What About Evolution?

[@3nterprisevideos]

This channel helped defeat any left over doubt I’ve had, thank you....you do a great service for people looking for answers

[@mr16325]

What was your top 3 biggest doubts?

[@TheTruthKiwi]

Yeah I had doubt in magical entities from other dimensions as well. Now I know that everything most likely originated and evolved naturally.

[@RyanHarville]

@@TheTruthKiwi Cool, where did everything come from?

[@TheTruthKiwi]

@@RyanHarville I don't know mate. Neither do you and neither does the rest of the nearly 8 billion people on the planet. Not one person knows exactly what existed or occurred prior to the Big bang or the Plank Epoch to be more specific. If anyone claims they do know then they are deluded or are being dishonest, probably both. In saying that, it is almost infinitely more LIKELY that the universe and life originated naturally and wasn't poofed into existence by some magical entity from another dimension. Maybe matter and energy has always existed in some natural form. Perhaps the universe is in a continuous natural loop. As the last universe expanded and reached maximum entropy it possible collapsed into a singularity. As the singularity reached maximum density it then expanded into our universe, and the cycle continues. The most honest, reasonable and rational thing anyone can say regarding origins is, "I don't know" but we can observe the universe and extrapolate the evidence from what we do know and make educated hypothesis from the available information.

[@alvinkim1305]

Same here.

[@ep8470]

"If there was no God, there would be no atheists" C. K. Chesterton

[@Dr-Curious]

"If there were no theists..." There, fixed it.

[@jakey3887]

sam1370 what do scientists say created the universe the way it is?

[@metaiv9527]

@SaintCynical Yes Sky Daddy actually did it.

[@Jack-mi4yd]

That’s an extremely dumb quote lol

[@mimia.4810]

Dankminecrafter420 How? It makes sense. Think about it.

[@alexz2702]

I also go to cross-examined with my questions and I'm never disappointed

[@nathan2friendly887]

Nice

[@leibniz4455]

Yeah. But why was Neanderthals not mentioned in the Holy Bible?

[@user-in5ru2cd9l]

@@leibniz4455 can you show me exactly where it says in the bible?

[@leibniz4455]

@@user-in5ru2cd9l I said it wasn't mentioned, I'm a Christian.. And I just don't know why Neanderthals weren't mentioned

[@leibniz4455]

@@user-in5ru2cd9l I'm just saying it and it didn't defeat my statement "the Bible didn't mention Neanderthals" But it did say creations were there before, and men would create idols, so I'm not even an expert at this, I have no right to give claims.

[@MrEvans557]

In the end God Wins. All that matters. He Will settle all accounts. Nothing man can do about it either. Praises to The Most High! ✊🏾🙏🏾💪🏾

[@todbeard8118]

And you know this how?

[@MrEvans557]

@@todbeard8118 I read it somewhere in a really really important Book. Trying to remember.....🤔

[@todbeard8118]

@@MrEvans557 Is it the same book that has the birth and resurrection narratives of Jesus contradicting in Luke and Matthew? The same one that condones owning and beating slaves?

[@MrEvans557]

@@todbeard8118 lol are a funny guy “If a man is found stealing one of his brothers of the people of Israel, and if he treats him as a slave or sells him, then that thief shall die. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. Deuteronomy 24:7 ESV understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, ENSLAVERS, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 1 Timothy 1:9‭-‬10 ESV and you might want to study slavery in the Bible more bro. Some of them actually willfully gave themselves over to pay off debts as well Now i'm not saying ALL slaves weren't held against their will. God also allowed slavery as discipline when His people got out of control. Balance out the scriptures bro. Now as for Christ man Im not gonna waste my time there. His return is definately happening regardless of what I say to you. Look around bro. Study The Word and Prophecy like your life depended on it. Messiah Coming back. It is what it is fam. God don't lie. And honestly its TOO serious to even play games with. Hope you find Christ though. God Bless. For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Matthew 24:37‭-‬39 ESV Ima tell you what God told me one day. "Whats done is done. Walk through faith." God Bless

[@todbeard8118]

@@MrEvans557 You're even funnier. Yeah that's called man stealing, the bible makes it illegal and states the penalty for it. But purchasing your slaves from the nations around you, owning them as property for life, passing them onto your children as inheritance and beating them as long as they recovered in a day or two, according to Leviticus25:44-46 and Exodus21:20-21 is legal and allowed according to the bible. The Hebrew servants were the indentured servants. They were not to be treated as slaves but as hired workers and released after 6 years. Big difference between them and foreign bought slaves.

[@thomasjeffries1020]

When I'm asked if I believe in the Big Bang I always reply, "Yes, I pray to Him every day".

[@icytube2058]

Neat

[@mikewasowski3573]

Nice

[@jayedqueen7890]

Wow that was smart

[@Ava_Saith]

great! I always say, science is just explaining God in our simple human language, so we understand how he did everything.

[@tech4life365]

Yes, as an athest, I prey to the rock that somehow turned into cells, which turned into fish, which turned into a monkey that turned into us 🙏

[@bmay511]

Bio Science minor here - so glad to hear this educated, good, Christian man acknowledge (and explain) that two otherwise disparate ideas *CAN* exist simultaneously, and that in fact 2 things can also be TRUE AT THE SAME TIME. Sadly, so many people I don't think understand that, and therefore operate from the perspective of a "false dichotomy" . . . Science and Faith *can* in fact coexist and compliment one another, as I feel they SHOULD. I wrote a whole essay on this in college. Good stuff, and thank you Dr. Turek!!!

[@michaelbellini3946]

Ehm, he literally threw misinformation about every single concept he cited in this video about Evolution. I have a degree in Biology and I recommend not considering true any of the things said be Turek here. He's not educated.

[@sids5002]

Science and Faith can coexist. They do. That doesn't mean there's any overlap. One is based solely on evidence. The other holds belief without any evidence, as a virtue. They are opposites, but both do still exist.

[@stars1190]

I would love to see the essay 🙂

[@memowilliam9889]

@@michaelbellini3946 ... I noticed you didn’t cite or explain his errors. Thus, I recommend not considering true anything of the things written by you.

[@michaelbellini3946]

@@memowilliam9889 You noticed well, but you could have thought maybe I wasn't willing to become a biology teacher just because someone stupidly threw concepts of biology all around. Anyway, since we are here... First, proofs of microevolution and macroevolution are already there for people to see. Microevolution Is the easiest to prove but there are molecular evidences (since the same exact process Is responsable for both) for the macroevolution as well. Also It absolutely makes no sense that new species did not develop, given the geological mass extinctions that wiped out the majority of diveristy on the planet, for five times. Secondly, irreduceable complexity Is not a thing. It was formulated but dismissed many times by scientists with plausible paths of evolution of the features considered. Thirdly, we don't have plant fossils of the Cambrian period because there were no plants already lol. Plants appeared only in the Silurian period. We have plenty of fossils since the very appeareance of higher lifeforms that could produce them. So yeah, all the transition fossils you want are out there. Lastly, epigenetics has a completely different definition and would absolutely make no sense for the case he Is making. It involves, among other things, morphological development in embryos, guided by exogen molecules given by the mother, and also the whole set of DNA expressivity modulation, through covalent modifications and condensation of the helix. This guy, Turek, Is a clown. He knows nothing and slows cultural development on very important topics Just because he won't admit to be astoundingly ignorant

[@ShadowKirbz]

Any time anyone says anything about evolution, atheists come out and say "that's not evolution". But when they quote scripture incorrectly and we say "that's not right", they call it apologetics. Lol.

[@Steelmage99]

Yep, religious apologists are dishonest both coming and going.

[@direwolf699]

@@Steelmage99 ok 🐒

[@michaelwill7811]

well, they commonly try to re-define "Atheism" so it is to be expected.

[@Dr-Curious]

@@michaelwill7811 "Any time anyone says anything about evolution, atheists come out and say "that's not evolution"." They don't just "say it", they also can correct the person creating the straw man. For instance, the theory of evolution doesn't claim organs evolved from incomplete components nor that evolution is a random system requiring in calculable odds to arrive at design states. But you will see uneducated imbeciles claiming this EVEN after they have been corrected multiple times. "But when they quote scripture incorrectly and we say "that's not right", they call it apologetics. Lol."" But the bible does indeed instruct on how to attack towns in other countries, murder and enslave women and children, commit genocide and much more.

[@michaelwill7811]

@@Dr-Curious "They don't just "say it", they also can correct the person creating the straw man." Not sure why you tagged me on this, the quotes you are responding to were not posted by me. For my part though, since you included me, I still see some atheists trying to claim that Evolution is the only "game in town" for an explanation with regards to the origin of life. Most are backing away from it now but it isn't a strawman to reference this, since, some of your brethren are still carrying that "water bucket." And honestly, since the rest of you claim to have no belief, the rest of us don't care about your "corrections." In the same way that a microwave lacks a belief in any god, and I wouldn't entertain advice from said microwave, ... you can connect the dots, I am sure. "But the bible does indeed instruct on how to attack towns in other countries, murder and enslave women and children, commit genocide and much more." If I thought it would make any difference, what so ever, I'd ask you to quote the parts of the Bible that do this. And, I'd be more than happy to refute your interpretation because non-believers keep claiming this "EVEN after they have been corrected multiple times." ;) ;) ;) As such, it would be a complete waste of my time. Instead, I will point you to Google.

[@sierraclark6129]

Hey, Jesus Christ saves and He loves you😁✝️

[@brandonnunez6820]

He's not real, stop being brainwashed. Youre going to die one day and there will be nothing. Theres no heaven. Reality hurts but it is the truth of life.

[@brandonnunez6820]

@@alluzzmystique1601 oh you died and realized he was real right? Yea didn't think so

[@brandonnunez6820]

@@alluzzmystique1601 "Doubt is an uncomfortable condition, but certainty is a ridiculous one" -Voltaire

[@spawncampe]

Wrong

[@ncsalnt]

@@brandonnunez6820 yea lets ignore all the historians who recorded his life

[@jesusthemessiah--thelord5628]

who knew, every atheist in the comments is a scientist.

[@amtiv]

Nope, we just recognize people who don't know what they are talking about as if they were scientists. Your complaint is stunningly ironic.

[@jesusthemessiah--thelord5628]

@@amtiv the "scientists" are offended

[@andrewoliver8930]

Science can be learnt. Try it.

[@christopherparks4342]

@@andrewoliver8930 christians are immune to learning

[@andrewoliver8930]

@@jesusthemessiah--thelord5628 we're not offended. Nothing to be offended by so far.

[@SantinoCadiz]

I love the title of his book “ I don’t have enough Faith to be an atheist!” That’s awesome! It does take a lot of self denial, willpower and faith to not believe in God.

[@oneadamtwelve86]

just like it takes a lot of self denial, willpower and faith to not believe in santa claus?

[@redblaze8700]

I just love the arrogance of you religious people who thinks that your god's existence its common knowledge. If that was true, then there wouldn't be any other religions with contradictory views. It takes a lot of science/reality details to think that a god who never reveals himself to the world is real.

[@almondwater9583]

Red Blaze Big Bang means that nothing came from everything which is not logical 😂😂😂😂

[@almondwater9583]

GDDM sam get off your high horse your on a Christian channel trying to change Christians minds😂😂 your saying a lot of nothing right now just a bunch of words to sound smart

[@catalyst3713]

@@almondwater9583Do you believe God created the universe out of nothing?

[@MAP2023]

Turek is the guy who always does his homework and studies the lesson after class

[@Surfboarder4]

he vod reviews his lessons

[@SuperEdge67]

If he such an expert on evolution can you please state his qualifications in science. I’ll do it for you......he doesn’t have any.

[@MAP2023]

@@edwardhumphries5566 says the Atheus

[@frankvizen5480]

To sound like a completely insane person hahaha

[@MAP2023]

@@frankvizen5480 you mean like atheus Donkeys I mean Dawkins. 😂

[@jakeverson21]

guy evolved enough to become a sports fan

[@Lordbillu5629]

😅😅

[@27Corner]

Lol

[@mercedesgarcia-dw7fo]

🤣🤣

[@thesaviorofALL]

Yup bread and circuses

[@iwishtobetexan6060]

Can u guys pray for me? This girl I love might have to move far away in about a month. Please pray that her dad can find a job close by so they can stay. They have to leave because of he needs to get a job. Please pray that he will get a job that can support him and his family so they don't have to move. Please pray for them and me. I feel like I might lose her if she moves. Edit: she hasn't moved yet but it's only a delay in her dad's job. Thank you so much for for your support everyone. It means a ton. Ill just have to continue to pray.

[@gottruth.1722]

I hope you shared the Gospel to her my friend.

[@nightnday6675]

I guess your actions would depend on your age but in the end youll move on.

[@sarahbawa736]

@@ivoryghost7080 Everyone needs prayer, be a little more understanding

[@sarahbawa736]

Praying for you! I hope the will of God occurs in your life!

[@toasteduranium]

I understand how much distance can separate people. I’m praying for you

[@josiahcruz9678]

The very last part he gave is the most important part in my opinion. That even if those things were true, it still has nothing to do with God or Jesus or proves that it is not true.

[@MarkMetternichPhotographyLLC]

Yes, the Bible is not a science book.

[@AlexPBenton]

Josiah Cruz Sp why DO you believe in god?

[@dogmajones1558]

Without Adam and eve, there's no original sin. With no original sin, there's no need for redemption, with no need for redemption, there's no need for Jesus's sacrifice, with no need Jesus's sacrifice, there's no need for christianity!

[@gthrusterg2858]

@@dogmajones1558 well you can mock me, but adam and eve existed, olso fallen angels in the days of enoch, with gigant and giants, thats the real hidden truth about origins, and yes earth is flat domed with stars in the firmament, space is completly different than what we think, couse nobody can go out firmament alive and prove it.. nasa fake.. glory to Jesus.

[@Jagsrcool]

Yes, if evolution is true, there is no God. That is why it is pushed in academia despite the reality there is no evidence for it.

[@TheRealAdam1012]

Frank is made from God. Knows it. And is desperately trying to explain it… This man is on fire for Jesus. I love it.

[@2ndPigeon]

What does that even mean?

[@TheRealAdam1012]

@@2ndPigeon Doesn’t sound like you want to know

[@2ndPigeon]

@@TheRealAdam1012 I really wanna know. What does it mean to be "made from God"?

[@TheRealAdam1012]

@@2ndPigeon We’re all made from him, but we don’t all belong to him. If that makes sense. I don’t think you can prove that there’s a god. Only way to know for sure is if he reveals himself to you. You can read about me in a book. But you wouldn’t get to know me unless we had a conversation. Same with god. If your truly genuine with concern, he’ll find you, and show you what it’s all about. Keep praying 👍

[@2ndPigeon]

@@TheRealAdam1012 And if he doesnt, I'll go to hell right? Very fair.

[@superdog797]

why oh why does this preacher pontificate on scientific matters...to CHILDREN...his description of epigenetics is a joke. And I've heard him give a similar description elsewhere! Where on earth does this guy get his "information"? Does anybody know?

[@Nathan-Croft]

This pissed me off too.

[@urbanmeyer9725]

atheist believe nothing created everything. but they all believe that something can’t come from nothing, so which one is it ?

[@aaronbrown8377]

Atheists simply believe there isn't a God. The Big Bang Theory states that the universe started when a point of infinite mass and density expanded (explode is kind of inaccurate). It formed massive gas clouds throughout the universe that condensed due to gravity, turning into stars. The stars fused lighter elements together, lived through their life cycles, and then died. The elements were jettisoned across space, forming planets and whatnot. No one knows how exactly the universe came to be. God just doesn't appear to be a useful or probable answer, it's like saying we don't know therefore magic.

[@Tanktank510]

@@aaronbrown8377 I mean but wouldn't that also be like saying its always be here so boom this must have happened or is likely to happen such as the big bang. I mean religion and science both seem to be extremely flawed even with the idea that it could have happened would contradict the bases of a basic scientific hypothese. Unless it can be without a doubt proven than it's still as highly unlikely as a man in the sky commanding people.

[@Dr-Curious]

@@aaronbrown8377 "Atheists simply believe there isn't a God." Actually, no. You're describing a belief. SOME atheists are confident enough to assert this, but "formally" most atheists simply dont accept a claim that he exists: That doesn't require any belief whatsoever.

[@Dr-Curious]

@@Tanktank510 "Unless it can be without a doubt proven than it's still as highly unlikely as a man in the sky commanding people." We observe evidence for Big Bang that's objective and falsifiable. Red shift and cosmic background radiation matches the theory

[@gabrielpadilla5441]

Aaron Brown hello friend, this process, if were even true, seems like a process of order, and intentionality to follow and complete that order. Very similar like to the order in DNA. And with such order and intentionally for you to understand and comprehend this concept. Add this to the consistent account of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, yours and my life have purpose and meaning.

[@onsenguy]

Even if the Darwinian theory is false, it does not logically follow that the Author of the Cosmos is the Christian God.

[@schaeffercox3158]

No, but the oldest Mort historically reliable text in the world does. Read the Bible.

[@hectorduranvelazquez7541]

Here's a weird one.. we were created to evolve(adapt)! Physically and mentally

[@paulrichards6894]

of course, talking snakes are far more plausible

[@sidtom2741]

I love Dr Turek, but I don’t like the kind of confirmation bias he does like “Does this disprove God or the resurrection?” The best way to answer this would’ve been to say that God could’ve still guided the path of evolution to create humans today. Simon Conway Morris, a Christian, posited a theory known as process structuralism, where no matter how many times you turn back the clocks of evolution, you always end up with humans at the end.

[@desmondbishop5808]

The laws of nature don't require your opinion.

[@TheTruthKiwi]

And even if evolution is proven to be wrong tomorrow (Which it won't as it has been observed and there is a mountain of evidence for it) that doesn't mean that a god did it.

[@josephzicaro9913]

As an atheist, I think this is probably the best arguments against a Darwinian worldview, and they're good arguments. Just for technical precision, some of the things he's describing are "speciation" and "abiogenesis," and I don't think the scientific community has really figured out either one.

[@dinohall2595]

Abiogenesis is still not understood fully, but speciation has been figured out for awhile. Any change in a population which makes it unable to reproduce with another population constitutes speciation.

[@josephzicaro9913]

@@dinohall2595 that doesn't work because it's too vague. Vagueness is the big issue here as biologists can't even come up with a rigorous definition of "species," so of course we can't explain speciation, at least not yet.

[@dinohall2595]

@@josephzicaro9913 Yes, we absolutely can. Scientists define species using the biological species concept, the concept that a population of organisms are of the same species if two reproductive individuals within the population can and do produce viable and fertile offspring, viable meaning they can survive after birth and fertile meaning they can reproduce themselves. Speciation has been observed many, many, many times. The "Big Bird" lineage of finches on the Galapagos, the Central European Blackcap, the London subway mosquitoes and the salamander ring species are just a few examples.

[@josephzicaro9913]

@@dinohall2595 That is not a good definition primarily because "population" is defined in terms of "species," thus defining "species" in terms of "population" creates a definition loop of length 2, making them both rather useless words. Moreover, your suggested definition doesn't seem to accommodate for geographic barriers, depending on how you define "geographic area" (since "population" is defined in terms of geographic area). Also, the "can and do" part of your definition implies that organisms that are of the same species aren't technically the same species if they don't reproduce together, e.g. Native American people and European people say 1000 years ago. This is obviously tricky business, very easy to fall down a rabbit hole of technicalities. There simply is not a good definition of "species" at this time. I'm not the guy to write the definition, but if I were, I'd probably introduce math into it; two organisms are of the same species if and only if the weighted sum of their productive mating frequency and geographical separation is greater than some number.

[@dinohall2595]

@@josephzicaro9913 I was using "population" in the colloquial sense. Perhaps that was an error on my part, but replace "population" with "set" referring to all the organisms capable of reproducing with one another in the world, and the definition clearly works. I think you're nitpicking at this point. The biological species concept has enormous weight in science, and while it's certainly not perfect, the fact that speciation has been unambiguously observed hundreds of times just goes to show how effective it is.

[@seanmckenna6122]

It's the only show in town. To explain the complexity and variety of all life on earth. every life form has a common ansestor right back too a single cell and before that right back to chemistry. Hope this helps.

[@jollyrancher521]

How could proteins and genes come together randomly to form the first self-replicating cell? Biologists can only speculate. They have not been able to show scientifically how such a cell could emerge from nonliving matter. Believing in God requires faith but believing that a “simple” cell arose by chance from nonliving matter requires a huge leap of faith.

[@johnperez3841]

Fun fact if you like science and things that seem logical to you for explanations. Issac Newton the one who “invented gravity” was a man who beloved the word of god. He vigorously studied it his whole life and believed every word.

[@TiltyfishPoker]

Newton discovered gravity yes but him being religious doesn't say anything more than he was of the common at the time. Just because he was a great scientist and, at the time, was too religious also doesn't prove a creator. We have more information today than he did back then. Science has come further and we can now explain more previously thought to be god's handiwork.

[@johnperez3841]

Stephen Elliott it is about how god passes knowledge to men who seek him. Or men who he finds a way to plan through. Soon you will become aware of the nature of God.

[@johnperez3841]

Seamus Donaghy as I understand hell it is a place of non-existence or rest. Why do you send criminals to prison?

[@johnperez3841]

Seamus Donaghy how can you be an expert of the truth?

[@johnperez3841]

Seamus Donaghy do you believe that Jesus the Christ the messiah yeshua the word of god was raised up from the dead by his father in heaven? If evangelicals believe this such as Christians or Catholics then why is it that religion argues of the details. Why do we divide amongst ourselves? If we are in union with Christ then all is revealed.

[@alexjohnson2839]

If u had to label me, it would be agnostic. I liked his last little piece. that's what always keeps me from going full blown athiest.

[@mr16325]

Same heee

[@AdamBror]

Why aren't you a Christian, is there a reason you have chosen to not believe in Jesus?

[@nicodelarge5316]

Why would you asume that there is a god simply because of the fact that something cannot be explained? Like, it could be everything, it could literally have EVERY explanation possible, but no: GOD.

[@2ndPigeon]

It's called a panacea

[@nguyenducdat6579]

Explanation must be reasonable. It must be the most likely answer, not the possible answer. If you see a building the most likely explanation is that it was built by a group of people years ago and that it was designed, not that it was built by a bunch of monkeys with no design in two weeks, even though the latter is possible. The same goes for the universe: if there is a universe in which everything has the appearance of design there must be someone who designed it and put it together. Funny how atheists believe that there is a cause for every thing in the universe, but the universe itself is an exception. No atheist believes that a rabbit just pops into existence, but the universe, which is infinitely more complicated than a rabbit, just appeared out of nothing. I really do not have enough faith to be an atheist.

[@kevinbarbe5059]

Evolution does not exclude the existence of any god, it does not need it (subtil difference, but an important one).

[@paulrichards6894]

makes him very unlikely though

[@markh1011]

Frank Turek gets basic stuff wrong. His audience doesn't care though.

[@badideass]

His audience is made up of sheep

[@DanUtley]

You can easily believe in Old Testament inerrancy and believe in evolution. This whole “LITERAL 6 DAYS!!!!” business makes no sense, because that account obviously was not meant to be written literally. Scripture is composed of genres of work. It is not all literal. If it were ALL 100% literal you’d have one heck of a problem on your hands.

[@nick-wg5py]

Like what?

[@ShadowKirbz]

Genesis is 100% literal. The word used in the creation period, "Yom", is the word for a 24 hour time period. "And then there was evening, and then there was morning". 6 days.

[@littlestars1064]

@2centavos Stars being created after the Earth is impossible because of the age and distance of stars, stars convert hydrogen to helium for most of their lives, this is done at a measurable rate and thus since we see stars in their red giant phase/white dwarf stages, we know that stars have been around MUCH longer than the Earth. There are also stars that are several million lightyears away, lightspeed in a vacuum is constant and thus since we see their light, we know that they have been shining for millions of years.

[@mr16325]

@@ShadowKirbz you can make the argument that genesis is literal. But you can’t make the argument that science proves any of those crazy claims

[@ShadowKirbz]

@@mr16325 Never made that argument. Creation itself was a supernatural event. Scientific theories came into existence during creation but science itself wasn't the cause.

[@jhmejia]

The Cambrian explosion objection may have been fair at one point, except we have literally found said pre-Cambrian fossils now. It seems that the explosion in fossils may have been due to easier conditions for fossilization. We do not know everything about it but there’s wayyyy too much evidence for macroevolution

[@Golems_victory]

Damn right bro

[@Yamyatos]

Wrong Sir, Wrong! 1. "Micro Evolution" and "Macro Evolution" are the same process. Only the timespan is different. Scientists didnt even use the terms until the whole religion debate thingy. 2. The "Cambrian Explosion" was not instantaneously. Far from. It spans about 30 million years. The blink of an eye from geological perspective, but hardly instantaneously. 3. For every claim about irreducable complexity i know of, there is an explanation for how the complexity can be reduced, or rather gradually increase. This is an argument only. 4. There is a lot of misinformation in the epigenetics segment. All the information is in the DNA, epigenetics basically is about which part is read. But.. why is any of that relevant? 5. Dogs will always give birth to dogs. Anything *else* would singlehandedly *disprove* the theory of evolution. Speciation can still occur, since it's a gradual process. Too complex for a one-liner. You can easily google all of these. So here is the question.. is that guy just ignorant, or intentionally manipulative? And no matter the answer, why should you listen to him?

[@jollyrancher521]

Mutations can produce alterations in the genetic code, which can result in changes in the descendants of plants and animals, but it has never been shown that mutations can produce any kind of large-scale innovation resulting in new organs or new body plans. A properly defined species has genetic boundaries that cannot be crossed by accidental mutations. So I don't believe that the processes that drive microevolution can be extrapolated to explain macroevolution, which would involve big jumps across these species boundaries.

[@Yamyatos]

@@jollyrancher521 There is no extrapolation happening. As i said in my original comment, micro- and macro evolution literally *are* the same process. There is no difference. Scientists only recently started to use this coin, to describe timescale mostly. It was coined by creationists. We have examples of pretty much every step of the way for most organs. Dawkins explained how the eye would have evolved pretty darn well in one interview. The heart is another commonly quoted example. We have animals with basically just blood in them, no circulation. We have some with some movement, but no central system for that. As arteries become more complex and more blood is required / more oxygen needs to be transported, more movement is required, until eventually a stronger and stronger central pump forms. So yes, we do have examples of new organs forming step-by-step, for pretty much all of them as far as im aware. And everything else is literally just changes. Think about pretty much any two animals. You'd be surprised how few things you really need to change to get from one to the other, if they are close in the evolutiononary tree. Of course if you compare a spider with a horse, you`d need tons of changes, but that's the whole point, since they diverged in the distant path. Also just to be clear, im speaking of hypothetical changes. Not everything is possible, a horse cannot turn into a spider for example, but they do in fact share a common ancestor. And we know that for a fact. Genetics alone is pretty much enough to singlehandedly prove common descent, but all other fields of biology (and some others, like the fossil record) point in the same direction. From taxonomy to embriology. The evidence is overwhelming, there really is no doubt whatsoever about any of this in the scientific community. Scientists dont use terms like facts or truths, but in layman terms, that is what a scientific theory is.

[@trinitygodsaint]

Ultimate origin, origin of information, irreducible complexity, immaterial reality...Does love exist, Laws of Logic, Objective Morality, Mathematical improbability of Ultimate Origin and Fine Tuning...There are many ideas that have to be contended with.

[@Steelmage99]

Yes, we have to contend with religious apologists repeating that list of nonsense as "arguments", despite it having been debunked a thousand times.

[@user-ps7ij6ge6d]

@@Steelmage99 Debunked is not the correct word. There are counter-arguments for these arguments, just like there are counter-arguments for common complaints atheists have with theistic views. If you are a self-respecting person you would acknowledge that there are strong arguments for both theism and atheism.

[@Steelmage99]

@@user-ps7ij6ge6d "Debunked is not the correct word. " It absolutely is. Once an argument has been shown to be invalid and/or unsound, the argument is indeed debunked. "Strong arguments for both theism and atheism" No, there are no strong arguments for theism, only already debunked ones. Atheism needs no arguments. It is the reasonable position to take, when no compelling evidence is presented.

[@user-ps7ij6ge6d]

@@Steelmage99 I could say the same, philosophical arguments for atheism are all "debunked" according to your standard. The problem of evil is debunked. God needing a creator is debunked. Just because a counter argument is made, does not mean the argument is debunked. As an example, the counter argument for irreducible complexity is observable examples of trial and error being successful in creating a complex system (human-created things) and that it not only the improvement of already existing biological functions that allow improvements in an organism. The first point of this does not take into account the fact that evolution is an unguided process, and therefore cannot be any trial and error outside of natural selection. If what mutations that would have been part of a greater mechanism arise are not immediately useful, according to natural selection, they will be lost. Human examples of trial and error and incremental expansion of systems cannot be used as proof because they involve already intelligent minds guiding the process of trial and error. The second point of the counter argument I don't know enough about to properly refute, but my point is that claiming that an argument is unanimously "debunked" is not helpful in the least for rational discussion. Endless argument over the same point will always arise. There are arguments for both atheism and theism, and if you do not agree, you have no right to call yourself someone interested in truth. You would rather attach yourself to your own beliefs in the dogmatic way that you hate theists for doing. I have absolutely no ill feelings toward you and nor should you have any to me, but you have to understand that without reasonable and respectful discussion, you do your own viewpoints no favor and half of the world's population will continue to believe the things that you strongly believe are completely false, in the same pushy, offensive way that you do.

[@Steelmage99]

@@user-ps7ij6ge6d I already addressed how the lack of validity and/or soundness thoroughly debunks any arguments, so far presented for theism. Atheism needs no arguments. It is the position one naturally finds oneself in, when the assertions of theism are unfounded. An argument (any argument) does not need any counterargument, if the original argument is invalid and/or unsound. If you don't know what I mean with "valid" and "sound", when it comes to arguments, you really need to stop talking. Your ramble on irreducible complexity is hilarious. "There are arguments for both atheism and theism, and if you do not agree, you have no right to call yourself someone interested in truth." You can come right off that arrogant horse of yours now. "You would rather attach yourself to your own beliefs in the dogmatic way that you hate theists for doing." Do not for a second pretend to know the motivations behind my positions. Your arrogance is simply staggering. "half of the world's population will continue to believe the things" Appeals to popularity does you no good. "that you strongly believe are completely false" Do not misrepresent my position. "in the same pushy, offensive way that you do." Stop whining.

[@fidenful]

Hey Pastor, the kid will get to college and learn that Evolution is a scientific Fact accepted as such by all Scientific Communities all over the world. The fact that you lied to him and caused him to live all those years in ignorance will not be forgotten. You do great harm to so many young people , shame.

[@arunmoses2197]

Just because evolution is a widely held fact, does not mean it is true. It is a fact but it can be disproven. Besides, it has many contradictions. If you really want to prove evolution is true then become a scientist yourself instead of listening to what this world has to say.

[@kimbanton4398]

@@arunmoses2197 *Just because evolution is a widely held fact, does not mean it is true.* That's correct! It's actually the other way around: evolution is a widely held fact, because it is true. *It is a fact but it can be disproven.* Yes, it is falsifiable, just like gravity, but all falsifications of it have failed. There is not one fact that contradicts it. And all the available data so far points to it being true. *Besides, it has many contradictions.* Such as? *If you really want to prove evolution is true then become a scientist yourself instead of listening to what this world has to say.* Scientists have already proven it true beyond any reasonable doubt. And I can prove it myself too, since I understand it. If you wanna disprove evolution, you must first understand it and then you can come up with a better explanation that accounts for all the facts & data that evolution does even better, including those facts that evolution didn't account for (if you have one). But since there has never been any doubt about evolution by anybody who understands it, and since all who have challenged it, came to the conclusion that it really does hold up to scrutiny and is the best and only explanation for the biodiversity on our planet, it remains true and the current cornerstone of modern biology.

[@arunmoses2197]

@@kimbanton4398 "but all falsifications of it have failed". Really? Did you even watch this video? "But since there has never been any doubt about evolution by anybody who understands it". I understand evolution quite well, and I still think it is not a good explanation for our world. "is the best and only explanation for the biodiversity on our planet". Only if it were true. "If you really want to prove evolution is true then become a scientist yourself instead of listening to what this world has to say". Um... I live in the United States, and it is held here as a fact, so yeah I guess your right I should become a scientist instead of listening to what this world has to say. "And I can prove it myself too, since I understand it". Alright, go ahead and give me some evidence for it that will not give me a reason to severely doubt it.

[@dutch_asocialite]

​@@kimbanton4398 >the best and only explanation for the biodiversity on our planet Ah yes, the saline view of the world.

[@badideass]

@@dutch_asocialite what the evidence shows us, evolution

[@raymondellis1454]

Scientists love the theory of evolution not because it is logical but because it increases their faith in the industrial world they have created. The theory makes us the pinnacle of millions of years of evolution and that's why they love it. Scientists then tried to further reinforce the idea by studying dinosaurs. However, they made the mistake of assuming that radioactive decay has been constant for millions of years since earth began. That's just an irrational assumption they have made. I think the decay varied in pace and differed in different rocks from Adam to Noah. That means when a scientist found a rock that decayed rapidly in those times they put the age of the rock way back millions of years. And when they found a rock that didn't decay quickly in those times they assumed it was from an era closer to our times. Scientists believe the world is objective, but we Christians know the world is subjective. Lifespans in the early years ranged from 900 to 50 years of age, and peoples lives were in turmoil, from this we can infer that the rocks were in turmoil as well. Before the fall of Adam and Eve the world was a paradise and there was no radioactive decay and dinosaurs all ate plants.

[@johns.6543]

Ding ding ding! We have a winner! Well spoken good sir 😁👍

[@demiligne3456]

+ *Raymond* And you suppose that between you and hundreds of years' of qualified expert researchers, you're the only one who thought decay might vary in rate?

[@johns.6543]

@@demiligne3456 who's to say decay rate has always been a constant?

[@demiligne3456]

+ *J Stud* a qualified scientist who's done the research - that's who

[@johns.6543]

@@demiligne3456 if you choose to believe that go ahead

[@BerishaFatian]

If God caused evolution then why it isn't mentioned in the bible??

[@theTavis01]

@Miguel Santos awesome answer

[@Matthew-rl3zf]

I honeslty don't mean to offended here, but I do want to offer something for consideration: Frank says he absolutely believes in microevolution. Small changes is fine, we see that all the time. But here's the thing that I hope people will realise: If you take a bucket and add water one drop at a time, eventually you will fill the bucket. It will take you a long time, but small changes over time can explain all the other points he mentioned in the video. I hope that helps people out there to see the premise behind evolution.

[@kinggenius930]

Exactly. I have to point this out regularly to theists, that you can't say you "accept micro-evolution but not macro-evolution". The latter is literally the former plus time.

[@Matthew-rl3zf]

@@Edward-so6by No it's not the analogy that has a misunderstanding, it's your understanding and definition of macro evolution. Chemically water and orange juice is (sort of) different. But chemically all living things are the same: lipids, amino acids and carbohydrates.

[@Matthew-rl3zf]

@@Edward-so6by explain, then, on the biological level why this is impossible?

[@bg1056]

@@Edward-so6by, water turning into orange juice, wtf? That is nothing like evolution. The water dripping into a bucket analogy was fine.

[@andylee4245]

@@Matthew-rl3zf As someone who doesn’t know much about biology, I’m curious: If humans had a ton of time, could they eventually breed dogs to the point where they arrive at a brand new specie, rather than just a different type of dog? If so, how long would it take?

[@mojmejl3790]

MIT university has recently calculated the possibility of humans evolving from monkeys to be about 0,00000000000000000000000000000001

[@Kaymen1980]

Moj Mejl Makes sense. Have they calculated the possibility of humans sharing a common ancestor with the great apes by any chance?

[@ConservativeMirror]

Source?

[@darklogic6998]

MIT university has recently calculated the possibility of you understanding modern evolution to be about 0.0000000000000000000000000001

[@sebcw1204]

probaility is not useful when calculating events that only have a sample size of "one" we have one universe, the probability of it happening is 1/1 life on this planet developed once, the probability is therefore 1/1 that it happened speciation has been proven numerous times. basing your "statistics" on the idea that only one single gene changes each generation is falacious.

[@dinohall2595]

I think I get the joke of using a comma instead of a decimal--the probability is 1. Although humans didn't actually evolve from monkeys--we share a common ancestor.

[@ivoryghost7080]

They don’t just pop into existence. Complex life appeared before in the Cambrian era. They were less mobile than the Cambrian period but they existed. The period was called the ediacranan and before that the cryogenian. In these times creatures like sponges and other less Mobil filter feeders lived. The definition between plant an animal was more difficult to define however we do know that by the end of the ediacaran period the first animals capable of movement had evolved, it is believed that the creature Dickensonia was the first animal to move its self. The tonian period came before this 1000 million years ago and we find trace fossils of multi cellular life here. The period of time I’ve just described from the tonian to the ediacaran was about 500 million years. Complex life didn’t just pop up.

[@derrekdevon2366]

Where you there when all this happened? Or do you know someone who was?(No pun intended, just curious)

[@ivoryghost7080]

@@derrekdevon2366 was I there. Well no but we have fossil evidence. For example if we look at really old fossils we find colonies of single cell bacteria call Cyanobacteria that still exist today , they first evolved some 3.5 to2.5 billion years ago . Then in the tonian, which came later, we begin to find multicellular life forms. This was 500 million years before the Cambrian period, and as we go further back in time we find simpler life forms And we can accurately test how old the fossils through the decay rates of radioactive isotopes. Basically this is science speak for as elements get older they degrade and turn into another element. For example uranium has a half life of 700 million years then after 700 million years ,half of he uranium has degraded to the point that it is no longer uranium and has changed into lead. So if we find a sample that has no uranium and all lead we can be sure that the fossil is 700 million years old. And there are tons of other elements that do this, some like bismuth has a half life longer than the age of the universe while some have half lives of a few hours. We work out the half lives through a big long mathematical equation. I urge you to check out the channel pbs eons that focus on ancient life. It’s not boring and has very good art. Also asking ‘were you there’ is not any sort of rebuttal because most science is evidence based based on what we know and what we discover through tests, not through first hand observations for example I wasn’t there when both your parents were born but since it is well documented that humans are indeed born and you here asking questions I can be quite sure they were born like every other human and you didn’t just poof into existence

[@joshuataylor3550]

If you believe in microevolution and you believe in time, you believe in evolution.

[@tofunwatoyinbo]

Wait wait wait, he said he had a book on it. What book was that?

[@angelaf1305]

I know this one that is called "i dont have enought faith to be atheist"

[@nasibjadon7886]

@Paul Morgan get a life please

[@manueltrejosfranco]

@Paul Morgan "I don't have a brain so I choose to insult Christians because the God they follow has a moral law, and I don't need a magical sky daddy telling me what to do"

[@direwolf699]

@Paul Morgan why don't you go and check if what he says is true or not. Instead of insulting and being a jerk.

[@jamesmccloud7535]

@@direwolf699 most atheists are like that. They say christians are too set on their own beliefs when the same can be said to them where they don't even want to listen to the other side's argument.

[@739jep]

Turek is wrong or at the very least misspoke when he says we’ve been searching for 150 years and we haven’t found transitional forms. We’ve found them and they are not that rare.

[@guyjosephs5654]

Didn’t take much to find that out huh? It’s like they don’t want to actually know the truth.

[@anthonypolonkay2681]

This is not to say he is correct. But many fossils are only claimed transitional forms due to similarity in morphology. It's kind of like if you found a pigeon fossil a few strata below a dove fossil. The natural conclusion would be that due to similarities. This one must have evolutionarily transitioned into the other. Which as we know living now isnt the case. All cases of classification of fossils of any kind are done purely by the observable morphology on them since we have nothing to go on otherwise. Which irregardless of christianity is an extremely flimsy base to propose that one form evolved into the other rather than just simply having the similar mophologies due to environment, behaviour, etc.

[@739jep]

@@anthonypolonkay2681 it’s less flimsy when they predict what they will find before they dig and then actually confirm their predictions by finding what they expect to find in the correct level of rock - and then they do this over and over again.

[@anthonypolonkay2681]

@@739jep that's not what happens though Most new fossils discoveries are suprises. And there are far more expeditions that we return home empty handed rather than what we came for. Any paleontologist will tell you that. a good example of such suprises is the feather. We thought we had the evolution of feathers pretty pinned down to an error of a couple million years or so. But i think in the mid 2010's (might be earlier do not quote me on that time) we found many specimens with further developed featherings on them (though some not as covering for some) in much earlier layers of strata. I dont want to quote the species or anything because I'd be lying if I said I remembered them in that detail. But events such as that, are fairly common. It's why we are constantly having to edit, and rearrange to fossil record. Because we dont have any real measure of accuracy, or prediction with it yet. This isnt even to mention the loss of taxa from strata only to reappear in far later strata, or anything of the like.

[@anthonypolonkay2681]

@@739jep this is not to say we have never had any predictions correct, or close. Sure we have. But to claim we have it down to such an accuracy as to provide it as justification for transitional forms is dishonest. Most predictions do not come from trying to predict "which animal should be the one this one evolved to" but more usually along the lines of "Theres evidence this area used to be a shallow sea, we should be able to find creatures that would inhabit a shallow sea" And those are the predictions we have right more often.

[@muifat7341]

But if we confess our sins to God, he will keep his promise and do what is right: he will forgive us our sins and purify us from all our wrongdoing. 1 John 1:9 GNT

[@2ndPigeon]

I did that, but heard nothing back. That same weak my father died of a Covid.

[@bg1056]

I wish Frank would atop pretending that he knew a darnn thing about evolution. He should just stick with theology.

[@anepicflyingbrick_4872]

What makes me think more than any other thing is how so many people can have the exact same evidence yet come to opposite conclusions. Intelligent people who believe in macro evolution and those who don’t... Crazy how some say fossil records are evidence for evolution and some say fossil records are evidence against evolution... what can a guy do to get some legit truth these days... sigh...

[@ShadowKirbz]

@Bill Scott So now there was a flood, but it wasn't Noah's flood? Lol.

[@Dr-Curious]

It's simple. One side study and use strict criticism and produce valued solutions in the real world, the other is enraged that they are irrelevant and that real understanding threatens their crazy income for doing nothing.

[@bentankersley2988]

I liked Dr. Frank's response up until the last part. If macro-evolution is true, then Jesus could NOT be who he claimed to be and the Bible is almost completely false. Why? Because that means that there were millions, and billions of years of death before humans. That means God used death to bring about life and this contradicts the account in Genesis and the purpose laid out in scripture. Either God created humanity with the charge "do not sin, and if you do you will die" or He didnt. If Macro evolution is true, this command would not have happened. We KNOW that death is a direct result of the fall, which categorically disagrees with the fairy tale of macro evolution.

[@xAvagantamos]

Ben Tankersley The concept of death in the 21st century is different from the concept of death in the Bible and the Ancient Middle East. Death in the ancient world just meant separation from the land of the living into the realm of Sheol/Hades. Further spiritual death was separation from God’s Presence as the source of true life. Today, people view death as a cessation of existence, which is actually a very materialist view. Jesus said we can experience eternal life NOW in this world in addition to in the afterlife. John 17:3 - “This is eternal life: that they may know You, the only true God...” Knowing the Biblical view of death is key to the idea of God dying for our sins. The Son didn’t cease to exist, rather He went to Sheol and was separated from the presence of the Father.

[@randomblueguy]

“the fairy tale of macroevolution” Says the guy who believes in: 1) a spaceless yet omnipresent being 2) an omniscient being who somehow allots libertarian free will. 3) an omnipotent benevolent being who somehow condones evil. 4) a being who JUST WANTED to have a relationship with you, yet created trillions of galaxies that will never influence you in any way possible. 5) A morally perfect being who demands the murder of babies. I don’t think you understand this so let me dispel it very vividly: Millions x micro = macro Given that mutations are actively happening and being selected for, it doesn’t matter whether it’s ‘’micro or macro”. Claiming that “microevolution” cannot bring about “macroevolution” given millions of years is illogical. Small changes happen in small intervals, these small changes add up to create huge differences in the long-run.

[@bentankersley2988]

@@randomblueguy You assume a LOT about my faith in which you are actually wrong. 1). God is a spirit whose mysteries mere humans dont and cant understand. So timeless, spaceless, invisible and visible, as well as omnipresent all make Him God. If he were finite like humans, he wouldnt be God. He wouldnt be worth worshipping. 2). God does not allot libertarian free will. Common misconception. God has predestined all things. In the case of salvation, God has chosen those whom He will save, and decreed the others to eternity in hell. 3). God does not condone evil, he condemns it. God is the standard of morality. in fact, everything you believe morally, is borrowed from God. Murder is wrong. Why? God said so. Rape is wrong. Why? God said so. In fact, in the darwinian evolutionary worldview, there is no morality. At least no consistent morality, no objective morality. In that worldview, everything is right in our own eyes. Something can be right for me, but wrong to you. There exists no authority to establish an objective moral law. Thank God I live in a world where God is the standard (a higher and perfect standard than humans). 4). God didnt create trillions of galaxies. Simply put, I believe God created THIS heaven, and this earth. and thats all that exists. But even if youre right, and He did create trillions of other galaxies, how much more magnificent does that make God look? He is so powerful, that He is the God of the UNIVERSE, and still desires a relationship with His children. Thank you for pointing that out. God is indeed magnificent. 5). I challenge you to actually read the source material, before borrowing from it. Again, I ask you: is murder wrong? is the murder of babies wrong? Why? And God didnt just order the murder of babies...He commanded the elimination of a wicked generation. There are several different aspects and genres in scripture. Murder happens, rape happens, theft happens, sexual immorality happens, and torture all occur within the bible. but this doesn't mean God condones these things. The bible is broken into many different types of genres. When God commanded the elimination of a wicked generation, it is part of the historical record. It has been documented, not a continual command. The ten commandments are continual. Also, Every human deserves one thing. Death and Hell. God would be entirely justified in sending every human to hell. Why? because every human has broken his law. You either have to keep his law perfectly and live, or trust in the one who lived and died by the law, to fulfill it and save you. If you have ever lied, stolen, dishonored your parents, lusted, envied, or taken the Lord's name in vain....then you universally and justly deserve hell in all its wrath. You dont get to tell God what he is supposed to do...because in order for you to even assume anything is right or wrong in the first place demands that you borrow from a holy and just standard of morality, which was established BY GOD! God can kill people. Why? Because 1). People deserve hell 2). God exists outside of his commands. he is not subject to them. You are like a 6 year old who gets mad at his parents for sending him to bed at 7 PM. Guess what? its YOUR bedtime...not theirs. They set the rules, but are not bound by them.

[@bentankersley2988]

@@randomblueguy Also, it has never been proven that a species produced another species. Only small changes within species. So it is indeed illogical to assume without proof that one species of animal produced an entirely different species. Darwin observed changes with a type of finch on the Galapagos. Guess what? the finch remained a finch.

[@arandomyorkshireman9678]

“ Fairy tale of Macro-Evolution” aha! You make me laugh! By the way micro-evolution is literally the same thing as macro-evolution. That’s how evolution works. A bunch of small changes make a huge change. So if Micro-evolution is true, macro-evolution must also be true.

[@rlittlefield2691]

Good answer from Frank Turek, if I could add to it. What is observed in the fossil record is not evolution but what is called "punctuated equilibrium." Which is a fancy way of saying that nothing is seen evolving in the fossil record. It is a landmark peer reviewed paper by evolutionist Steven Jay Gould, who maintains that evolution happened just that we have no evidence of it. I would like to refute what he is saying about evolution being a possible problem for the inerrancy of the Bible, what it shows is an error in the translation of the Bible. In about 300AC the book of Genesis was translated by a guy named St. Augustine. He took it to be saying that evolution happened and God did it. People thought he was kissing up to Aristotle who is the first one that we know of that proposed evolution, (Darwin proposed natural selection not evolution.) See there seems to be a word game happening in the book of Genesis. It appears that the word "Day" can have the same double meaning in Adam's day as it has in our Day. Notice I just used the word day twice to not mean 24 hours. The fact of the matter is that in Hebrew the word being translated as Day, more often meant period of time rather than 24 hours, just like in our day it can mean both, but the opposite of our usage of the word, the word "Day" more often means period of time rather than 24 hours. The exact opposite of how it is used in modern day English. But then the Bible goes on to say that we should rest on the seventh day because God rested on the 7th day. But what is happening is a word game. The translators are then forced to use the word day, which we take to mean 24 hours, which most likely was not the meaning of the text. St. Augustine went on to say that the text is saying that God commanded the sea to bring forth fish, the land to bring forth plants. Notice he creates animals twice, now the King James says that he created Whales, Young's Littoral Bible translates this as Great Monsters, then he comes back and creates what appears to be mammals. Seems like the King James Translators allowed popular opinion to influence their translation, because everyone knows that monsters do not exist.

[@dannymccarty344]

So, God's Word is in error? So, says the created one...you? The created one, accuses the creator? Where was the creation, when the earth was void and without form?

[@anthonypolonkay2681]

@@dannymccarty344 I think it's important to understand that small translation errors will happen. But what is also important to understand is that none of those errors are significant. We have identified every "error", and every possible "error" in the bible in all of its known translations and compared them with the original Greek, and hebrew writings. Nothing ever identified has truely changed the message. A small error that may not lean in favor of evolution(if that happens to be true) does not change the fact that genesis states that god created all measures of existance, and everything in it.

[@anthonypolonkay2681]

Something I did always find odd was how christianity,(and by proxy the other two abrahamic religions that have genisis) is the only religion that not only has an origin story that can kind of relate to evolution but when reas with it in mind almost seems like evolution, or something evolution like happened. The obvious antitheism argument was always the seven days thing like you explain here. But they always seem to leave out that later in the bible it gets explained many times that gods days , and gods time is not the same as ours. The most clear example that comes to my mind is the parable using a sparrow and a rock. I may paraphrase some but it goes something like. "There is a rock 1000cubits high, and 1000cubits wide. Every 1000 years a sparrow comes to grind his beak on the rock. When that rock has been entirely worn away by the sparrow. That is a day to god." I'm sure if the math were done on that parable the result would be a very, very long time. Likly even into the billions of years. It is just quite the coincidence that it happens to have something that indicates a day to god being (possibly) billions of our years. Far before the idea was ever notioned by evolutionists.

[@clueless3120]

I personally think evolution is 100% true while also being Christian

[@badideass]

That's because you care about your education 😉

[@awordofwisdomwithcharlotte4670]

Trying to debate Unbelievers about the theory of evolution. Reminds me of trying to debate with believers about the rapture theory. Both reject common sense and observable evidence..

[@EvitaN]

Lol😂

[@davidhall2197]

Explain yourself re: the rapture. I'd just love to here your take on it.

[@paulrichards6894]

the universe is 14 billion years old.....then the earth was formed 10 billion years with little happening in between.....where in your opinion does your god fit in with this.....where was he in this 10 billion year period....Having a long dump??

[@shreddedhominid1629]

Religions people reject common sense and observable evidence. Is the supernatural even observable, and if so, by what means do we observe it?

[@awordofwisdomwithcharlotte4670]

@@davidhall2197 Will you be TAKEN? MATTHEW 24:40 KJV "Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be TAKEN, and the other left." 726. harpazo har-pad'-zo from a derivative of 138; to SEIZE (in various applications):--catch (away, up), pluck, pull, take (by FORCE ).727. harpax har'-pax from 726; rapacious:--extortion, ravening.1283. diarpazo dee-ar-pad'-zo from 1223 and 726; to seize asunder, i.e. PLUNDER:--SPOIL 2590. karpos kar-pos' probably from the base of 726; fruit (as PLUCKED), literally or figuratively:--fruit. HARVESTED OUT OF SEASON?? . 725. harpagmos har-pag-mos' from 726; PLUNDER (properly concrete):--ROBBERY. TAKEN ( English)CAPTURE or GAIN POSSESSION of BY FORCE, CHEAT OUT OF,FOOL,DECEIVE RAPTURE:act of carrying off," from Medieval Latin raptura "seizure, RAPE, KIDNAPPING," from Latin raptus "a carrying off, ABDUCTION, snatching away; RAPE" .

[@TheQuickblaze]

Romans 1:18 For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way,19 because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them.20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their senseless hearts became darkened.22 Although claiming they were wise, they became foolish23 and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and birds and four-footed creatures and reptiles.24 Therefore, God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, so that their bodies might be dishonored among them.25 They exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the Creator, who is praised forever. Amen.26 That is why God gave them over to disgraceful sexual passion, for their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature;27 likewise also the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full penalty, which was due for their error.28 Just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting.29 And they were filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, and badness, being full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice, being whisperers,30 backbiters, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, schemers of what is harmful, disobedient to parents,31 without understanding, false to agreements, having no natural affection, and merciless.32 Although these know full well the righteous decree of God-that those practicing such things are deserving of death-they not only keep on doing them but also approve of those practicing them.

[@theoskeptomai2535]

A stone may be measured only visually until the last stone of the end has come to rest, except to determine if a stone is in play, or, prior to playing the second, third, fourth or fifth stone of an end, to determine if a stone is in the Free Guard Zone. _The Rules of Curling and Rules of Competition:_ R2: (i) (October 2019).

[@peteralleyman1945]

The only thing dr. (?) Turek was right about is that evolution does not tell us anything about jesus and his supposed resurrection. There are other hypothesis about that. Unfortunately not a single scientific argument, let alone a scientific theory. Lacking any compelling evidence, we can disregard it without further discussion.

[@steliosmitr8245]

cringe

@@steliosmitr8245 _There are other hypothesis about that. Unfortunately not a single scientific argument, let alone a scientific theory. Lacking any compelling evidence, we can disregard it without further discussion._ Unfortunately, that is patently false. The facts are that the reference to the fossils of the Cambrian layer IS a scientific argument. Evolutionsts talk plenty about the different layers, such as the Cambrian layer and that's scientific when they do? But when he discusses it it's not? Your assertion is what is to be disregarded without further discussion based on that patently false claim. Sorry, discussion about the Cambrian layer isn't only allowed if it supports your beliefs about it.

[@Pie3.1]

@ The Cambrian only supports a story of evolution religion it is not fact no sediments have been laid down in less than one year. The reasoning we have fossils is because they were buried quickly.

[@Pie3.1]

Watch on KZbin a short film called a case for Christ and then come back and tell me if Jesus died and was resurrected. Lee Strobel had your attitude before he went and tried to disprove the scriptures.

[@peteralleyman1945]

@ What are you actually babbling about? What's up with the cambrian layer??

[@bird401]

Contrary to what Turek says, biologists claim that the material necessary for the Cambrian body plans in fact existed well before that period. Unlike his knee-jerk conclusions, their findings are the product of research.

[@bird401]

@Mark OnTheBlueRidge Thanks for taking the time. The answers I got to the same question were quite different from the answers you got.

[@bird401]

@Mark OnTheBlueRidge Again, thank you. I learned practically nothing about this in school. In recent years, curious about all of this, I’ve read Darwin’s two main works, books by Mayr, Dawkins (yes, he is obnoxious at times), Coyne, one or two others. To get the opinions of those who do not accept much or any of evolutionary theory, I’ve read a book by Henry Morris, listened to numerous debates between people like Meyers, Demski and of course Behe. I even read Ann Coulter on the subject. All very interesting.

[@bird401]

@Mark OnTheBlueRidge I recognize these arguments as those coming from the ID movement. I am unqualified either to add to them, agree with them as they are, or to refute them. I am also unqualified to evaluate the ripostes to these arguments, of which I’ve heard or read a good number. For example, Behe claims that certain aspects of evolution do not occur above the genus level. Again, I’m not the one to argue with him. But since the publication of his last book, any number of biologists have said that this is simply...not...so, and they give examples. I will start to suspect that Behe and others are on to something when I start to see substantial support from his colleagues, who are, despite rather invidious claims to the contrary, as anxious as anyone to either discover something new or to refute something old and established. Until then, I’m not the least inclined to credit the claim that “evolution is in crisis.” Not by any definition of “crisis” that I can accept.

[@bird401]

@Mark OnTheBlueRidgeMy last entry is the best I can do.

[@theTavis01]

@Mark OnTheBlueRidge You claimed you dropped out of geology because " I was seeing a whole bucket load of assumptions being passed off as facts." So... um.... how can you *_POSSIBLY_* justify the absolutely insane *_ASSUMPTION_* that Noah's Flood can somehow account for all the rock strata and fossil record???? Hypocrite much?? "you really don't know how much disagreement there is among scientists about the most basic aspects of evolution" This is a disingenuous characterization There is disagreement as to *_HOW_* evolution happened, but a resounding agreement *_THAT_* it happened! "This cannot be produced by random mutations." Strawman argument. This ignores scientific principles like epigenetics and it ignores theological principles like God's sovereignty. Just like all lying creationists, you *_REMOVE_* God from evolution so that you can dishonestly *_DENY_* that it happened. "No new information means no new organs or structures." But we *_KNOW_* that these new structures emerged. So instead of you coming to the *_LOGICAL_* conclusion that God is guiding evolution in a way that adds this information, you are totally dishonestly pretending like this makes the fossil record disappear! you described DNA as "a real marvel of engineering" ... and what can we say about *_ALL_* human technology?? It *_EVOLVED!!_* Deal with it. We can only engineer things by mirroring God, so if all human creations evolved it means that God's creation also evolved. And the fossil record *_STRONGLY_* testifies to this fact, along with modern genetic research.

[@naphtaliliverpool882]

garbage a pile of misinformation I've never heard so many wrong things in one sitting

[@fishwatch8677]

Yet you offer no corrections.

[@trekwars5400]

The Cambrian explosion or Cambrian radiation was an event approximately 541 million years ago in the Cambrian period when most major animal phyla appeared in the fossil record. It lasted for about 20-25 million years and resulted in the divergence of most modern metazoan phyla.

[@TheWTFcakes]

Hi Korra this is relatively low on the list of places I'd expect to see you but I guess Avatar work is low when they world is at peace

[@TheCheapPhilosophy]

How dare you bring facts in a parade of bold claims full of words and arguments!

[@littlestars1064]

@John Carboni Stars are millions of light years away, if we can see them, then we can conclude that light took millions of years to get here. There is also uranium lead dating which is quite accurate as well.

[@reeseexplains8935]

You gave the Cambrian explosion as your proof that evolution didn’t happen even tho not that much animal phyla appear in the Cambrian. You lost all credibility. Lol 😂. Try again.

[@2ndPigeon]

Selective knowledge I guess

[@juhadexcelsior]

Why am I just learning about the Cambrian explosion today? 😂

[@paulspring]

Is it just me or does Frank have rather large hands...?

[@yogman7630]

It might be because of macro Evolution...

[@paulspring]

@@yogman7630 I see what you did there.

[@mr16325]

He proves evolution happened with that😂

[@TheCheapPhilosophy]

Hi, I am not paleontologist nor biologist Frank. Call me Dr. Are you ready? Behold this: I have claims! Arguments expressed with conviction, composed of words that are wittily intertwine in semantic games, and bold assertions that are not shared by the people actually studying the matter, somehow. My arguments betray either a huge misunderstanding of the subject or a deceptive attempt, only to those who know about the subject, which is not the bulk of my audience at all. I can write a full book with bold claims out of my field of expertise! Next question.

[@peytonsingh6258]

Why not refute what he says directly instead my friend? God bless and Jesus loves you my friend.

[@TheCheapPhilosophy]

@@peytonsingh6258 Because fallacious claims are not arguments against anything but logic. If you or your friend do not believe in logic, there is no point in refuting them, which makes the refutation meaningless. That one was free. Good bless, you and your friends.

[@peytonsingh6258]

@@TheCheapPhilosophy But to call them fallacious claims means that you can correct these claims by claims of your own, since you are claiming they are fallacious in the first place. Frank talks about this as well in other videos: What is logic itself grounded in? My original point was that your comment doesn't add anything positive (in terms of correction and teaching) and doesn't spark debate. It's a comment that really only brings dissension. God bless and Jesus loves you my friend!

[@TheCheapPhilosophy]

@@peytonsingh6258 And better still: you can check the original conclusion that the experts in the relevant field arrived at after weighting the evidence, instead of starting with the fallacious claims. Then you can spot the fallacy by yourself! That moment when you realize it, is priceless. Good bless, and people are those who do it.

[@withhernosestuckinabook2507]

What does Frank think DNA does? It’s literally the information that is transcribed into amino acids which create proteins which then create cells (along with carbohydrates and lipids). Cells create the structure of our body so changing their information through a mutation often can lead to a physical change (there are silent mutations as well). Coding for physical appearance, including body plan, is literally the only job of DNA. Epigenetic factors affect how DNA may be transcribed to a protein through environmental factors such as temperature and pH. They are NOT physical objects that “act as building blocks.” Organisms are limited in DNA change by reproduction but not mutation. Not being able to breed two different types of dog genuses literally is the definition of a species: “classification comprising related organisms that share common characteristics and are capable of interbreeding.” The fact that they can’t breed is no surprise. That doesn’t mean that changes can’t happen through mutations because we see that they do happen all the time. Steroids literally have receptors on the nucleus and edit DNA. If someone is taking steroids, you can see their physical appearance changes pretty quickly. Just saying the word “unintelligent” over and over does not make evolution seem dumb. He acting as if scientists are on the fence about whether to accept it or not. They aren’t. It’s the most well-supported theory (highest criteria of acceptance) in the field of science to date. Did he really think he could disprove a theory that’s basically fact at this point and that’s been supported with evidence through repeated testing for over 150 years in a 4 minute video?

[@2ndPigeon]

You just wasted your time

[@nguyenducdat6579]

I think the main point he was trying to say is that evolution does not exclude God. Which is what the director of the Human Genome project Francis Collins says.

[@kkb892]

I think you're saying a lot but you aren't really addressing what he was saying. He definitely says you can change genetics but for evolution to be true in the way it is described other factors have to take place and they don't. His point about humans evolving from apes is valid though. Number 1 evolution is a theory not a fact. We don't have actual evidence of fossils from "evolved apes" that prove the evolution of apes into humans.

[@withhernosestuckinabook2507]

@@kkb892 Evolution is a fact. Natural selection is a theory and is the model that scientists use to try to best explain that fact. A scientific theory is the highest level of certainty anything can have in science. Denying evolution is like denying gravity since gravity is “just a theory.” I mainly wanted to address the misinformation about how DNA works that he claims but I get what he’s trying to say. Also humans have not evolved from apes. Humans are apes and we have evolved from a common ancestor as other apes. Saying that humans came from apes is like saying that your cousin gave birth to you.

[@withhernosestuckinabook2507]

@@kkb892 also we do have lots of fossils

[@seanmckenna6122]

So if we did not evolve through the evolutionary process how did we get here. It's the only way we could be here.😊

[@ericavant3733]

Whats the name of the instrumental that plays at the end of the video?

[@ethanicuscopernicus6758]

Synthesizer

[@wakekeman]

Ethan is that Sheldon Cooper playing?

[@tarachambers2596]

Was this at Mississippi College in Clinton, MS?

[@chippi3878]

Tara Chambers I don’t know but are we going to ignore the fact that the kid got roasted so badly 😭😭😭

[@lucidcross8282]

@@chippi3878 He didn't get roasted, he asked a genuine question respectfully and Frank gave him a reasonable and logical response.

[@chippi3878]

Lucid Cross yeah I was just joking about that

[@stesmith7040]

Boom amen

[@Kaymen1980]

Ste Smith More like “fart” .. Amen..

[@algol291]

BOOM! "Buy my book, because that's why I'm really here."

[@briellejacobs1045]

@@algol291 who cares? it's a good book.

[@fittja1453]

algol291 funny how most atheist says religion is just to sell ”Books” mate ur spending 1000x more on junk food,video games,internet etc and then complain about ”it is just to sell Books”

[@robkearns7630]

Crikey. What a load of muddled tosh and slack assertions. It really is time the human race grew up and rid itself of all religion and started to finally apply its collective brain without this infantile distraction and comfort blanket.

[@fluffymuffin840]

Tesla was right when he said that "if you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.. why? Because this is actually the Holy Trinity. God is frequency, Jesus is vibration and the Holy Spirit is energy. Next, i am going to explain this correlation using pure physics: (look in the comments below)

[@fluffymuffin840]

Ok so what is energy? Well, matter is made out of energy, so matter IS energy. But still, what is energy made of? Its made out of electromagnetic waves. And what are EM waves? "EM waves are waves that are created as a result of vibrations between an electric field and a magnetic field" - The Economic Times. Alright, but what exactly created the waves? Well, it s the medium that is capable of creating/expressing waves, the medium and fabric that allows vibrations between an electric field and a magnetic field to happen. I also wanna add that ALL electromagnetic waves: - transfer energy as radiation from the source of the waves to an absorber - can travel through a vacuum such as in space - travel at the same speed through a vacuum or the air So how does light travel through the universe? They say that through the empty vacuum of space, which they also admit is not really empty because creating a perfect vacuum is impossible. Light must travel through a medium that makes or expresses or creates waves. The same way water waves travel through water, sound waves travel through air, seismic waves travel through earth, and heat waves (flames) travel through fire. So what is that 5th medium, that 5th element ultimately called? ...they wont tell you that in school, but it s actually called the AETHER. And since all matter is ultimately EM waves, and all EM waves are a creation/expression of the aether element... it means that our conscious throughts are also a creation of the aether's vibrations ...and since creation cannot be more complex than the creator IT MEANS THAT THE AETHER IS CONSCIOUS TOOOOO 😮😢😁 And if youve looked into cymatics, you noticed that the higher the frequency, the more complex shapes the sand or salt makes on the Chladni plate. That is the aether at work, and since everything basically defives from the aether, then aether as the ultimate medium must exist at the absolute highest frequency, that makes the most complex structure, and forms the ultimate consciousness and intelligence... This is the clue that lead me to knowing that God is frequency: John 1:1"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and THE WORD WAS GOD." So God is frequency, but what is vibration? The frequency's energy... the "Son of Frequency". So when God said "Let there be light", that is the equivalent of the Aether allowing a frequency's vibrational energy to create/express a light wave, The Holy Spirit allowing God's Son, which comes from God, to create light. All 3 of them at the same time created everything. Alright, lets recap, God is the absolute infinite highest frequency. And the Holy Spiritis the aether, the medium where that absolute highes frequency vibrates. God is frequency, Jesus is vibration and the Holy Spirit is energy. Theyre all in absolutely perfect harmony, uncreated, self existent and eternal.

[@fluffymuffin840]

But then you may say "what about the theory of relativity debunking the aether... weeell What is the Einstein deception/relativity? Making you think that all matter is energy AS WELL AS all energy is matter, and that BOTH answers are correct, so that he can ultimately ignore the first answer and tell you that ALL energy is matter. But that is wrong because, while matter can be turned into energy, energy cannot be turned into matter, you cant just make a bar of gold out of mere energy, thats magic, it s impossible in this world! The truth is that, while all matter is energy, and energy CAN also be matter, not ALL energy is matter. Also, the law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only converted/ expressed/ created from one form of energy to another. While matter CAN be destroyed, and once upon a time it was created from the "Big Bang" UNCREATED energy. So where am i trying to go with this? He wants all energy to be matter because matter can only be relative, while energy can also be ABSOLUTE, ETERNAL, since it cannot be created nor destroyed. And the absolute energy is obviously the Aether, so if he can deceive people into dismissing the Holy Spirit, people will also dismiss the Holy Trinity of energy, frequency and vibration. Then what is magic? Magic is basically turning energy into matter. Saying abracadabra and making a bar of gold appear out of nowhere. BUT. I already said that you, as creation inside of this world/dimension, cannot turn energy into matter, so that means that you need help from... how should i put it... beings of energy that are outside of this dimension, like the Creator/ Uncreated energy, or otherworldly created energy. Thats how magic or miracles work. Now, how do u connect to these otherwordly beings? Through chanting, through spells, prayers, through rituals, especially rituals of sacrifice, these act as a portal through which these beings can enter this dimension, and enter YOU, and do these miracles and magic through you. While a magician would say abracadabra ( could mean a demon s name), a saint would say " IN THE NAME OF JESUS shall this man be healed". And sure, magicians can also do cheesy tricks which they themselves debunk as well, in order to make you think that ALL MAGIC works like that ☺ and dissmiss it as being nothing real. And still, how do we know that these created energy beings, also have the power to turn energy into matter, and not only the Creator? Well, the Bible tells us that the devil, for example, took many material forms: as a snake, as a dragon, as a goat etc.

[@badideass]

Gods are just baseless assertions

[@tjombom]

I see our world like a well programmed simulation/software as well with all defined phys. and math. laws in it, so called features if you will. God is the developer/engineer, Jesus is the host, angels are administrators and all people are NPCs.

[@jessehenrique4343]

I wanted to be an elf 🧝

[@tjombom]

@@jessehenrique4343 I don't see why this shouldn't be possible :-)

[@jessehenrique4343]

@@tjombom yes , but the human race also is fine , i can be an elf in a mmo any way, good morning and god bless you.

[@tjombom]

@@jessehenrique4343 absolutely :-) Elfs are the earth creatures as well. Thank you and may God bless you either :-)

[@tjombom]

@Anonymous Dummy Absolutely! You got this!

[@taishici5]

"If you are talking about molecules to man..." Haha wow - shows such a lack of understanding of evolution. No one thinks evolution explains the origin of life - if you knew what evolution was, you would know that. This is basically propaganda, since no one who understand evolution thinks it explains the origin of life.

[@dodibenabba1378]

You can run on for a long time, run on for a long time but sooner or later....

[@taishici5]

@@dodibenabba1378 Not sure what that means.

[@hismajesty2036]

Cart before the horse fallacy...on naturalism, if you dont have a viable theory as to how life arose from nonliving material (abiogenesis), then you don't have a viable theory as to how life evolved. Period.

[@taishici5]

@@hismajesty2036 what's known as "evolution "isn't meant to explain the origin of life. just because you phrase it that way doesn't prove the theory is false - but yes science doesn't know exactly how life came from nonliving material - no one tried to claim otherwise

[@hismajesty2036]

@@taishici5 Thats exactly the problem; if you dont have a viable theory as how life arose, then you dont have a viable theory as to how life evolved. If abiogensis is false, then evolution is also false. No way around it.

[@freddan6fly]

Refute Evolution with stupidity and ignorance?

[@Traditz]

Theories change all the time, don't see the need to defend so much. In fact attack it, make it falsifiable so a better theory aligns to the truth more. But when a theory suggests or even pertains to a supernatural explanation... oh no no no! It can't be right!

[@littlestars1064]

@@Traditz maybe because no supernatural events have ever been recorded? Creationism is not a theory, it has no predictive power and it is ultimately untestable.

[@7graywolf7]

This is why religion and science are not mutually exclusive. I never understood why so many people try so hard to turn the two concepts into opposing tribes.

[@baruchspinoza7404]

The questioner is wrong. Atheists main point is that they lack belief in a god. Please get it right.

[@zxx5]

Baruch Spinoza God is the very definition of awesome.

[@baruchspinoza7404]

zxx5 I’m not being hostile, I’d just like you to understand my position. I don’t know whether a god exists but I’m open to it. However, I don’t believe the bible is the word of any god.

[@zxx5]

Baruch Spinoza If the Holy Bible were wrong, then we would ALL be lost, and I would do all the evil things in this world for pleasure. The Bible is the only thing keeping me away from doing bad deeds, and it's The perfect excuse He has towards us. By saying "Bible isn't Gods words" it's an excuse to sin, IMHO

[@baruchspinoza7404]

zxx5 But I don’t do any bad deeds. And I don’t believe the bible. So you are mistaken. Maybe you wouldn’t feel that way at all?

[@youngnixx88788]

@@baruchspinoza7404 What "evidence" do you require to believe God's existence? Be honest

[@jikalope230]

Why can’t you believe in Christ and evolution

[@nojus5534]

You can't because bible doesn't talk about evolution

[@scientificmethod1409]

@@nojus5534 Bible doesn't speak of iphones, now what? iPhones don't exist?

[@nojus5534]

Scientific Method evolution it doesn’t exist only adaptation exist

[@scientificmethod1409]

@@nojus5534 iPhones don't exist either.

[@devb9912]

@@nojus5534 adaptation is a mechanism of evolution. You just said "Evolution doesn't exist, only evolution does."

[@Powerful9315]

Another one bites the dust. Thanks for coming #27 - see ya!

[@NoahS-cp2lt]

@david grace ask me questions to defend my belief in God, I'm not gonna run.

[@NoahS-cp2lt]

@david grace what would you class as credible evidence? And do you have a single crap of credible evidence against the existence of the Biblical God?

[@sowososmooth]

@@NoahS-cp2lt The guy you were talking to ended up running 😆 he deleted his comments.

[@mr16325]

@@NoahS-cp2lt what scientific proof do you base your faith off?

[@darbru]

Really like your videos Frank, thanks! Let me add something, there are many more hypothesis and concepts about evolution that aren't just about darwinism. For example, Horizontal Genes Tranfer (in bacteria and some other microorganisms), also genetic drift which in my opinion this one makes room for the argument of a God deciding for the evolution of living beigns, since genetic drift depends only in chance. There are other mechanisms like mutation, epigenetics like Dr Turek said, gene flow, bottleneck effect, and many others. So, when we talk about evolution be should talk about ALL of the mechanism, not only darwinism ,since darwinism alone can't explain evolution of microorganism. And like Dr Turek said, evolution does NOT mean that God doesn't exists. As you can take a book about evolution and read it, you can read the Holy Bible and know God for yourself! Really like your videos Frank, God bless you!

[@anthonyhudson2265]

Darwinian Evolution has overwhelming evidence confirming it.

[@robertvann7349]

Frank is a doctor and can't use logic science 101. Debunk Law of contradiction A=B impossible big fat lie subjective false reason. Lets check A an organism with no mind caused evolved the effect of = B an organism with a mind like Musca domestica A=B contradiction impossible big fat lie, evolution is A=B contradiction impossible A a prokaryote without a nucleus caused evolved the contradiction effect of= B a eukaryote with a nucleus A=B contradiction impossible EVOLUTION IS A PIPE DREAM SMOKE ANOTHER BOWL. Evolution is not a fact and has never been demonstrated in a lab but I can demonstrate no EVOLUTION in the lab observe A prokaryotes no nucleus cause evolve non contradiction effect = A prokaryotes no cell A a dog caused evolved the non contradiction effect of = A a dog. Simple why am I the only Christian that chews up and spits out Atheist Religion all day long Learn A=B and A isn't=to B logic anf you will blow away non believing dudes A abortion is legal = B non abortion is legal This is A=B contradiction impossible MAN'S CONTRADICTION CORRUPT LAW A heterosexuals are legal = B non heterosexual is legal A=B contradiction corrupt man's law Turn bad into good and good into bad I keep it simple so a poor illiterate person can understand How can't understand A=B contradiction impossible and A isn't=to B objective absolutely true logic reality Practice try liars and write the argument, write out plants caused animals Nobody can argue against this logic. Frank can't do it. He teaches War is just and unjust A war is just = B war is unjust Frank is A=B and as a non-pacifist that kills his enemies and call it justice will burn A Christian pacifist is saved B Christian non pacifist is saved A=B impossible contradiction Who obeys thou shalt not kill Me a pacifist or Frank a STAUNCH NON PACIFIST THAT WON'T THINK TWICE ABOUT KILLING HIS ENEMIES. STRAIGHT UP NON PACIFISTS WILL BURN. ❤👍😎

[@sebcw1204]

using content ID on creative commons is a low blow according to a video response to this video. a re-upload. which means instead of addressing his arguments, you went for the censorship route.

[@Dr-Curious]

He has no choice.

[@brabbelbeest]

It both saddens and worries me to see this amount of misinformation, misrepresentation and false claims about evolution in the comment section... But it is to be expected when most of the creationists here get their information from apologists like Frank Turrek, Ray Comfort, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, etc. Basically people that either have no clue what they are talking about themselves, or are purposely spreading misinformation...

[@AndyfromPBG1]

This is a broad generalization that doesn't do anything.

[@brabbelbeest]

Hello@@AndyfromPBG1, thank you for your reaction. You are right that this is indeed a broad generalization, but even though it might not apply to all creationists, In my experience the statement is quite accurate. As to it being a pointless comment, in honesty it wasn't meant to do anything, other then it being somewhat of a cry of frustration on my part...

[@randomango2789]

@@brabbelbeest I’m a Christian but the YEC’s interpretation of creation is completely foreign to the culture it was written by. The creation story was meant to be allegorical and the genealogical ages in the OT are not meant to be counted up because the numbers are symbolic. Ex. Enoch was said to live for 365 years. That’s the amount of days in a solar calendar. Moses lived for 120 years and Joseph lived for 110. Those are both ideal numbers in Egyptian numerology, consider the fact that they both lived in Egypt for a good portion of their lives. They didn’t literally live that long. However, YEC’s think that the numbers are supposed to be added up to a date that gives us the age of the earth 🤦🏽‍♂️ You can still believe in Christ and evolution and it pains me to think that many believers became atheists because they thought they had to reject science to accept scripture.

[@Antank8]

@@randomango2789 many different believers are raised with many different beliefs, I'm sure that you are aware that within Christianity there are thousands of different denominations that believe different things, one big difference in a lot of the denominations is that Protestants tend to take the Bible more literal and take the Bible especially when it talks about Genesis as literal.if a person is raised with beliefs and they find out that those beliefs are wrong you can't really get mad at them for rejecting those beliefs. Catholics tend to be more on the scientific side of things so they are less often going to stop believing because they found out that the accounts in Genesis are not real. some reasons that people stop believing in Christianity is because the problem of evil and the contradiction of being all powerful.example if someone is all powerful do they have the power to do something that they cannot undo. If the answer is either yes or no then that person or being is not all powerful which shows the problem of the concept of being all powerful. Other things like is not even concretely proven that Jesus was even a real person and it it's definitely not proven that he did any miracles.and many other reasons why people stop believing in Christianity.

[@SuperEdge67]

@Brabblebeast. Yes it’s amazing how so many Christians form their beliefs about Evolution based on the lectures of people completely unqualified in science. Turek has no education in science at all, neither does Comfort, Hovind has an online degree in theology. Ham has a science degree, but is a batshit crazy young earther , who was laughed out of Australia and went to the only place in the world that would take a nut job like him seriously .......you guessed it. The Bible Belt in the USA.

[@seancullen99]

"DNA doesn't give you the structure?" Yes it does! He was right with one thing that epigenetics contributes to the structure of a cell but not in the way he thinks. Epigenetics is a method the cell uses to fine tune the action of genes by turning on and off specific genes when the cell needs to make structural changes. The result of epigenetic mechanisms is to direct the DNA to create structure. As the epigenetic proteins themselves are encoded by DNA, they are subject to evolutionary change as anything else. Frank has no idea how little he knows about DNA and evolution and as such, he is not someone you should listen to on this matter.

[@gemguy6812]

In Darwin’s day he saw a simple blob of protoplasm. In our day, with electron microscopes we see complex mini cities.

[@dan4992]

"If we can't using all our intelligence, break genetic limits, why should we expect an unintelligent system to do so" What?

[@jerrylanglois7892]

He acknowledges '' micro evolution '' but not '' macro evolution '' ? Well, what does a whole lot of micro over eons of time add up to ? Macro.

[@Orange1117]

You didn't watch the whole video, did you?

[@jerrylanglois7892]

@@Orange1117 Yes, i did, tell me what I missed.

[@Orange1117]

@@jerrylanglois7892 If micro evolution is true, that wouldn't necessarily make macro evolution true. I mean, I get your point, and it is logically possible: repeated small changes would become big changes over a long period of time. But the thing is, there are limits to how big those changes can get; that's his argument. That there are things (he mentions them) that prevent, say, a fish, from some day becoming a dog or a bird. If you want we can compare it to tuning a car: we can modify the engine, change the tires, the exhaust, and do a series of modifications that will make the car go faster, look nicer, etc. But we will never be able to transform the car into, let's say, a private jet, or a yacht. No matter how much we modify it, it will still be a car. Hope that made sense. Blessings brother.

[@jerrylanglois7892]

@@Orange1117 First, turik is not a scientist so what he says about evolution is nothing more than a layman's opinion. Secondly, he hates evolution because it contradicts his religion and his belief in his ancient myth and fable about '' creation ''. Look up the evolution of whales for one example and you'll see a case where a species HAS changed into an entirely different species.

[@markburch6253]

"The cambrian explosion was overnight"...... Sure, if you count 25 million years as overnight then yeah.

[@badideass]

@MaloTheYoshi it's quite alarming indeed... It's pretty sad to see people follow this fraud, and say there's nothing wrong.

[@toddconnell8324]

In the grand scheme of things (4 billion years), 25 million years is a very short period of time considering how long it takes for a new distinct species to develop. It's the equivalent of about 10 minutes in a 24 hour day. That was his point, and that's why scientists use the term 'explosion'. According to the current theory, about 500ish million years ago, almost all the main kinds of animals that still exist today suddenly emerge in the fossil record. It is very strange, but no problem, because it happened so long ago, we can basically come up with whatever theories we like about how it happened. That's the beauty of science!

[@markburch6253]

@@toddconnell8324 you clearly don't understand the definition of "scientific theory".

[@toddconnell8324]

@@markburch6253 What is your definition and we'll go off that.

[@markburch6253]

@@toddconnell8324 yeah, what malo said.

[@seanmckenna6122]

You are miss understanding evolution. Species don't supercede each other. It is a directionless process by gean mutation over eions of time. Let me give you an example. If you had a book with a 1000 pages. And each page you changed one letter. Now if you go too any two pages in your book say number 500 and 501 they will look allmost the same . But if you look at page. one. then page one thousand they will look completely different. Now apply that concept too life on earth. Hope this helps 😊

[@BD90..]

Thought the person on the thumbnail was Ellen degenerous or whatever her second name is lol

[@euphoricatheist6694]

Degenerate*

[@euphoricatheist6694]

@Franz Kafka I'm not really, it's a satirical profile.

[@joshportie]

Degenerate

[@joebobjenkins7837]

Add to these problems the fact that evolution creates inbreeding, specialization (meaning each step in a creatures evolution makes it harder to evolve), a tendency throughout the animal kingdom to change only to an equilibrium and then remain the same for supposedly millions of years, and the tendency of animals and plants to go extinct rather than adapt significant changes.

[@RetroBackslash]

how is that a problem for evolution?

[@kainable8769]

Max Maxwell I would agree that it may not be a problem, but I think the point here is that it does not matter if evolution micro/macro are true... like Frank has said many times “The biggest difference between me and an atheist is that when the big bang happened, I know who struck the match”

[@boterlettersukkel]

@@kainable8769 He doesn't know. He claims he knows, without evidence.

[@Sharpskills689]

@@boterlettersukkel Wouldn't go that far, his book was pretty good and was written to atheists and theists that just presents his arguments. It was a good book to see the other side. I'd recommend it.

[@boterlettersukkel]

@@Sharpskills689 He claim he know what caused the big bang...Must be some genius that frank....

[@trekwars5400]

The only true statement that he made was if microevolution is true then it doesn't disprove God. If God exists he would be capable of using microevolution. This is what most Christians believe he is the abnormity

[@tienailee8646]

Microevolution is true.....

[@joelrappaport5699]

As Spinoza puts it, God is nature and God is also considered a substance. I don't like separating myself from nature, or disconnecting myself from it. I am certainly not a Christian. I've worked on my chakras and kundalini for 8 years. I've never been possesed, but I will say it's not smart dealing with kundalini if your not in it for the long run. I don't worship satan, and I'm aware about what that is. I understand what and who Jesus is, and have no problem with people worshiping him. My problem is, no one tells you that Jesus or the prophets practiced kundalini meditation. That's how all the prophecies and magicks were done by prophets and Jesus. Christianity doesn't want any one to know. All they want from you is to blindly follow and except what's in the bible is true. Is it that horrible to know that Jesus and the prophets practiced kundalini meditation? Also if anyone disagrees with me. I study this stuff in college, along with anthropology, philosophy, kundalini meditation religion and kabbalah. I also study this stuff on my free time. I think people should question wether the voice of Jesus is them, or an external jesus who spoke biblical ahrimanic or biblical hebrew. One should then ask how does the real jesus understand english? That Jesus wouldn't. That means it's your own personal jesus. Good day folks.

[@BloodnightStudios]

So many salty atheists in the comments 😂

[@michaelwill7811]

There's an old saying and though it is fallacious in its reasoning, still came to mind: "If you are getting a lot of flak, you must be over the target." They hate Dr. Turek with a passion. He has the ability, in a short amount of time, to dismantle the atheistic world view (their belief system). Granted, he does these lectures on a regular basis and so has worked on his responses, quite a bit, but you wind up with video snippets, like this one, that are just crushing. He keeps picking at those open wounds and it drives them crazy. God bless you and yours, hope your coming through the "WuFlu" on your feet!

[@jamesmccloud7535]

@@michaelwill7811 Ravi Zacharias too check him out.

[@fastjoecorrigan7426]

2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

[@ateoforever7434]

Fastjoe Corrigan In other words....you remain behind the times.....

[@fastjoecorrigan7426]

@@ateoforever7434 yes I will stand on the Lord's word rather than man...!🚨😀🚨

[@pana376]

To trust a preacher on evolution is like trusting a butcher to do brain surgery. It makes no sence and is dangerous

[@fastjoecorrigan7426]

@@pana376 yeah I see what you're saying.. trust a whole bunch of Godless evolutionist..

[@CNCmachiningisfun]

@@fastjoecorrigan7426 Come back when you can *PROVE* that your god exists, kiddo.

[@tricktroymcguinness7374]

If the Earth is flat how come my brain is round?

[@deeped7249]

I'll bite, what the hell are you talking about?? Lol

[@tricktroymcguinness7374]

@@deeped7249 😜😝😜😝😜😛

[@seanmckenna6122]

No think about it page one is totally different from page 1000. It makes perfect sense.😊

[@lassi372]

Thanks, Frank!✌️

[@SjN7HETIK]

for what? TONS OF LIES???

[@jeffjacobs1990]

I've listened to Frank a lot and read "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" but forgot some of the points in the book about evolution. Good refresher.

[@baruchspinoza7404]

jeffjacobs1990 His points were terrible, logical fallacies and proven wrong in court.

[@ltlsWhatltIs]

@@baruchspinoza7404 Logical fallacies are your #1 excuse. You literally can't even say anything else.

[@nick-wg5py]

@@ltlsWhatltIs . KZbin grady mcmurtry and watch literally ANYTHING that he's in. Evolution is a fairytale.

[@ltlsWhatltIs]

@@nick-wg5py Will checkem out. Thanks.

[@NeoDemocedes]

@@ltlsWhatltIs So... you don't care if people use logical fallacies to prove their points, or you don't believe they are logical fallacies?

[@drsameermadavi]

Beautifully explained brother 📖📖🤗🇮🇳🇮🇳👍🕊️✝️✝️✝️✝️✝️

[@theobserver3753]

I’ll consider Atheism when it is proven that things can pop-out of existence out of nothing. Like magic.

[@theoskeptomai2535]

Do you propose that to be an atheist, one has to believe "things can pop‐out of existence out of nothing?"

[@brabbelbeest]

I love the irony of this, because between the Christian views and the scientific views, only one of them claims it all began with nothing... and let me give you a hint: it isn’t the scientific one...

[@peaceuponyou4433]

@@brabbelbeest Actually, it wasnt created from nothing God created it, and he exists out of our time scope. Logically, speaking if we keep going back with leasts say the big bang, we have to talk about what caused that, then what made what what made the bang to happen, then what made that. If you see where im going your going to have to keep 'discovering things', whilst Christianity says God created everything, something cannot come from nothing.

[@brabbelbeest]

Hi@@peaceuponyou4433, thank you for your reply. The fact that God created the universe doesn't change the fact that it was created out of nothing, at least according to the Abrahamic religions since those claim "in the beginning there was nothing". Currently there is no way for us to know what was before the "big bang", what caused it or even what happend in the very first phases of it, because we do not have the means to get this information. So the most honest answer we currently have is: "we don't know". We don't know what was before and we don't know what caused it. It is quite possible that the universe is eternal and just as many things in nature just goes through different forms/phases. But from our point of view we simply cannot tell. To me personally putting God at the beginning of everything is a form of a "speacial pleading" fallacy. Basically you're saying that everything that exists must have had a beginning, but then inmediately exclude God from this absolute necessity you just stated for everything existing. Often with the sole argument "well, he is God, he wouldn't be God if he would not be eternal".

[@sceneseekers1000]

Awsome answer! Love your work. Keep it up!

[@LoveYourNeighbour.]

I love his assertive, yet respectful demeanor. He's definitely confident in what he believes. "For the Spirit God gave us does not make us timid, but gives us power, love, and self-discipline" (2 Timothy 1:7).

[@sceneseekers1000]

@@LoveYourNeighbour. Yes....definitely one of God's soldiers!

[@jeremykientz]

One does not ‘believe’ in evolution... you either understand it or you don’t.

[@austin7037]

Do you have any observable evidence of one species changing into another?

[@silence8714]

@@austin7037 The evolutionary development of whales is a great example.

[@austin7037]

@silence what species did they change into/from?

[@christopherparks4342]

@@austin7037 google "evolution of whales" and there ya have it. Not difficult.

[@austin7037]

Christopher Parks how can I know for certain that the process occurred as described?

[@kirillmetodiev]

Thank you Frank! God bless you

[@CNCmachiningisfun]

Which god?

[@Christ_died_for_your_sins_777.]

@@CNCmachiningisfun grow up. There is only one God. You troll

[@CNCmachiningisfun]

@@Christ_died_for_your_sins_777. LOL. *DOPEY, LYING* theotards!

[@brantgentry1463]

My last 2 statements still stand. One person did comment, but apparently they don't understand what a hybrid is. An example would be a bird to dinosaur creature would have to be at some point a direct crossbreed of both creatures showing direct characteristics of both creatures, and as a result a lot of fossils of these creatures would be found. Now fossils of this creature exists

[@anthonyhudson2265]

You can literally go to a museum and see the fossil record showing humans gradually evolving from homo erectus, homo erectus gradually evolving from homo habilus, and homo habilus gradually evolving from australopithecus, et cetera. And at each point on that chain, the species in question shares some similarities with the *later* species that evolved from it that don't exist in the *earlier* species that it evolved from, and the species will also share some features with the *earlier* species that it evolved from that are lost in the *later* species that evolved from it. And you can see this even more clearly in the fossil record documenting the evolution of whales, for example. So yes, the fossils of the kind of species that you're asking about do exist, and furthermore, the fossil record just straight up confirms Darwinian Evolution outright, because we can literally see species today gradually evolving from earlier species (i.e. humans evolving from homo erectus and so on) in the fossil record, as I mentioned above.

[@brantgentry1463]

@@anthonyhudson2265 lol u can see an artists interpretation of evolution

[@anthonyhudson2265]

@@brantgentry1463 Those renditions are exact copies of the fossils photographed in the scientific papers documenting the discovery of those fossils. And in major museums, such as the American Museum of Natural History, most of the fossils shown in the exhibits are real. Darwinian Evolution is a *proven* fact, and you can't escape that fact, just accept it.

[@Joefest99]

This guy is doing great work! God bless him!

[@AlexPBenton]

Allow me to explain. Abiogenesis (life from non life) is separate from evolution. Micro evolution IS macro evolution, only creationists use those terms. The Cambrian explosion took hundreds of millions of years at least (I don’t recall the exact number) and did not create every life form seen today. DNA is never said to be all you need, you need proteins (or their components). Just research the terms. Finally, we don’t claim evolution disproves god! It isn’t our basic principle! It certainly does suggest an older universe than 6-10k years, but don’t think it is the reason we have for atheism. My reason for atheism is that there is no evidence for god. Until someone proves god, there is no reason for me to believe in it.

[@madhatter2744]

couldn't agree more man, thanks for standing up against the strawman arguments we so frequently encounter

[@ferny9179]

Lol you guys are so stuborn

[@madhatter2744]

@@ferny9179 it's not a matter of being stubborn most christians trying to address the topic of evolution don't know enough about it and end up crafting fallacious arguments as a result

[@chimpanzeethat3802]

I've never encountered a single creationist who knew what evolution means or how it works. They often ask for examples of things that evolution doesn't teach are even possible. Like one species giving birth to a different species.

[@GSpotter63]

If you are going to proclaim that evolution (pond scum to man) is a fact. Then could you please provide evidence that pond scum to man evolution is true, evidence that does not rely on unverified assumptions as the very bases of your theory. Pointing to evidence that supports variations among Genus and Family is not evidence of pond scum to man evolution. They are not one and the same. While standing on a street you observed a man come around the corner and walk past you. You observed and counted that he had taken 50 steps as he passed you and disappeared out of site around the next corner. Tell me, are the 50 you steps observed proof that the man took 50 steps before he came into view? Or 50 steps before that and 50 step more before that? Just because you observe a small change is not proof of large unseen change. It has been observed that organisms can and do quite often adapt to changing environmental conditions and pressures, something that is known as variation. But taking a very small observed change which takes few decades and hypothesizing the unseen large changes that would take millions of years and cannot be proven, is in the realm of fantasy and not observable and verifiable science. Remember: Pointing to the fossilized remains of an organism buried under layers of sedimentary strata and proclaiming that it is the progeny of another different fossilized organism berried farther down in another layer of strata is called an assumption not a fact. It is a fact that the fossilized remains are there in the ground but the ancestry/relation of the one organism to the other is your assumption; it is not a fact and has never been verified. Show me an example of just one organism observed to have changed form one genus or family to another genus or family over successive generations. If you cannot, then that unseen large change is a hypothetical speculation and not a proven fact. You can have the faith that it did happen in the past if you like. But calling it a proven fact is simply a lie.

[@Ommarrie]

Off topic but what is that beautiful soundtrack at the end of your videos.

[@repentofyoursinsandbelieve629]

11. And they will not need to teach their neighbors, nor will they need to teach their relatives, saying, ‘You should know the LORD.’ For everyone, from the least to the greatest, will know me already. 12. And I will forgive their wickedness, and I will never again remember their sins.” 13. When God speaks of a “new” covenant, it means he has made the first one obsolete. It is now out of date and will soon disappear. Hebrews 8:11-14 (NLT)