or maybe a few blinks), on the scale human existence. There is no precedent that creationism is the solution to anything, or provides us with any new useful knowledge or explanations.

[@fmilluminatus]

You only consider it a verbosity fallacy because you don't understand the scientific basis for his argument.

[@patrickderp1044]

@@TheErik150x boy, the replication crisis identified in 2011 that has only been getting worse, was not kind to this comment

[@wesmcconnell5340]

I often use a deck of cards to demonstrate that, given enough time, any series of cards, will repeat itself given, infinite, matter. time and energy.

[@l.m.892]

The skeptic/atheist must sneak religion into the conversation because it proves their point? "The cell looks designed!" I like that one. He never answers the question: why does it look designed?

[@glutinousmaximus]

Nothing much until around 10:40

[@101TonyParker]

Absolutely and we are never alone. "But the very hairs of your head are all numbered."

[@ericlarue8010]

We are designed (so to speak) by our environment . But not literally designed by a being. We are a reflection of the environment. Its not up the the environment to conform to us but rather the opposite. We must evolve to fit the environment. We design ourselves. And we are responsible for our own design. What might be a good design today may not work well tomorrow as the environment changes. The fact that chance is a factor in evolution doesn't mean chance is the only factor. There are many factors involved. But to say we are designed by a god is short sighted. And even if we were " designed by a god" that design must change and evolve.

[@DiCarloJr]

The most important event in our existence is... make sure that before your last living breath in your life, is after you were born again in JesusChrist name. The great I Am, Alpha & Omega

[@ginadecastro2398]

wow infinity.getting to see some of what is beyond is magnificent.my theory the creator made us through him that he is who we are.i believe in the holy spirit,grace goes through us.

[@wilhelmlorenz5852]

👉🤔🙏❤️ I CAN RELATE TO WHERE YOUR COMING 😉🦋🙏 FROM 😃🙏🙂👈🏽👉 I KNOW THE PEOPLE DEBATING I BELIEVE THAT IT'LL BE A VERY RESPECTFUL DEBATE 🙂😉☕🌹👈🏽

[@1whitemoon]

question to old-earth creationists: if each "day" in genesis is millions of years, and the sun was created (or,started shining on earth) 1 days AFTER the plants were created.. how did the plants survive exactly?

[@ingodwetrustgachatuber2747]

So, are you saying, even today, that if a plant doesn't get sunlight for a day, it dies? And are you saying the creator of everything was not able to sustain the plants for a day? Or, did you forget, as ALL atheists do, that the first words of God were, ''let there be light and there was'' just before the first day of creation began? Atheists should please stop their deceitful tactics of lies.

[@ingodwetrustgachatuber2747]

the earth was formed (not created, because the creation of the earth was at the beginning which time is unknown) in 24-hours day periods ONLY and not in thousands of years like Muslims now claim about their incoherent Quran. The Holy Bible does not talk about the time the earth was created (not formed).

[@SpongeBobImagination]

@@ingodwetrustgachatuber2747 __ The Intelligent Design proponent on stage is an Old Earth Creationist, which means he thinks each “Day” represents a long period of time (e.g., millions of years). Listen at around 54:58 to hear the speaker say it for himself. Old Earth Creationism is an indefensible position and the ID proponent is sadly a compromised Christian. Life, the universe, and everything was Created by God in six literal days about six thousand years ago (give or take a few years). The Earth is not billions of years old - that’s utterly absurd. God did not Create man through a process of death and suffering. That’s also patently absurd.

[@sombodysdad]

God's light

[@KoenM89]

Even as a masters in biology and a (for all intents and purposes) atheist I think this is exactly the kind of debate we should be having in a setting with people who are unfamiliar with scientific theories and history. Their talking about the origin of life not the evolution (in a strict sense). I just thought the debate should've toughed more on the different models and what they imply and the scientific method. It particularly struck me that Dr. Rana accepts miracles as a valid scientific ex.

[@Chris-qg8ss]

Rana is not the only one that accepts miracles to explain the unknown. Secular scientists do it all the time too, to explain their unknowns, if not, then at the very least, to explain conclusions based on UNOBSERVABLE events. Meaning faith is required. Similarly of characteristics does not necessarily imply common ancestry every time.

[@tonyb8660]

Forget about the cell... how in tarnation do these non racemic amino acids form?

[@marblox9300]

So it would (according to you) start somewhere and over time grew into a more noticeable form of the organ. So give examples all over the planet of the millions of people who have these new organs forming all over their bodies today which are in different stages. For example - that early eye as you say would have been almost unnoticeable but an intermediate compared to todays present eye would have been definitely noticeable. There should be all kinds of new things developing that you can see. So please provide some of the examples of newly developing organs.

[@katkit4281]

Your statement has one very serious flaw. You will never see some organ developing where you can claim it will have a given function within 10 thousand years. You will never see half formed features or organs, ever. Evolution has no future goals, it does not work like that. Every structure that is evolving has a current use in the present. So no you won't see new things developing. That statement goes against evolution by making it seem it has some end game.

[@colinoneill3659]

Example: Human identical twins each have unique DNA by the time they are born. The DNA is very close, but it is not identical. What is your explanation for the divergence? Mine is random' mutations.

[@ii.gondolkodo3169]

@@globalcoupledances This is not an answer, a cheap excuse, a cover for ignorance.

[@tomatodamashi]

The best Rana got to is that an intelligent agent started everything off, but that could be an alien race. He never got to even a Deistic god let alone a Christian god. His strategy was simply tear down what natural science has gotten us so far and not once did he show that it must be supernatural.

[@sngscratcher]

It's not where we came from but what we’re doing with our present and future that counts. The past is gone; it is an illusion, so to speak. If we choose, we can work together to make a brighter future for us all. Arguing over the past wastes valuable time and energy we could be using to build a better tomorrow. Cheers. *If it is an argument over whether religious creation stories should be taught in science class, however, that is an argument worth having.

[@ciarangreen1004]

Dr Fuz Rana in his closing statement points out the logical fallacy of appeal to the future by scientists, but about 10 minutes earlier on the subject of how cancer fits into God's 'plan', described how designs which look bad initially may turn out, in the future, to be good. That's called having your cake and eating it.

[@ProfTAdamson]

Is Science imposing a limit on Intelligence by stating that Intelligent Design was not used in creating this Universe? Does this mean that Intelligence is not capable of designing a Universe? If Intelligence is capable of designing a Universe then how would you tell the difference between a Universe that used Intelligent Design and one that did not? What would be the litmus test?

[@aaronsurratt7646]

Well stated! Nothing can't make everything!

[@MrJonnygirl]

yes, because 'obviously', if A causes B, then B mustve caused A. thats the genius of christian research XD

[@ProfTAdamson]

Sorry but I am lost???

[@MrJonnygirl]

yeah, i bet...

[@ProfTAdamson]

Thanks for the clarification. :)

[@CalamityStriker]

What evolved first; the stomach that holds the food, the stomach acid that breaks down the food, or the layer on the stomach wall that stops the acid from eating through the stomach? If you suggest a unison evolving process, how did the organism not die off from lack of functioning during the "incredibly long process" that's needed for developing the functions needed to even be self-sustaining to survive that long process?

[@jozefsykora523]

you know that evolution take milions if not billions of years to make the biome you know right now, do you think in your right state of mind tha t we will be the same a thousand years ahead? or we would evolve

[@polishpigeon7055]

If you want to explore this topic further look into how single celled heterotrophic organisms metobalise. Look into human cells and how they digest. Look into digestive system of hydras, worms, molluscan and so on. Stomach and the entirety of digestive system evolved from simple lysosomes, ferments, citoplasm and digestive vacuoles which evolved from even simpler predecessors. All bodily systems that mamals and birds have came from simpler analogues of our ancestors.

[@outofthebox7]

@@jozefsykora523 we are the same thousands of years, we have no reason to believe we will not be the same twice the thousands of years.

[@DoctorShocktor]

You need to study evolution a WHOLE LOT MORE, chief. The end processes that we see now are all built up in tiny steps, not all at once. Get the basic concepts correct before you try again.

[@DoctorShocktor]

@@outofthebox7 Wrong.

[@peterwyetzner5276]

What is a creator? What traits define the class of creators of which a given creator is a member?

[@koppite9600]

Since dna is a part... we can say there was an intelligence behind it because dna has information. Info can only be seen to be from intelligent sources. The homochirality of cells makes the intelligence powerful so we have an intelligent and powerful being

[@giuffre714]

@@koppite9600 Why does DNA create people with Down Syndrome? Is it mean?

[@koppite9600]

@@giuffre714 no.. its a happening which is known. The causes are also known. Don't you think that if we truly evolved without guidance.. things like this would have been eliminated like the tail was?

[@giuffre714]

@@koppite9600 So you are saying we evolved without guidance?

[@koppite9600]

@@giuffre714 i like to think from analysing all the science ive read i conclude that the creator had a way of letting things happen. I vouch for guided evolution because big bang was strongly guided or the universe would have collapsed the second after its birth.

[@rlswims]

Where did they find this moderator?

[@saynotodogma7776]

What the creationist doesn't get is; no matter how unlikely a given natural explanation is, it will always be more likely then a miraculous explanation, which by definition is not likely at all, as a result of no prior probability.

[@dsbiddle]

@ SayNoToDogma Would you define what you mean by 'miraculous'? Would you consider the unguided emergence of life from non-life to be miraculous? How about the emergence of the universe from nothing? Is natural universal common ancestry miraculous? How about a gilled fish developing lungs through unguided random processes? The naturalist explanations are founded on miraculous events.

[@loricalass4068]

Dave Biddle Are you being coy and playing word games? I am quite sure you know that a man coming back from 1 3/4 hours of being dead, and living a normal life thereafter, has had a miracle. I'm quite sure you know that for surgically removed small intestines to be restored after prayers is a miracle. If you want to get into denial about that and say "Well, that's not my definition of a miracle" what can I say? You miss out. And if you continue on that path you miss out on more than you can imagine. The people who experienced their miracles didn't miss out however. That's all I have to say as I have no time for games.

[@worldpeace8299]

You need to start saying no to dogma. Then maybe you will think a little clearer about this. Before any understanding of the history of religion and the significance and meaning of its literature, you might want to start without narrow assumptions. The question as to whether or not Darwin's theory is viable is the question as to whether or not a workable explanation has been given for the argument against intelligence in nature. You are confusing argument with assumption. You believe there has to be a "natural" explanation therefore you see the idea of intelligence guiding natural forces as miraculous. Why don't we do what good scientists should do and keep an open mind and investigate the evidence?

[@kalebredick9591]

So are you trying to avoid the fact that natural processes are undeniably unlikely to have created (no pun intended) what we see today? You can assume that the natural processes are more likely, but you have 2 problems. 1) You haven't proven that the natural processes are correct. 2) You haven't negated or proved God wrong.

[@blindwatchmaker2345]

It makes sense of you start from the notion there's an allpowerful, all-knowing/seeing and always been present gawd. Then evidence isn't important to you, cos you can explain or explain away ANY- and EVERYTHING with the delusional concept of gawd....

[@thcknast]

May not be the best title, considering Evolution has nothing to do with the Origin of life

[@lauroneto3360]

Yes it dooooes, lil boy!! Replication, errors, selection. RNA world hypothesis is an example. You can't avoid the darwinian mechanism, since it's the only mechanism capable of doing anything you want.

[@pharoahakhenaten6630]

Except orgins of species definitely apply to living species. Orgin means the very beginning. I hate when you guys say that.

[@thcknast]

@@pharoahakhenaten6630 origin of species is entirely different than origin of life. Evolution explains the origin of species because it describes how the many species have arisen from other species, but it says absolutely nothing about how life as we know it came from non-life. It says nothing whatsoever about the origin of life, and to claim it does is to set up a straw man just so you can feel like you've won something no one is arguing.

[@thcknast]

@@lauroneto3360 The theory of evolution makes no claims whatsoever about how non-life created life. It only refers to the changes in the proportions of biological types in a population over time. I don't know why you would insist that it claims to explain Abiogenesis, but it does not. Now, the word evolution is used quite often in its colloquial form (i.e. the evolution of language), so if you're using the term that way then the point is moot as you're not even talking about the theory, just using the word loosly.

[@lauroneto3360]

@@thcknast abiogenesis incorporates evolution (as it is defined). Random changes and natural selection as the producer of more complex novelties. That's the point here.

[@thestudyofchristianity]

54:02 Good Question We have light before Sun

[@brendaevans1378]

Since God chose us before the foundation of the world some people are blind and will never come to the knowledge of God 🤷✝️🙏

[@tedgrant2]

Being amazed and impressed by something that we don't understand should give us an incentive to investigate and obtain more data which might help us overcome our distress by developing better theories. Giving up and saying, well God explains it, does not explain anything. When I studied Engineering at Loughborough University, at no point was God used to explain something, it was always a natural explanation.

[@rodneysettle8106]

tedgrant2 I absolutely agree with you.

[@NewYorkBattleCat]

Yeah thats cool. But humans are light years away from engineering. You cant compare the two. What you learned had nothing to do with evolution or intelligent design.

[@ArgothaWizardWars]

The burden of proof is on you. The Bible has claimed and has been accepted as the historical record of the universe for millenia.

[@rodneysettle8106]

Argotha I don’t know who has accepted the bible as historical, maybe to Christians. There is no evidence that supports any aspect of the bible.

[@pound4pound380]

Giving up is saying a living cell created itself with DNA and RNA built in it and the cell can replicate itself. Saying that statement is giving up. Especially if you have zero evidence to support your claim. I'm more interested in finding out what designed us at this point. I don't care if it an superior alien race or intelligent beings outside of our dimension. I want to know who designed DNA. Because natural chemical substances don't create living cells at all

[@YOSUP315]

29:52 That look is priceless! "Don't you dare take away my bacterial flagellum they're the best I've got damn it!"

[@commandvideo]

so what was your conclusion ? did anyone converted to theism or atheism after watching this ?

[@arsenic1987]

1:17:40 - Woah woah... What?... Sorry, I need to get an answer there... WHAT predictions are made on this basis?.. Give me ANY.. Just ONE.... cause I've never heard of any predictions coming from the basis in Genisis. For me, personally, that would be a HUGE step towards his arguments.

[@reallifechangingtruth7679]

Greetings, my friends, this is Pastor Mike. I've seen so many of these debates and I've read a great deal of commentary. It seems to always follow the same patterns of exchange. Neither side really listens to the other side and in nearly every case the worldviews remain intact. In commentary there's a lot of name calling and insults which, my friends, isn't the way to address such issues. It's O.K. to engage the issues being discussed but, we should avoid attacking the person stating their position on the issues. You can probably imagine the kind of flack a person gets when they have the title "Pastor" in front of their name. I've heard it all. I'm not sure yet whether or not I will comment on this debate video. Well, take care and Best Wishes or GOD Bless, whichever fits your worldview. Pastor Michel (Mike) Benjamins, Jr. 11-14-16 @ 1:12 A.M.

[@giuffre714]

To be clear, evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life.So the title is silly.

[@josephno1347]

They teach of angel wings and morals while hiding their incisors

[@gfujigo]

Go ahead and comment Pastor Mike. I would love to know what you think. 🤔

[@reallifechangingtruth7679]

@@gfujigo Greetings, this is Pastor Mike Benjamins, Jr. Of Oregon [May 30, 2021]. The following narrative is one of the numerous written responses I have published. It may not precisely respond to a specific video or debate but, it generally creates a glimpse into my views: * ORIGIN OF LIFE, How Life Started on Earth: FROM THE PASTOR: For the record, Yes, I do seriously believe in the Biblical Creator-GOD and His Word. If you nonbelievers opt not to believe as I do,.... have at it. I would visit you from the glory of GOD's Kingdom but, I may not be able to find you in the expanse of nothingness and nonexistence which some believe follows this earthy, fleshly existence. We must all take the responsibility and live with the consequences of our choices (like an adult). Here we go again, nonbelievers regaling us with stories of "solid science" victories and accomplishments. Just one thing, however, we do not get to ride on the coattails of solid science in order to pass off bad science or no science at all (faith-based scientific beliefs or "Scientism") as if it were solid science, often riding on the strength of credentialism alone. Balderdash is balderdash, my friends. I do not believe that the Biblical GOD is superior to any other real gods because, there are no other real gods. Man(kind) may behave as if he were a god but that does not make him one. Yes. science has come up with studies and facts, that's true. But, science has also been hijacked by, let us say, those who have imaginations run amuck and exercise powers they have not truly earned, to bring us some of the worst hypothetical models trying to float on a solid science life raft. Now, as to mixing science and GOD, that is inevitable. The reason is that GOD is the Creator and, when we study His Creation we end up discovering His Creative Hand. We've already gone down that road with the complex genetic information existing in the DNA molecule. Not long ago, I wrote: * "Hello again, this is Pastor Mike. All this debate about "Mean-Old Acids" [Amino acids] doesn't really get us anywhere. * If I understood my studies correctly, No matter where amino acids are discovered outside of a living cell, they will not link together to form proteins outside of an already living cell. That is the basis of the principle of Biogenesis. Thus, it supports creation by an intelligence. Moreover, only proteins containing all left-handed amino acids will work in living things. It is akin to a puzzle with the picture side up. If one turns a puzzle piece over, it will not fit. The amino acids that form, without an intelligence, are both right-handed and left-handed which is problematic for Abiogenesis. In the Miller-Urey experiment, the amino acids were half LH and half RH. Correctly ordered LH amino acids are linked together by a molecular apparatus (protein manufacturing machine) inside the already living cell, driven by the complex genetic information (instructions) already existing in the DNA molecule. * As to amino acids forming life wherever there is water, outside a living cell, that doesn't work either because, as I understand it, the amino acids tend to disperse in water. Thus, this whole business of amino acids somehow forming a living cell by Abiogenesis, over extremely long periods of time, is just about impossible (as the mathematics, quoted as "10 to the 159th power" appears to indicate). We may then conclude that the so-called organic soup of the primordial pool of pond scum, is no substitute for the protein building mechanism existing inside an already living cell. I'm afraid that these facts that relate to the Biogenesis model are compelling in the face of Abiogenesis proponents. * Thus, the notion that life arose from matter alone, abiogenesis style, without a creative intelligence involved, which I claim to be the Biblical GOD, in a chemistry to biology fashion, cannot be sustained. Various scientists can put forth a hypothetical model, which exists as a scientific belief hoping to be proven but, it is a far, far cry from being a fact. Scientific "guesses," relying heavily upon the strength of credentials alone, are not to be mistaken for cut-and-dried solid science. An educated guess is still a guess, not a fact. I will be keeping an eye on what science comes up with but, meanwhile, we should understand that claims of abiogenesis in the far distant past constitute an alleged event that no man can have observed. Pastor Mike. 2-18-17 @ 6:33 P.M. * This is not a comment or reply intended for a specific individual, even though some statements were inspired by individual commentary. It is simply a statement made by me for anyone and everyone. I am not inviting debate or argumentation, which I will not engage in. The information people seek is out there if one cares to look. In future statements, I may or may not opt to cite points and authorities. Take care. Pastor Mike. 2-25-17 @ 2:40 P.M.?

[@reallifechangingtruth7679]

@@gfujigo I posted a reply/comment on 5-30-21. It is fairly detailed. It's hard to believe I posted my original statement four years ago. Anyway, it may be under [hidden] replies to my first statement. From: Pst. MBJR. 5-30-21 @ 7:23 P.M. Oregon Time. All my standard rules and disclaimers apply.

[@ChristianMetalFan100]

I didn't hear a single argument for abiogenesis in Michael Ruse's ENTIRE 20 minute presentation.

[@robertoesquivel4447]

ChristianMetalFan100 well he's also not a biologist, so..

[@blindwatchmaker2345]

@@robertoesquivel4447 and theres still no evidence that abiogenesis created the life we evolved from, its a hyopotheses, based on probabillity......but dont tell the creatards...theyll make it into " atheists say theres no gawd!!!!",

[@HoFaceKilla21]

This is the debate i have been waiting for. Ruse asks point blank for Rana to explain id's positive position instead of a negative position on evolution. Rana goes to the bible. Ruse asks questions about the bible and id. Rana begins christian apologetics essentially bowing out of any scientific discussion. Perfect example of how the negative arguments against evolution hide the fact that id's positive position is nothing more than christian creationism which is unlawful to teach in school. Thank you Ruse. Don't be fooled people. Educate the nation!

[@ii.gondolkodo3169]

If evolution is wrong, it means your death. You have to accept that!

[@rickrouse7865]

Besides DNA which is begging the question where do you observe nature sending out codes to other physical systems that deciphers those codes to perform function?

[@Rasral1]

The only STUPID QUESTION is the one that is not asked;

[@niklaswikstrom78]

Every Creationist / ID proponent in any of these debates: "We don't know exactly how this happened = God done it. Sorry, I don't actually have any real arguments part from biblical references and arguments from ignorance."

[@gledatelj1979]

On the other hand, atheists just add the time as in ``long ago`` to anything which means both are flawed which is expected in these debates.

[@niklaswikstrom78]

Vlado S It's not about atheism, science looks at what we can see around us, for example in geology, plate tectonics, radiology etc. and extrapolate to try to figure out how old the Earth is. So no, they/we do not simply add time on randomly - so how is it a flawed argument?

[@jayc3737]

All Life requires information. Information only comes Intelligence.

[@LonskiBig]

Every Darwinian I've seen in debates, leans on cartoon drawings (made in error) of 3 "transitional forms"....that simply show extinct species....and say, "...see....see...there are the transitional forms".....and I'm yawning......

[@niklaswikstrom78]

Lonnie Christopher Then you can't have seen many debates

[@treantbeca6823]

Your right!

[@timflowers9709]

Does a prosthetic hand or leg come about by Intelligent designer and Creator ? The human hand and leg is more complex in design than the prosthetic hand and leg.

[@DanielBrownsan]

Craig Hazen has "preacher hair" so there's already a bias.

[@GeoCalifornian]

36:58 it’s so true; there are so many interfering chemical reactions in the primordial era, that so-called “e

[@AMomentOfClarity2011]

Please describe what you mean by soul or spirit. I find that these are often circular in description (soul is a spirit and spirit is a type of soul) and thus gives no actual information to me. MY view of a soul is my personality, the current and ever changing pathways in my brain. It makes me ME, for now. "I think therefore I am" is a very true statement in my view and when I STOP thinking I cease to be as well.

[@RaseRmax]

Exodus 20:11 “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”

[@eniszita7353]

yeah that is one of many creation stories, for example "Know thou, O tormentor of thy foes, that the entire world rests on Vishnu. The great Vishnu creates the totality of creatures, moving and unmoving. In him they go to their reabsorption, from Him they originate." how do you select the one you believe?

[@richardpeterson9653]

The label of this debate is entirely misleading! I was looking forward to hearing Fuz Rana defend his statements about design. Instead Michael Ruse says "I don't disagree with you it could be designed." Conceding the point almost from the very beginning!!! Then goes on an anti-Christian rant, how disappointing. Admittedly I quite watching when it became apparent Michael had no intention of actually engaging to the advertised topic, instead choosing to debate the Bible. A field Michael's credential for are not discussed, nor does it seem that Fuz qualifications lend to a public debate of the hermeneutics of the Bible. What I would like to state is that due to human bias is it's easy to misunderstand the written word, and very difficult to correct that misinformed understanding. An idea that plays out throughout the internet every flipping day! Those misunderstandings don't come through more then 2000 years of cultural change and a translation(which honestly requires slot of education to understand). By the time I choose to stop watching, Michael had only behaved in a way which I would consider a serious discredit to atheist, and scholarly debate!!! (though I will admit I am assuming, given their credentials, that this debate was suppose to be about evolution vs intelligent design. Not who designed the cell, or the biblical understanding of that.)

[@berational4716]

+Richard Peterson I mean, there is no conclusive answer regarding how life could have originated. All we know is that there is no evidence of a god performing magic. We don't see the laws of physics breaking (since that is impossible). So I don't know what you expected the argument to be. But if science doesn't have an answer to the question, its not going to make up an answer for the debate, it will simply point outthe many errors of alternative hypotheses (and that is a very generous description of so called creation), and science will continue to work on the problem. A simple google search would tell you, "science does not yet have the answer to abiogenesis." So if you were expecting an answer, then you wasted your time. Instead, take it as the reason why science is continuing to work on abiogenesis hypotheses. Other hypotheses have absolutely no supporting evidence (like the existence of a god for one thing).

[@richardpeterson9653]

The so called laws of physics have been broken at lease once. The whatever started everything moving, it's self had to be unmoved. To suggest otherwise is folly, to ignore entropy is to ignore the very laws you assume to govern the universe. Beyond that there is all kinds of evidence that those laws may be altered. Rather then engage such evidence, many these days just use the ad-hominid attacks to ignore. Enviably such discussions are fruitless, since they deteriorate ultimately into circular logic of trying to use science to probe it's fundamental assumption. Reductive Materialism or rather the assertion that everything is material or some variation on that theme. Actually what I had expected was for two professionals debate and to remain in their chosen field of study! Addressing the question that was advertised. Instead the little I watched could have been found in any internet Theist vs Atheist forum poor biblical understanding, insulting and posturing! Much like how I expect this conversation started would continue and so is about to end! Rather the attempting to emulate the associated discussions, in a futile and irrational attempt to discredit each others world view. When nether of us has any respect for the rational faculties of the other (cause of the anonymity on the internet). I will simply wish peace be with you, and go enjoy my life instead!!

[@berational4716]

So what unmoved cause caused the movements of a god? Saying god created everything answers nothing and begs a more difficult question of where did god come from. Why is there evil in the world. Why did he make us so poorly. Gallbladders and appendixes become inflamed and kill people, yet the lack of both do not shorten lifespan. So why do we have them? Of course, they do have functions, but the functions do not outweigh the risks which is why they are removed so frequently. These things are suggestive of evolution. Imperfect, but remarkable nontheless. A perfect god would create a perfect world, not a chaotic universe. He wouldn't set the Milky Way on a collision course with Andromeda. He wouldn't allow asteroids to hurl themselves toward us. God does not exist.

[@richardpeterson9653]

Forgive my disinterest there is nothing I haven't heard a dozens of times before in your statement. First assuming God has a origin assumes he exists in space and time. This is not what I think, and is sadly just a reassertion of materialism. In a transparnt attempt to side step the uncaused cause problem inherent amongst materialistic world veiws! Which I do not share with you so it's not my issue thanks. Evolution really is only a problem for those who do not recognize that their are different ways to interpret the bible. This again is not an issue for me! I prefer to let the natural gospel help inform me about the scripture. This leaves the only really good objection atheist raise. The problem of suffering, this has several flaws. Basicly breaks down in to an emotional appeal based on wish fulfillment of a God who would not allow suffering. Ever heard of tough love? This is the God we see Biblically! Peter the most loved apostle was also the one God and Jesus was the hardest on! The Jews God's chosen people have been the most abused. I promise you that is the God I believe in. I have suffered consistently, and every time I do, for me is opportunity to climb up next to Jesus and get closer to God! Which is how I know he exists and has love for me! Cause he shares my cross! No I'm not masochistic I just don't have a societies limited and unrealistic idea of love being sunshine, rainbows and unicorn farts! Inspiring Philosophy is right about "How America Destroyed the Gospel"! God is not some kind of vending machine. He's is alot more complex then the simplistic grade school veiw of an old man sitting on a cloud granting wishes. Good Day to you sir! Peace be with you!

[@berational4716]

You were the one suggesting an unmoved mover. My point is whatever created the universe, it exists outside the universe since it did not exist to live within prior to its existence. Thus, whatever created the universe could easily be called god. I'm fine with that. However, there is no evidence that the god that created the universe is sentient. It could be inanimate. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that god has intervened beyond the creation of the universe. However, there is PLENTY of evidence that the god YOU worship from the Bible is man's invention. There is no science or moral within the bible that a mere man could not have come up with on his own. And often, its just the opposite, ONLY men could have come up with such morals.

[@niklaswikstrom78]

"We are taking scripture, and re-casting it in a scientific manner..." Exactly, taking religion and trying to squash reality to fit scripture

[@lauroneto3360]

Ok. And he did it very impressively. What about inserting abiogenesis into little kids book in order to shove a failure scenario down into their throats?

[@l337pwnage]

Should be a short debate, since evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life.

[@stevemclendsy3911]

If there is a designer of the universe,it sure isn't the Biblical God. That's the best way to explain it.

[@wayneb4255]

If life is created in a lab creationists will say it strengthens the watchmaker argument.

[@MrChaosDark]

its simply to weird to argue this with out good knowledge of it

[@tomemery7890]

@@fartpooboxohyeah8611 "shouldn't question" (without "be") and "people's knowledge" (possessive apostrophe). Humility my friend.

[@brayaneduardoossarengifo8142]

Is possible, enjoy it in spanish?

[@salvadoremarinaro6350]

God asks of His people: to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with Him.

[@Zap074]

You're right about artificial genetic engineering, I observe it each day in my lab. But one time I came across an unwanted (random) point mutation. If you wish so I can send you the chromatogram. Abiogenesis isn't proven, yet... as is gravitation. Neither am I saying that it is proven. But it's worth a shot, trying to unravel and understand the mysteries that are the origin of life. Not being a rhetorical jerk wasn't that difficult, was it? Chapeau.

[@dja-bomb6397]

"This is not a god of the gaps argument" -proceeds with god of the gaps argument.

[@williamspringer9447]

Adam Courtney ••• The intelligent design argument is based on logical inferences from from hard scientific evidence . Have you ever wondered why they teach our kids big bang and evolution theory in school,and yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century? Do you think it's because they want to enlighten us ? Here's an argument for the existence of God that you may enjoy. Premise #1: The universe was created by either a directed (intelligent) or undirected (random) process . Premise #2: The proposition that the universe was created by an undirected (random) process runs squarely against numbers that are so astronomically improbable that we can not reasonable entertain them as a possibility . Conclusion : It is therefore a practical certainty that the universe was created by a directed (intelligent) process. "A high degree of probability is often called 'practical certainty.' A reasonable man should not refrain upon acting upon a practical certainty as though it were known to be true. In England, for instance, it is customary for a judge, at the trial of a person accused of murder, to instruct the jury that an adverse verdict need not be based on the belief that the guilt of the prisoner has been ' proved ', but upon the belief that the guilt has been established ' beyond a reasonable doubt .' To be ' beyond reasonable doubt ' is to have sufficient evidence to make the proposition in question so much more likely to be true than to be false that we should be prepared to act upon the supposition of its truth. Many of our most important actions have to be performed in accordance with belief of such a kind." -L. Susan Stebbing, "Logic in Practice", (1934) pages 98 and 99 •••••••••• The following is a quote of Dr Frank Turek, taken from a debate between Frank Turek and Christopher Hitchens on KZbin. •••• "This is sometimes called the teleological argument for design. Not only did the universe explode into being out of nothing , it did so with extreme precision . In other words, the big bang was not a chaotic explosion. How incredibly precise was it? Atheist Steven Weinberg put it this way. He said, "life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values." There are dozens of these quantities . One of them Steven Hawking identified was this: He said that if the expansion rate of the universe changed by one part in a hundred thousand million million, a second after the big bang , we wouldn't be here . The universe would not have expanded, or it would have collapsed back in on itself, or it never would have created galaxies . That's how precisely designed the big bang event was. Not only was the big bang event precisely designed , so are many constants about our universe right now . If you change the gravitational force by one part in ten to the forty , we wouldn't be here . What's one part in ten to the forty? Illustration : Take a tape measure ; stretch it from that back wall to the front wall ; in inches. If you set gravity at a particular inch mark on that tape measure, and moved the strength of gravity one inch in either direction proportionally , we go out of existence . But the problem is that the tape measure doesn't go from that wall to this front wall; it goes across the entire known universe . You change gravity that much , across the entire known universe, and we don't exist . For you Navy people out here, (I was in the Navy many years) think of an aircraft carrier , like the John Stennis or the Ronald Reagan, which displaces a hundred and ten thousand tons ; has a runway on it that is about three lengths of a football field ; has five to six thousand people on it ; several stories high. If you were to change the weight of that aircraft carrier by less than a trillionth the weight of one electron , it would be uninhabitable , if the aircraft carrier was the universe . That's how incredibly designed the universe is."

[@dja-bomb6397]

@@williamspringer9447 thank you for your response. It was very interesting, but I believe you only further demonstrated my point. How would a theologian determine the difference between something that is truly supernatural and something that is natural but just outside of our current realm of scientific understanding? Spoiler alert: they can't. The universe is not only stranger than we know, it's stranger than we *can* know. Is gravity a "guided process"? I ask this question because it seems creationists believe the only alternative to a guided process must be randomness. But, gravity is not random. We know exactly what happens when we let go of something we're holding: it falls. This natural constant allows us to make observations and predictions with repeatable results. If the theory of gravitation were somehow disproved, would the new answer automatically be that angels have been pulling objects towards the earth at 9.81 meters per second squared, OR, is "we don't know" an acceptable response until further study can be done? The answer is obvious. So, when ID proponents attempt to poke holes in evolution, why do they think this lends ANY credibility to their own position by default? I'm sorry, but you need to support your own position. While saying "Just look around you, everything has the appearance of design!" is an interesting thought experiment, it all falls apart if you think about it for more than a minute. Take the watchmaker argument for example: When we look at a watch we know that it was designed because we have other watches to compare it to and we understand that human hands designed the watch for a specific purpose. Yet, under the intelligent design model there is nothing in the universe that has not been "created". You could say the entire universe is the watch. But how do they know that? There is no other universe, no other watch, that we can compare it to. As far as we can know for sure, any purpose the universe may have is subject to human interpretation... bottom-up, not top-down. We understand design by comparing it against things that are naturally occurring. What other natural universe can we compare ours against to determine if it was in fact designed? We can't. It's all baseless speculation, which is why it's so hard to take creationism seriously. There is always some kind of fallacious reasoning involved when appealing to the supernatural. Bayesian probability is the most dishonest of all apologetic attempts because it plugs in variables for which we have no precedent or parallel to reference. For instance, if you have a six-sided die, you know you have a one in six chance of rolling a 4. The probability changes with the number of sides you add. If you flip a coin 100 times and each time it lands on heads, what are the chances it will land on heads the next time? The answer is always 50/50. There is only one universe that we know of... a one-sided die. No calculations can be made for things that we know have only occurred once. It's even worse for events that have never happened before, such as a resurrection. The simplest illustration to describe the big bang is if you were to pack everything that exists inside the universe into something the size of a small brief case, and it's about to fly open. This includes all matter, space, time, physics, causality... everything our human brains have knowledge of resides inside of this brief case. We then ask the question, "what was outside the brief case?" Now, you claim to know the answer based on inferences as if our realm of understanding inside the briefcase also applies on the outside. This is not only something we don't know, but CAN'T know. Yet these theists scoff as if this is such an easy problem to solve. It is most certainly the equivalent of, "Hey, look at these things scientists haven't figured out yet. This is where God lives!" Well, I gotta tell you, God's house is getting smaller and smaller with every discovery. Shouldn't the fine-tuning argument be more of an argument against a powerful creator? The greater miracle would be if the universe were not fine-tuned, yet allowed for life anyway. It seems the very fact that the universe must meet certain specifications strongly suggests that God had no other choice but to design it this way, thus is bound by certain external restrictions and is therefore not all-powerful. Furthermore, knowing that life only exists in the tiniest fraction of 0.0000000000000001% of the universe makes the fine-tuning argument quite silly. Finally (as if there aren't enough holes in this argument ready) the very idea that the universe is fine-tuned says nothing other than... it is fine-tuned. Plugging in a god explanation to explain what we do not yet understand doesn't really have much explanatory power other than, god did it. It doesn't say anything about how it happened. There is no way to objectively verify this claim by testing, making predictions, and most importantly, it is unfalsifiable. If humans remained satisfied with the idea that Zeus threw down lightning from Olympus we never would have discovered electricity. Sometimes the most honest answer is "I don't know" because it gives us permission to explore and investigate what the real answer is. Now, let's talk about a universe from "nothing" for a moment. If you ask the question, "WHAT is nothing?" you have immediately defeated your own argument. "WHAT" implies something. Nobody knows how to approach the subject of "nothing" without applying a contradiction in terms. Consider this: could "nothing" ever EXIST? Obviously, the answer is no. Therefore, there is no reason to think there could ever BE or has ever BEEN "nothing", ever. It can be soundly argued that everything that begins to exist is a rearrangement of pre-existing fundamental particles. When you began to exist, did you emerge from nothing? Of course not. You were a rearrangement a pre-existing fundamental particles. Creationism tends to project its own faults onto science only to continue pushing the same circular argument routing back to a preconceived conclusion. Science gathers data and attempts to arrive at the best conclusion it can based on the data, with as little bias as possible. Religion, however, holds to an unchanging presupposed conclusion and selectively tries to use whatever data it can to confirm that presupposition. This is not only the wrong way to form models of reality, it is dishonest. Stating as fact that which is not evidently true is no different from lying. Furthermore, when science makes new earth shattering discoveries, religions must reshape or reinterpret their doctrines in order to make things fit. I am not aware of a single instance where science has been forced to change because of a religious discovery. Maybe I'm unaware of it... Please, name one scientific discovery that was later abandoned in favor of a supernatural explanation ... Just one.

[@williamspringer9447]

Adam Courtney ••• Thank you for the very thoughtful and carefully reasoned comment. I disagree entirely of course. In defence of my argument for the existence of God I only find it necessary to say this: My premises are true. I could support them with mountains of evidence . And my conclusion logically follows . But of course , it's not really my argument . It represents the wisdom of the ages, and the belief of thousands of years of humanity's finest minds. I think that your trust of the scientific community is misguided . Nine out of ten Americans still believe that man walked on the Moon, even though there is zero reliable evidence that it ever happened. Read Inventing the AIDS Virus by Dr Peter Duesberg, with introduction by Nobel prize winning scientist Dr Kary Mullis; then you'll see the scientific community for what it truly is . Have you ever wondered why they teach our kids big bang and evolution theory in school,and yet those same State controlled public schools haven't taught the science of classical logic for more than a century?(The Underground History of American Education by John Gatto) I guarantee you that if our government thought that making us believe in Zeus would make us twice as productive and easier to control , they would be teaching Zeus in our public schools right now. Our government has turned its back on Christianity because atheism makes better drones . They can't have hundreds of millions of heavily armed ignorant peasants running around thinking they have a soul and there's a God. That could get ugly. That's the stuff revolutions are made of. "The public is a ferocious beast; one must either chain it or flee from it." -Voltaire "Their central dogma is the immortality and transmigration of the soul. A doctrine which they regard as the finest incentive to courage, since it inspires contempt of death." -Julius Caesar, "The Commentaries", regarding the spiritual beliefs of the ancient Druids, 51 B.C.

[@rdhallmansr]

There are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics, so increasing complexity from lifeless chemicals to complex living cells in a pre-bionic world is a clear violation of the 2nd law.

[@dja-bomb6397]

@@rdhallmansr 2nd law applies to a closed or isolated system. Earth is constantly receiving energy from the sun. You have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Perhaps do some research from sources that are not religious propaganda, because it just makes you sound like an uninformed parrot.

[@RohithBasu]

HOW is this a debate when both sides are favoring and 'debating' design ??

[@LAlba9]

This was a set-up to allow intelligent design proponents to more easily present their errata on naive audiences. Several things are indications of this: 1) It's at BIOLA University. 2) Professor Ruse is a philosopher, not a biology scientist, and is notoriously quirky & easy to "bum rush" in debate when defending evolution, despite it being his philosophical specialty area. 3) the molecular biologist is an Intelligent Design "gritter", somewhat equivalent to a well trained pool hustler. It's the only strategy the Creationists have left now that gene science & DNA has put the nail in the coffin of evolution deniers.

[@DoctorShocktor]

Yeah, well welcome to KZbin, where the lazy and idiots like to watch videos that support their beliefs rather than doing any actual research or work on learning truths.