What Is the General Theory of Evolution Unable to Explain?

[@mountaindew7190]

Two of the big time heavyweights of apologetics. Pleasure to watch.

[@johndeoliveira8476]

Oh no the comments are opened

[@PigglePigSwillbucket]

which means the Young Earth creationists and antitheists are going to take over the comments. They are merely two sides of the same coin :(

[@tsopmocful1958]

Closing the comments only shows that different views aren't tolerated.

[@drew2fast489]

🤣🤣

[@Ange1Quintero]

@@tsopmocful1958 i wouldnt say that giving most of the people in the comments commit ad hominem rather than provide a coherent argument

[@yasyasmarangoz3577]

@@Ange1Quintero ?

[@redeemedchannel5580]

The theory of evolution basically explains adaptive functions-that’s it. The rest, in its entirety, is all narrative and story telling.

[@Hyumifu]

Precisely! It's a faith in itself lol

[@tobetrayafriend]

And hand waving

[@adamc1694]

Typical atheist response : "you don't know evolution".

[@ashutoshchakravarty2669]

Adam C VERY respectfully, maybe maybe because you don't and I am a Christian convert from atheism but evolution and christ both seem true to me

[@alexmala6483]

@@ashutoshchakravarty2669 While Christ simply cannot be denied, evolution can. You'll understand later.

[@Blues9]

Frank & Craig combo? I’m here for it!

[@NVRAMboi]

"Human consciousness."

[@hhp8571]

It would be nice if Craig mentioned this.

[@katamas832]

Human conciousness needs to be understood first before we can begin to understand how it came about

[@florinaschilean6143]

human consciousness says that gladiatorial fights are ok, crucifixion is ok, or in more modern times, gassing the enemy soldier or the prisoners of conscience or of a different race is ok, carpet bombing cities is ok...

[@joebuck4496]

@@florinaschilean6143 How would the existence of consciousness be an argument for those things being ok. That doesn’t follow at all.

[@florinaschilean6143]

@@joebuck4496 you just need to put yourself in the body of a roman citizen, or a nazi guard or a japanese soldier, you'll see how easy is to justify any crime

[@baubljos103]

Turek's question is pretty weird - asking for evidence in favor of theistic evolution while simultaneously opposing common ancestry? Turek and Craig should BOTH review Darwin's theory because there's actually 5 different principles in it. Species do change, common ancestry, gradual changes, multiplication of species, natural selection. The "neo-synthetic" version of Darwin's theory included the issue of random genetic mutations as a mechanism that would change traits. Theistic Evolution is essentially a claim that God created evolution. That may pacify some theists, but it's not prescribed in the bible. Craig's answer is - essentially - homologous dis-functional genes. Namely, genes that do not appear to work properly and are observed in different but presumably related species like humans and chimps. Problem with that answer is that you really don't know if a gene is dis-functional or not, because the mere fact that a genetic expert doesn't know what the function is does not mean that is has no function at all. Plus, dis-functional genes are an indication of what Behe describes as "de-evolution". That species and bio-diversity is devolving. That is very consistent with the Creation Theory, but not evolution. In argument against Craig's claim that chimps and humans both have dis-functional olfactory genes, it should be noted that Chimps, gorillas, and orangutans have 48 chromosomes but humans only have 46. That makes the notion of common ancestry extremely difficult to account for because biological systems overwhelmingly do NOT switch from 48 to 46 chromosomes, and if they do it results in extremely poor biological specimens. The only explanation is a telomeric fusion at chromosome #2. Problem is telomeres prohibit fusion. So you'd have to have a genetic engineer to make the fusion possible. But even if you did, there's still something like 10 million base pairs that have to be re-engineered to switch from a chimp to humans. Each of those changes has a probability of around 1 chance in 3 billion. When you multiply out the math - it's extremely impossible for a common ancestor to give rise to both chimps and humans - unless a very intelligent engineer made it happen.

[@baubljos103]

@@HarryNicNicholas Might be interesting to test whether people in Turek's neighborhood buy more bibles - or buy more pro-evolution books.

[@clifftongiguere]

I'm glad Frank mentioned the junk DNA point because that's what I was thinking also. We certainly cant jump to quickly on these new genetic waves.

[@Bibleguy89-uu3nr]

Not to mention, even if they were "broken genes" you are still left with having no example of information being added to a genome, only damaged. However, I am not convinced that the genes are broken, Dawkins has made this argument about the eye which seems absurd to me.

[@katamas832]

@@Bibleguy89-uu3nr What would be an example of information being added to a genome?

[@Bibleguy89-uu3nr]

@@katamas832 There isn't an example. That is one of the many reasons I don't find Darwinism convincing. No explanation on the origin of life or how it got to the next stage.

[@katamas832]

@@Bibleguy89-uu3nr I asked what *would* be an example. What is an example of information being added to the genome? Evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life. The study for the origin of life is called Abiogenesis. And while there isn't a working model, the explonation is at the very least on equal parts with "God did it". Both lacking in evidence. But it is actually above that, as we have discovered mechanisms by which organic molecules come about naturally, from amino acids to RNA nucleotides.

[@Bibleguy89-uu3nr]

@@katamas832 Under extremely controlled circumstances. There is far more evidence than simply "God did it", not to mention you just pointed out how much of a philosophy or theory macroevolution is despite the fact that those who believe it to be sufficient label it as science. Have you ever read any books by Stephen Meyer or Michael Behe, or anyone who opposes the assumed truth of Darwinism on scientific grounds? My point was that DNA cannot add to itself, in which case I don't think it is sufficient to explain itself. For example, many suggest that humans had tails in the past. Whether or not that's true I do not know, but that is vastly different than a human growing a tail for survival purposes.

[@brando3342]

I'm not even sure the "broken gene" argument is a very good one at all. Given a common design, placed into a similar environment, would you not expect the genes to react in a similar way? Isn't it more likely that they broke independent of one another but in the same way because they are so similar? That seems like the more intuitive answer to me.

[@busha7879]

I had this same thought.. We live in a fallen world and things break.. doesn’t mean it existed broken in the past and was inherited.

[@enmanuelsan]

Great not publish a paper and claim your Nobel prize, you just debunked evolution amazing

[@brando3342]

Enmanuel aguilera leon If people don't want something to be true, they won't accept it. Including these "award groups" or whatever.

[@enmanuelsan]

@@brando3342 proyection much?

[@brando3342]

Enmanuel aguilera leon Nope. I'm willing to believe the truth, given there is actual evidence.

[@williammunny9916]

*_Matthew 11.28 Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For My yoke is easy and My burden is light."_* *_Luke 19.10 for the Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.”_* _Jesus Christ loves you. Repent and be saved. Only Jesus Christ saves. God bless you, and peace be upon you and your family in the name of Jesus Christ_

[@Ryan-rh8rn]

@@HarryNicNicholas Bible porn? Really? That's what you got out of it?

[@maralvor]

Harry Nicholas The Bible should be given to minors who are instructed by their parents on the meaning of allegories. Then they will or should understand the true meaning and purpose of life! Your favourite? Wow!!

[@alanroberts7916]

@@HarryNicNicholas there are verses all over the place in their approved adult liturature. It talks about this guys says pick a woman whose breasts satisfy him. Etc..

[@alanroberts7916]

@@maralvor if the bible was from god himself why would it be necessary to give children special instructions. Isnt your god smart enough to do that or is it just his mysterious way???

[@kurryman]

@@alanroberts7916 you say it as if the Bible is just some form of tale for children. It's not afraid of going into reality, but if you're complaining so much you can tell those parents to give them like a children's Bible or something like that

[@strauss1414]

Just ask someone who believes in evolution the following: 1) Q:What is the average rate of evolution of species? A: There isn't an answer because of lack of evidence and dating mechanisms are often wrong. 2) Q:What has the theory helped us create? Evolution specifically, not genetics which is separate. A: Literally nothing. This model cant be used to predict when a new species will emerge because of the answer to question one. 3) Q: Has anything ever been born that wasn't the same species as its mother? A: Absolutely not.

[@ashutoshchakravarty2669]

A1) The average rate is an absurd question because species only evolve to adapt to the surroundings. They don't keep evolving because of nothing. A2) Another absurd assumption. The evolutionary theory helps us explain biological complexity, and using your "usability" principle there's absolutely no use of building the LHC, or any kind of collider because we would have NO use of a theory of everything. A3) Why would anything be born of a mothers that is not of the same species. Absurd question, because this is absolutely not something what evolution claims. Evolution occurs VERY slowly. It is survival of the very fittest gene. For example, in the modern age humans are just getting smarter than our counterparts 100 years ago because we use our minds more in the modern age and heiarchies are built on it's basis.

[@strauss1414]

@@ashutoshchakravarty2669 1) If species evolved from one into another which is what evolution claims, we should be able to tell how fast it happened. If it happened, we should be able to measure it. Not at all absurd. Most of science is measuring. If it cant be measured, it cant be proven. The environment is and was constantly changing, and by your logic that means everything is and always has been evolving. So let's measure how long it took for one species to turn into another one to prove something that should be an easy data point to get and fundamental to the theory. But no one will, because they cant, because of lack of evidence. You're making excuses for something that should be possible and would actually be useful. 2) Thanks for bringing that up. I also think those colliders are completely useless money sinks. They dont produce anything we can use. We also have to completely trust those scientists with access to the collider that what their research says is true because those experiments aren't independently repeated and verified. And even if they were, they're still practically useless. Modern science can't explain how dark matter and dark energy make up 95% of the universe or what they even are. They are two more things that cant be seen or measured, but they must exist or else most of theoretical physics is fundamentally wrong. I got news for ya Chakravarty, if you have to make up something that is supposed to account for 95% of what is required to make your equations work, you're fundamentally wrong, being dishonest and protecting your grant money. You're not even close to a theory of everything. You're probably not even 5% of the way there ;) 3) Let's look at fruit flies with EXTREMELY fast reproductive cycles. Breeding experiments have produced fruit flies with legs coming out of their eyes and other ridiculous fruit flies with crazy adaptations, but they have never made a new species of fly in a subsequent generation that is not the same as the mother fly. Adaptation is absolutely real. But a new species emerging from another has never been recreated in a lab and the fossil record is disastrously short of in-between species that can function as evidence to demonstrate this VERY slow process that you claim produces new species from old ones. In short, you have no evidence, only claims that you foist on other people without evidence and then accuse them of asking "absurd" questions and intellectual ignorance for not believing what you BELIEVE to be true. Realize this: your government education has been feeding you this information since before your brain was even fully formed. Understandably, you're attached to your models and ways of thinking not of your own volition. You think those dudes in lab coats have all the answers and they'd never lie or cover something up to protect their own status/money. You also think if they did lie, that you're too smart for that and you'd figure out their lies and then you'd be the special boy with all the answers. Well, sit down and write the steps of the scientific method. Then compare what you wrote to the thousands of articles explaining it. See if you get it right. If you do, ask if the evolutionary biologists and theoretical physicists are applying the FULL method before making their claims. You'll see that they aren't even doing experiments with independent and dependent variables, just making models that appear to describe what is happening and flying by the seat of their pants. Michio Kaku admits this. Godspeed Ashutosh Chakravarti. The guy who thinks he's the smartest in the room is almost certainly being fooled.

[@somerandom3247]

1) It varies. If a species is well adapted to its environment, it won't evolve much at all. If there are environmental pressures, it will evolve quicker. 2) Biological science, vaccines, the treatment of diseases, a better understanding of reality. 3) No. that would disprove evolution I highly recommend that you educate yourself on what evolution actually is. These are all pretty basic questions, and the last one shows that you don't understand the topic. Try getting your information from someone that actually knows what they are talking about instead of from these 3 deluded fools.

[@strauss1414]

@Some Random 1) Define "quicker" with concrete lengths of time of one animal evolving into another then. You can't because there is neither evidence of that happening today, as I said in the fruit fly example I gave earlier, nor does the fossil record support the claim of this slow process as all the in-between species are missing as I said before. Sure you can speculate but there's where's the evidence? The finches in the Galapagos and all examples like it are examples of adaptation (which I dont disagree with) not evolution. It seems like I'm not the one who needs educating. Even if what you're saying is true, then surely we could define an average rate of speciation. Is it safe to say that at any given time, the present conditions are more challenging for certain species than others? I think so, that would be the "survival" part of survival of the fittest (one of your key tenets). You are saying that at certain times, species evolve more slowly because pressures arent very strong for them. And other times, that species will evolve quickly because the pressures got stronger. Well then lets take that length of time of species A evolving into species B, if you have it (which you don't because the fossil record is horrendously incomplete and fruit flies have never turned into a new species despite decades of these experiments and millions of generations) and average it with the rates of other species just to find an average. Why wouldnt we do that? Your answer doesnt address the question in any way whatsoever. 2) a. Biological science: If this theory is wrong and the lack of evidence suggests it is, it's not contributing to biological science but hindering our progress. Biochemist Chris Williams at Ohio state along with hundreds of other scientists are refuting evolution. Here are 10 problems with evolution with links to the technical literature: www.discovery.org/a/24041/ Here is a site which lists 100s of scientists who actually want the answers to the problems of the above article and think evolution needs serious examination because it has turned into dogma: dissentfromdarwin.org/faq/ b. Vaccines: How exactly has evolution contributed to vaccines? What evidence do you have that vaccines are safe let alone effective? There are plenty of scientists who dispute the validity of vaccines and germ theory in general. Another interesting "theory." I feel like you've never questioned anything you've been told and just blindly accepted what the first person on TV in a lab coat told you. C. Better understanding: as I said before, if it turns out to be dogma, its hindering our understanding not helping. 3. The claim of evolution is that we have common ancestors going basically all the way back to eukaryotic microbes. That line of reasoning clearly suggests that we are separated from microbes by a series of divergences in ancestry. That means there's a clear line where some species stopped being one species and became another that was distinct and couldn't breed with the old species. This suggests an extremely slow progression. There's no evidence for this at all in the fossil record. The huge gaps between the species is glaring. And even more damning, "The Origin of Species" is such an aptly ironic title. The sudden appearance of species has no explanation. The origin of complex microorganisms and their consistent parts certainly has no explanation in evolution either. Once again, we've never witnessed evolution happen even with fruit flies and the fossil record doesn't provide evidence for it in history. I highly recommend you look into questions that have arisen this century from the analysis of experts with views contrary to your own. You may learn how to question authority again. I honestly didn't listen that closely to dr Craig and don't give a damn what he thinks but I wish him the best. He's trying too hard in other areas of science to reconcile the bible with the mainstream because he wants approval from the beast system. Christians are hated in this world and we have no obligation to reconcile our beliefs with other people's beliefs, evolution included. Evolution hasn't been proven in a lab or with historical record. You have all the answers to these "basic questions" but no solid evidence. I urge you to check out counterclaims of evolution because they are mounting and your theory looks very weak and has looked weak for a long time to anyone willing to ask these basic questions and ask for unrefutable evidence before going along with everyone else. Godspeed Some Random, may curiosity inspire you to ask why you believe what you believe and what its foundations are. Search for holes in your own theories and you will be seriously rewarded after some serious mental pain :)

[@strauss1414]

@Elenhith So you're saying science is incapable of describing the average rate of a phenomenon? Right? Preposterous. Science is literally supposed to create predictive models based on evidence. It has not done so with evolution because of a lack of evidence. You accepting it without evidence is your problem. Telling me "When you understand the subject, go to school." is so poorly written it makes me think you're a bot, and a bad one at that. You saying my questions cant be answered is a victory for me. I think going to school and trusting the "experts" is exactly the problem. Their claims cant even withstand a basic line of questions and we have people blindly supporting them. If you read my rebuttals, you'd have seen a link to a list of 100s of scientists currently working in the university system who disagree with the evolution narrative. Saying my questions are absurd is the scientific equivalent of "how dare you?!" Your argument has no legs and you know it. Godspeed Elenhith. May you relearn the trivium so your thoughts become clearer.

[@redeemedchannel5580]

How do you know those particular olfactory genes are bunk? Might a better explanation be that we simply don’t understand the function at present? I remember when (very recently) scientists described the vast majority of our DNA as “junk”-an evolutionary throwback. Now they NEVER mention junk DNA because they have discovered that all of this digital coding has very complex, intricate functions. Why would we assume otherwise with this “olfactory gene” argument? Does WLC believe in macroevolution or not?

[@jackzhang8677]

The majority of your DNA is not expressed as active phenotypes. That remains true. And no. It’s not that people don’t know what the olfactory gene can do. It is in fact because we know what that gene does that it can be identified as an olfactory gene. It isn’t actively expressed by any empirical measure.

[@onceuponatimeinancient]

Dr. Craig must study much more about evidences for Young Earth Creationism because there are many PhD's serious scientists very respeted that just deny the theory of evolution.

[@KTCobra]

It's important, and I'm glad, that you mentioned that, but he has, in his Reasonable Faith classes, mentioned that very thing. That there is a really large movement of very highly respected scientists who have moved away from Darwinian theories of evolution stating that there is just so much complexity that the theories just fall far too flat to hit the point.

[@actionfiguremovies]

@@KTCobra You are absolutely correct my friend. Here is the link to that information: Why Is Darwinian Evolution Controversial? Everyone agrees that Darwinian evolution is a controversial topic. But not everyone agrees on why. Many advocates of Darwinian evolution promote the stereotype that the theory is controversial only because a small religious segment of society has social, religious, or political objections. These advocates claim that there is no credible scientific disagreement with Darwinian evolution. This, however, is not true. The Scientific Dissent from Darwinism list shows that there is credible scientific dissent from Darwinian theory. The Scientific Dissent from Darwinism List includes 1,000+ PhD scientists who are skeptical of Darwinian evolution. The list shows that it is possible to hold legitimate scientific doubts about Darwinian evolution from a strictly scientific standpoint. Of course there are some people who have religious objections to Darwinian evolution. Conversely, some people make religious (or anti-religious) arguments for accepting Darwinian evolution. Religion isn’t the issue here. The issue is whether it’s possible to be a scientific skeptic of Darwinian evolution. The Scientific Dissent from Darwinism List shows that it is. Read More? dissentfromdarwin.org/resources-for-students/why-is-darwinian-evolution-controversial/

[@sebastianmoncada4055]

@@actionfiguremovies thank you for the information

[@sadscientisthououinkyouma1867]

I would say most of the time their denial of evolution is because the common theory of evolution (neo-Darwinism) is equally as bad as Lamarckian evolution. Both have very little explanatory power and have major flaws. To get evolution to bring back the academics 2 things need to happen. 1. People need to quit pushing evolution as a theory on the origin of life, it's not about that. Evolution doesn't tell us how chemical soup and energy create life, it tells us how that life becomes diverse eventually leading to where we are today. 2. Accept that there are some natural laws guiding evolution, it can not be random this idea has been thoroughly debunked by observation yet neo-dawinism is taught as if life is totally random. This is simply incorrect and there are too many examples of Convergent Evolution for this to be the case, Niche Construction for instance would give a creature power in shaping how it evolves and thus is contradictory to the neo-darwinian conception of evolution. Because of this I believe that evolution at least as taught in schools is a major problem which needs to be addressed.

[@dinohall2595]

Absolutely no reputable scientist denies the very groundwork of biology. Evolution is an established fact which cannot be refuted without outright ignoring the evidence. The wealth of transitional fossils, observed instances of speciation and congruent phylogenies constructed from varying evidence lines make evolutionary theory the best-supported theory in science.

[@jesussavedme4221]

God bless you Dr Craig.

[@maralvor]

Harry Nicholas Looks like you are clearly on a different planet from the rest of us. Our’s is THE most hospitable planet in our and any other known universe!

[@livewireOrourke]

As far as junk DNA goes, anyone who is married may know not to throw something out after assuming it is junk or broken (or missing something, as thus is trash). Me: "Oh, my wife wont' this anymore, it's missing something and was on the floor, I'll just toss it." Wife: "I see you have chosen death."

[@Crich_Leslie]

I remember reading a definition of _junk_ as “something you throw away just before you need it.”

[@bijaytmg329]

I really wanna learn about this Topic... Can anyone help me with the Good Resources??

[@onceuponatimeinancient]

Creation.com

[@JohnQPublic11]

You can read Darwin on Trial or any of Michael Behe's books.

[@bijaytmg329]

Venelouis Polar Thank You

[@bijaytmg329]

John Q. Public Thank You...I’m gonna check it out !!

[@JohnQPublic11]

​@@bijaytmg329 --- Philip Johnson the guy who wrote Darwin on Trial has several books out.

[@KitaRisti]

Is this a part of a larger discussion, since the guy in tengo la ca missa negra didn't say anything. I would like a link to the full discussion, if possible?

[@vaskaventi6840]

It probably was part of a larger discussion, Judging by the fact that the bottom has Turkek’s stuff I assume it’s filmed on Cross Examined, I’d check out that channel if your interested because maybe you’ll find it.

[@hamsarris8341]

He's just a moderator for frank.

[@eltonron1558]

The elephant in the room, is evolution can't explain creation.

[@PigglePigSwillbucket]

All evolution explains is genetic and physical changes in biological populations of organisms over time. For creation, theology and philosophy are the tools of the trade

[@eltonron1558]

@@PigglePigSwillbucket I already know that. Creation, is the fly in the ointment to that religion.

[@simphiwe4930]

@@eltonron1558 Wait... Then why ask why something can't explain something it wasn't meant to explain?💭🤨

[@eltonron1558]

@@simphiwe4930 I didn't ask anything.

[@simphiwe4930]

@@eltonron1558 Correction: Then why expect something to explain something it wasn't meant to explain?💭🤨

[@pathfinderwt4909]

what is this guy a Doctor in ? The Bible therefore religion is 2020 years old, but the world is BILLIONS of years old, Human Evolution has been ongoing for 100,000 or so years, yet god was supposed to have put on earth "perfect" humans in Adam and Eve. Theists please explain.

[@jimmyhartmanbass]

It doesn’t explain the “Cambrian Explosion”.

[@eldin0074]

The “Cambrian Explosion” is best explained with multiple, unrelated organisms created fully functional

[@katamas832]

It explains the Cambrian Explosion, Evolution has no problem with it

[@jimmyhartmanbass]

@@katamas832 many evolutionary biologists admit that the CE is not easily explained with usual scientific standards and inference. It’s quite anomalous. But sure, trust the religion of “evolutionary science” and don’t question it.

[@katamas832]

@@jimmyhartmanbass Not well explained doesn't mean not explained. Don't confuse the two. Precambrian fossils are lacking compared to other layers, so there's not enough fossil evidence for us to confirm what happened. But the theory can still very much explain it. Sorry, Evolution isn't a religion no matter how much you want it to be.

[@hamsarris8341]

@@katamas832 evolution on a macro size scale, cannot explain the Cambrian Explosion. That's just not how it works. Any change that fast would kill all life.

[@joeb2588]

Wait. Ford and GM would give you a car with a broken door handle. And don't leave out Chrysler who would give you a broken door handle and a car that quits running when there's a cloud in the sky. I do love William lane Craig, he's the best along with Gary Habermas.

[@maralvor]

joe b Ravi Zacharias and Prof John Lennox are also supremos !

[@MMAGUY13]

They didnt let the other guy speak and he wanted to!

[@hamsarris8341]

He just runs the thing.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

That's the moderator, not a debater

[@billbrock8547]

Aside from mutation and natural selection, other mechanisms of evolution include genetic drift, gene flow, and non-random mating. Also, there are examples of rapid evolutionary change: the Italian Wall Lizards of Pod Mrcaru and the Tuatara reptiles of New Zealand, to name just two. The science of evolution has moved far beyond Darwin's original theory.

[@bengreen171]

And far beyond Craig's understanding of it.

[@DJH316007]

Imagine if they were intelligent enough to know what they were talking about.

[@devb9912]

I don't have that level of imagination.

[@charliep5072]

A truly ridiculous statement. Even Sam Harris said Dr Craig is the one Christian all atheists fear.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

Imagine if Evolutionists were intelligent enough to not rely on fallacious reasoning with all their counterarguments, as demonstrated in your comment which is a blatant ad hominem fallacy

[@bengreen171]

@@lightbeforethetunnel imagine if theists had a sense of humour and understood what logical fallacies are.

[@munafghori4052]

I don't know but if there are complete monkeys or chimpanzees and complete humans presently, then why don't we have semi humans & chimpanzees or half human & half chimpanzees still existing? Why there are complete difference between one type of species with other within its own family but not having half biological resemblance among the species? If there was an evolution where half monkey & half human did exist in the past then why we don't see them now and why we don't in other animals where half evolved animal exist? Where all mid-evolved, semi-evolved or half-evolved has gone?

[@patrickparker8417]

God does not make mistakes or puts parts in a organism for no reason .

[@jimbelton]

Like an appendix?

[@RickStewart1776]

@@jimbelton Yes Jim, like an appendix. People who have had their appendix removed have a tougher time overcoming infections and people without are less likely to get Parkinsons. Simply because decades ago we didn't know its essential functions doesn't mean it didn't have them.

[@jstube36]

Well those who wrote "God's Words" were certainly mistaken

[@RickStewart1776]

@@jstube36 Where and how?

[@jstube36]

@@RickStewart1776 Start with the Sun. The earth formed 4.5 billion years ago. The Sun was formed 100 millions years before that. Genesis has the Sun coming after the Earth. That's one mistake. And if the God in Genesis was "perfect", he would not need to erase what he made. And That Flood solved nothing. Six day creation. The writers/writers who state it as six literal days got that wrong.

[@tylerwaymire7709]

Dr. Craig came in clutch ngl

[@RickStewart1776]

Came in with bad logic .. a first for him as far as I have seen.

[@tylerwaymire7709]

Rick Stewart What’s wrong with his logic?🧐

[@SecretEyeSpot]

Design and Morality are unexplainable by the Theory of Evolution? Are you kidding? The phenotypes that are ascribed to an organisms social-personality: generosity, aggressiveness, amiableness, etc all have their explanatory origins based on the social needs relative to the ecosystem and level of sociality in the organism. Therefore why wouldn't there be an adequate explanation for Morality? Likewise, if we're talking the "perception of design" of course the Theory of Evolution accounts for that by explaining through gene theory how certain phenotypes would be expressed relative to the biological needs of that organism in its environment. Ignorance is not Bliss.. And why are we forgetting Sexual Selection in relation to Natural Selection?

[@maralvor]

Secret EyeSpot Dawkins (at least to his satisfaction) has established that there is no absolute morality -only self interest-which arises from the evolutionary processes. No need to speculate then where it comes from. God has made it perfectly clear what His standards require from each one of us. That is why we all ( inherently if not publicly) admit there is a universal moral law. CS Lewis as was his wont, put it very succinctly and accurately when he said that “human beings all over the earth, have this curious idea that they OUGHT TO (my emphasis) behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it”. “Mankind did not discover a universal moral law, they just acknowledge it” N Geisler -Reasons for Belief. Nothing whatsoever to do with mindless, random processes and all of course consistent with the teachings of the historical God/Man Jesus Christ, who lived, died and rose again to save us from the consequences of our immorality; if we accept that we need saving from them.

[@SecretEyeSpot]

​@@maralvor its not entirely Mindless, and its not entirely random tis the point. Often when a mate picks its sexual partner there is intense sexual competition. This is mindful and deterministic pattern within Natural Selection. 2nd point. The Unit described as "self" can be all-inclusive and has no definitive boundary. Anything that relates to the social reality of the organism could be ascribed to the self. Therefore, Selfishness is not fundamentally amoral. I agree that humankind did not discover a moral law, and i believe that evidence from evolutionary anthropology/archaeology demonstrates that it long preceded us and we grew in its mould. Lastly. Dr. Craig is misleading individuals by not presenting all the arguments within Evolutionary Theory, and trying to bias it back into Christian Apologetics. All one has to do is study Evolutionary theory ready to embrace its full implications to see right through his indoctrination(s).

[@CNCmachiningisfun]

@@maralvor LOL. U R so deluded!

[@SecretEyeSpot]

I want to add to this the concept of Horizontal Gene Transfer. How could we accept anything Dr. Craig is saying if such a principle exists?

[@minetime6881]

Can William Lane Craig debate Ken Ham on this stuff? Or John Lennox vs William Lane Craig?

[@Soc-q7j]

John Lennox wouldn’t disagree aha

[@herbertcharlesbrown1949]

Craig has so much wisdom and knowledge also outside of philosophy

[@senagodman]

How does sexuality evolve from asexuality, Morality from amorality and Consciousness from none consciousness...

[@katamas832]

It's a process I don't understand well myself, but you can look up "How Creationism Taught Me Real Science 89" for an explonation on it. Morality is a behavioural adaptation that helps the social species cooperate, since it gives them rules to coexist with one another. That's not that hard to see develop. For us to understand how conciousness came about, we first need to understand what conciousness IS. Because we don't really know, all we know it is part of the brain, just not which parts and how it operates.

[@AceofDlamonds]

Certainly not the "Fall of Man" in Genesis, which is full of old myths.

[@hunterfortruth6036]

God bless you Dr. Craig.

[@patrickparker8417]

For being a heretic !!

[@jesussavedme4221]

Patrick Parker listen till the end. He said we cannot jump to conclusions. The way he said that there are non functional dna was just his answer to what theist evolutionists say.

[@johndeoliveira8476]

@@patrickparker8417 how

[@patrickparker8417]

@@johndeoliveira8476 He believes in evolution and millions of years and does not believe in Adam and Eve or the great flood .

[@johndeoliveira8476]

@@patrickparker8417 bro he debated people that believe in macro evolution

[@colmwhateveryoulike3240]

Craig is correct about random mutation being limited but biologists do not invoke random mutation to account for biodiversity on its own. As a biologist and Christian, I would discourage anyone from denying the fact that there will ALWAYS be a natural mechanism associated with natural features even if we don't yet know it. That is entirely in keeping with creationism.

[@RickStewart1776]

There may be a natural mechanism, but until it can be observed, tested, and repeated it will not be scientific. What natural mechanism can you posit for the reverse spinning of celestial bodies?

[@colmwhateveryoulike3240]

@@RickStewart1776 Look up gene flow, genetic drift and epigenetics. When I was studying we looked at the first two along with random mutation and natural selection as observae mechanisms to explain the very clear family trees painted by the fossil record and biogeographical distribution as well as phylogenetics. But I knew there had to be some level of pressure to evolve based on the life-challenges of an organism in order to provide a bit of a sense of direction to the process. Something almost lamarkian. And we did study a bit of proteomics but it wasn't until after I left that epigenetics became more widely known. Basically it's the partially-heritable biochemical environment of the gene that defines how the existing genes are used. So it's epigenetics that makes a cell with the exact same genes turn into the very different cells of our bodies, but this also alters during our lives in ways that might alter hormones or various things and if an organism has a particular stress to the system epigenetic change can be an intermediate step towards the kind of change necessary, which then translates that stress to the genes and creates more change in the genes when the organism creates sperm or eggs. But even without knowing that, I had to stop my default young earth belief after two lectures into introductory bioscience based on the family trees revealed in creation itself and then I found that a literary examination of Genesis revealed good reasons not to believe that the english translation had to be 100% literal in the same way we don't have to believe that prophetic days are literal (we know they're not from the Bible itself but also from examples of fulfilled prophecy) or that the parables that Jesus told actually happened. So the inclination I had felt to be YEC disappeared and I grew to appreciate God's magnificence even more if anything. However, we also can't take this line of argument as far as the skeptical scientist often does. The evidence for Adam may not be clear enough (although there is a very intriguing place matching Eden) to prove scientifically, but even a scientist accepts that that is no indication that they weren't real. Many spiritual truths can be told using narratives that aren't true and I suppose at a stretch this could extend to Adam but it's unlikely. Just as Jesus Himself must be literal (what would the truth of God saving us from ourselves be figurative of other than something equally miraculous?), so too must Adam and Eve and Eden and the trees be literal (although there is always some degree of simplification in any written account) in order for the truth to be true. Evolutionary biologists might widely decide not to accept this as true but not for the same obvious truths revealed in creation (three corresponding family trees) that they can use to dismiss YEC. I myself am a cautionary tail of taking that one step too far, but thankfully being saved by God, which is why I am familiar with it. I eventually - under pressure that my own experience or reasoning could not fight - decided that I had to stop believing in miracles and therefore Jesus. I prayed to God about it at the time, but just to let Him know (leaning on my own understanding) and then because I made so little of God (deistic) I stopped believing in Him too and became an ordinary decent liberal atheist of the world. But I did have faith in truth and love and eventually truth/love spoke back to me when I searched desperately for meaning and I saw miraclulous signs over a period of years before I accepted that there could be no other explanation but God Himself. And God then sent me Bible verses and I saw Him answer another person's prayers and when I became Christian He sanctified me in ways I had given up on healing. So IF the living God I know wanted to, yes He could have made Genesis literally happen but not only is evolution revealed in creation, it isn't really contradicted by Genesis either. It's not made anything of either but the earth was commanded to bring forth life and there is a hint at a more complex process going on when God makes vegetation in the 2nd day but also makes more vegetation in the 6th. Also as a final note, I see brilliant evangelists make a mockery of Christianity by focusing on this issue and highlighting their own ignorance of the topic to anyone who actually spends years studying it and it's not even a salvation issue. You don't even have to believe in a literal Adam to know that original sin exists, you just have to believe in a literal Jesus to know God has provided one narrow way to be saved from our sin.

[@colmwhateveryoulike3240]

Re the reverse spinning of celestial bodies, I'm not familiar with what you mean, sorry.

[@RickStewart1776]

​@@colmwhateveryoulike3240 Thank you for the long and thoughtful reply. I appreciate your journey. I have had a similar one, but mine has not ended with belief in Darwinian Evolution. First, your mention of gene drift. This is the problem with the theory of Darwinian Evolutionist. The only scientific proof you can use is non-Darwinian. Saying an isolated population of frogs have green spots due to gene drift is probably true, it is not evidence that frogs and salamanders have a shared ancestor. Even more so it does not show how corn and cows share an ancestor. It only shows how speciation may happen. Nothing more. Gene drift is inadequate to get above the Family taxonomically speaking. It only offers an explanation of Genus and Species. Second, of course the Bible is made up of different literary types, no one argues that. Using spurious examples of historical narrative contained in the text in no way diminishes the text. If you have specific examples you would like to discuss, please include those. Third, IF the story "science" tells us is true (science tells us nothing, scientists do!), then everything in the universe was a single tiny dot that was spinning very fast. At some point the infinitesimal dot exploded and what we see in the universe is the result. Well, according to the First Law of Thermodynamics not only do object in motion stay in motion, unless acted upon, they stay in the same motion unless acted upon. This means that everything should be spinning in the same direction. I have yet to see a simulation which shows how an object can reverse it's motion without being absorbed by the larger object changing its direction. Now, if it is true, we should not see multiple moons with retrograde revolutions or rotations. However, there are several moons which are in retrograde and two planets and at least one galaxy spins backwards. Lastly, to say there must always be a natural explanation is to immediately remove from thought the possibility of either miraculous or even spiritual forces. This is a closed-minded thought pattern. To say only natural forces could have created the first living thing is laughable. If you were to convert every atom in the universe to hydrogen you'd have 10^80 atoms. If every one of them had a chance to create the first RNA every second for 20 billion years, there would be 6x10^17 tries (www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%282*10%5E10%29*365.25*24*3600). This would give you 6×10^97 (www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28%282*10%5E10%29*365.25*24*3600%29*%2810%5E80%29) chances for all the matter in the universe to create life. However, it is estimated that the smallest lifeform would need 256 genes (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Volume 93, Number 19, pp. 10268-10273 - www.pnas.org/content/93/19/10268). These genes would be roughly 1,000 base pairs long. This would mean you needed 300,000 bases of DNA configured in the correct way. Not only that, but the genes come in two options, but only one will work. There are 10^90,000 options for randomly selected bases of DNA to be strung together. Only a single one will work to create self-replicating life. We already know we only have 6x10^97 chance for every atom for every second in 20 billion years. This gives us a remainder of 10^89,900 base pairs. The creation of life is a miracle not natural.

[@maralvor]

Colm Whateveryoulike How do you account for the arrival of DNA?

[@Strutingeagle]

Poor guy on the right never got to slide in a word in edgewise with these dudes.

[@mountaindew7190]

He is sitting with two of the heavyweights of apologetics. If we were sitting with Maradona and Pele talking soccer we wouldn't be saying anything as well.

[@hamsarris8341]

@@mountaindew7190 he just be a moderator for frank.

[@mountaindew7190]

@@hamsarris8341 Yes, Jorge Gil is the moderator. However he an international speaker on apologetics in his own right. He does occasionally chime in with his two cents on this show, but not this time understandably.

[@flimsyjimnz]

Poor guy? I saw him as respectfully letting good information flow .

[@calvyoel1515]

Short video, way too short. But the biology and/vs physics is a good short est intro. Same broken link with chimps? Might sin play a part? Created vs what is now.. and who knows what is junk for now?

[@mikesomerset6338]

C19 seems to be evolving pretty quick.

[@alttuning]

Mutating actually. There is a difference.

[@katamas832]

@@alttuning Not really.

[@robertklaers25]

@@alttuning Mutation is the key to evolution.

[@augustem]

but not to the bunny or is it?

[@flimsyjimnz]

@@robertklaers25 Theres no evidence that mutations (and adaptations) facilitate evolution. Covid 19? -no matter how many strains, will remain a virus. Darwin's finches remained finches.

[@cetcsmoser]

Note that Craig cites the book by John Barrow and Frank TIpler, which was published in 1988. The book covers many topics in cosmology, physics, and philosophy, most of which have since been updated, supplemented or debunked. The theory of evolution is only one part of the complex thesis of their book, and neither one of the authors were evolution skeptics. Craig is cherry picking, as all evolution deniers are. His background does not entitle him to make solid pronouncements on evolution, or for that matter, any of these highly complex scientific theories. He's what we would call a pseudo-intellectual, a smart chap who's read lots of books, garnering isolated statements and scientific conundrums to bolster his true agenda, which is to allow Christians to remain comfortably convinced of their faith in the supernatural.

[@drcraigvideos]

Has the section that he cited been "debunked" by more recent discoveries? If so, which? - RF Admin

[@howtodoit4204]

It cannot answer where life came from, from non living to living. Let’s not talk about other complexity like the brain

[@katamas832]

It's not supposed to. Evolution is a theory of biodiversity. And we first need to understand how the brain works before we can figure out how it came about via Evolution lol.

[@darrylelam256]

You are confusing Abiogenesis with evolution. What you are doing is the equivalent of me explaining how to built a house and you complaining that I'm not explaining how to cut trees down.

[@howtodoit4204]

@@darrylelam256 Abiogenesis does not explain shit

[@darrylelam256]

@@howtodoit4204 Abiogenesis is the STUDY of the origins of life. That study has uncovered much but does not as of yet there is no explanation that covers everything about it.

[@XYisnotXX]

Dr James Tour has picked modern day nonsense of origin of life "understanding" completely apart and left them all looking rather arrogant and completely foolish.

[@mxracer1999]

Dr Craig misses the most obvious explanation of common strings of DNA (or whatever it may be) that does not require a common ancestor. When God designed things from the cellular proton pumps to the brain he used a common set of functions so that they would work in the overall ecosystem. DNA is no different. He refences Ford and Gm. Well a cursory understanding of automotive design and manufacturing is that neither for nor GM have a "common ancestor" but they do have common design principals. Once you start deviating from a common set of design standard you increase complexity on an exponential scale. Similar DNA, which is not 98% the same (You have to jump through hoops to get there) speaks to a common designer for a common ecosystem not necessarily a shared ancestor.

[@thangminlensingson5615]

Thank you Dr. Craig

[@evangelistkimpatrik]

Does Dr. Craig believe in the evolutionary time frames? I think he argues that time does not explain the biological diversity we see in nature, since random mutations and natural selection work even slower than expected.

[@baubljos103]

He didn't actually say it, but I inferred that Craig does NOT believe evolution is plausible because the amount of time needed for species to evolve by random mutation and natural selection is far greater than the age of the solar system.

[@baubljos103]

@FaithfulMillennial Thank you. Perhaps I erred. He DID say at 3:09 that the "best explanation" for the common defective gene was "a common ancestor". He then argues against a "creationist" at 3:33. But he also hedged his belief when he said at 3:56 that the "thesis of common ancestry is in PART true". In other words, his belief is only partial. He then went on to argue against "random mutation" as a mechanism (4:07). And THAT is a key factor in evolution. AT 4:15 He correctly refers to common ancestry and random mutation as "separate issues". Which one of those "separate issues" is evolution? Which is "macro evolution"? He didn't say, but technically BOTH and several others are principles of the Theory of Evolution. Does he really believe the theory? At 4:40 he described "common ancestry" as "the least objectionable". Common ancestry includes the fact that you and your siblings had common parents. So common ancestry is no-brainer. Anyone can believe that. But belief in evolution requires one to affirm all 5 principles - common ancestry, species that change, heritable traits, natural selection, and random mutations. I think the key to his real "belief" is at 5:02 when he describes "random mutation" and "natural selection" as "a much more difficult issue" in terms of explaining bio-diversity. A "much more difficult issue" is gobbly-gook language for "i don't believe it". Plus, on re-examination by Turek, Craig essentially shot himself in the foot by agreeing that the "broken gene" (which was critical to Craig's common ancestry belief) actually may not be broken. Does Craig really believe in evolution? At 5:45 he says "one must'nt jump to conclusions". So he's basically taken belief off the shelf. Belief is premature. But thank you. Correct me if I erred.

[@baubljos103]

@@HarryNicNicholas That's an interesting claim you make about the principle of science and what religious people tend to do. Can you cite a published article that describes a scientifically tested null hypothesis that did not falsify your claim?

[@vaskaventi6840]

@@baubljos103 I think that Craig is a theistic evolutionist, so he probably accepts evolution but would also say that a higher power pushed it along.

[@baubljos103]

@@vaskaventi6840 Probably? You say "probably"? Well I just recently Aced statistics so you'll to show your calculations in order to make a probability claim. As to what he "accepts" I think it's impossible for you to know what he accepts because you'd basically have to be able to read his mind to know what he "accepts". So, why not just say what you think, and leave Craig to explain himself?

[@JohnQPublic11]

[1] In the first place life only began 3500 million years ago. And [2] that's not evolution's defeater argument.

[@deltadeltus5788]

3.85 billion years ago, according to geographical evidences. Maybe even earlier

[@karozans]

Dr. Craig said that evolution is so slow, it could not have taken place in 4.8 billion years. He is 100% correct because 4.8 billion years is the upper limit due to the formation of the earth. He never said that life began 4.8 billion years ago. Furthermore, he did not ever say that was evolution's defeater argument. He said that evolution has inadequate explanatory mechanisms and he gives one example. Did you even listen to him? Or did you just hear what you wanted to hear?

[@deltadeltus5788]

@@karozans evolution need not be very slow. It depends on how fast the organism reproduce, environmental and genetic factors, natural selection and so on. That's why the coronavirus has mutated into a number of strains in a brief interval. Similar examples where evolution and variation occur in rapid phase were recorded among some reptiles, bird, species

[@karozans]

@@deltadeltus5788 In the video, Dr. Craig is talking about the entire evolution of all organisms on earth from start to finish taking so long. Not just one single organism. While some things like bacteria reproduce every 6 minutes, other organism reproduce every several years. All of these random mutations, through millions of different species, to get what we have today, will take far too long.

[@deltadeltus5788]

@@karozans no. I mean some factors like mass extinction events are beneficial for the surviving animals and they diversify rapidly in a brief time. Also, some microevolution events happen within a few generations and sometimes even cause speciation in a few generation. Though we cannot determine the dynamics of evolution, it's safe to assume that only a couple of millions of years is required for macroevolution to happen in most cases (there are a few living fossil animals which survives for millions of years (example : crocodile, jelly fishes, shark, jingo tree, horse shoe crab etc))

[@ernestbailey6617]

It is people who skipped school without a education

[@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n]

good, they didnt get Permanent Head Damage'ed out of their minds

[@sirpepeofhousekek6741]

an* education

[@TristenTaylorMD]

Craig is leaving off other mechanisms of macroevolution that have incredibly large implications/necessities on the speed of species divergence. Like genetic drift, genetic flow, or non-random mating.

[@TristenTaylorMD]

@FaithfulMillennial I got a biology degree haha, but you can just look up "mechanisms of macroevolution". Basically they're just how different traits, and ultimately different species, occur due to a change in a population due to things like extinction events, species moving around and mating with different populations, or the influence of species mating for purposes not solely based on survival

[@RickStewart1776]

@@TristenTaylorMD Macroevolution is more closely related to faith than Christianity. At least Jesus was real and observed.

[@JohnDoe-zu2tz]

Rick Stewart An anti-Roman Jewish cynic rabbi almost certainly existed, but that’s about as far as the evidence leads.

[@TristenTaylorMD]

@@JohnDoe-zu2tz I don't think you understand what qualifies for "evidence"

[@TristenTaylorMD]

@@RickStewart1776 Macroevolution is the scientific description for how species develop over time. The only people contradicting God are the people who say macroevolution is not real.

[@BladeOfLight16]

Thank you. It's hard to find people who are willing to discuss the truth about these issues. You are attempting to fairly present all sides of the argument and explain why you land on one as opposed to the other. As a Christian, it's refreshing to hear this rather than the more common expression of talking points that don't work as well when you dig into the details.

[@AceofDlamonds]

Except Dr. Craig flings a few of his usual talking points in his response. And not all sides need to be presented on equal ground. Not true. People feel threatened by facts they do not like and retreat to the "present my side!"

[@BladeOfLight16]

@@AceofDlamonds People do feel threatened by facts, which is why so many atheists refuse to acknowledge the weaknesses in the case for evolution. When there are legitimate problems with an explanation, they need to be examined, not swept under the rug. It's not about any particular person's side; it's about examining both the arguments for and against something honestly.

[@AceofDlamonds]

@@BladeOfLight16 Okay timeout. You are right in principle...if this was the 15th century. Stop with the atheist-theist dichotomy for a second. Look at it scientifically; is evolution the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth...a resounding YES. Which is why it is considered a hard fact by people in the field. It's been a long time since Darwin and all debate for alternative theories is far out of the picture. What is left? Scientists debating taxonomy and predicting gaps in the fossil record and probable lineages.

[@BladeOfLight16]

@@AceofDlamonds No, it's not a good explanation for the diversity of life. The fossil record is so full of gaps that _advocates_ of evolution had to make up a way around them. It's called "punctuated equilibria," and it has no evidence in the fossil record because it's specifically crafted to address the very lack of evidence. Small changes over long periods of time simply do not culminate in large scale body plan changes, and there's no evidence that large scale body plan changes can happen in short periods of time. The argument you're making is called "argumentum ad populum," and it's a fallacy.

[@AceofDlamonds]

@@BladeOfLight16 Lol I love the textbook talking points. More to the point: a consensus is more valid when it has the backing of people who've spent their careers studying it. No Joe on the street is controverting that unless he can speak to them on their level. Second, punctuated equilibrium is only one hypothesis to explain aspects of the fossil record we aren't sure of. What the hell else is there besides evolution? There is no alternative. We cannot expect a complete unbroken fossil record just because of the nature of fossil formation.

[@xgoosey]

Can an Old Earth believing Christian explain the New Heaven and New Earth that God will bring forth in the future. Will that also take billions of years?

[@GuitarTunings33]

I never thought about that..... FANTASTIC question.

[@jesussavedme4221]

Lol it won't. God is omnipotent. He took 6days because he wanted to not because he couldn't do it in a second

[@adisat8756]

If evolution exist it must be continuous stochastic process. All such processes, but evolution, produces continuous distribution of process phase. Only evolution produces discrete distribution of process phase.

[@jstube36]

These Creationists never seem to quit. Using the same argument over and over. And they are wrong everytime.

[@carsonwall2400]

I'm a Christian but I can't stand how some apologists strawman evolution. Evolution includes so much more than merely natural selection acting on random mutation. Also, there's mountains of evidence for common descent. Just because we don't have an explanation for every step of the process doesn't mean that it's not valid to infer common descent.

[@jstube36]

@@carsonwall2400 Whether you are a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or even a Satanist. Our Evolution is still a fact of life. Our Species has developed over time from our primitive ancestors. And we are still changing. The evidence to be sought is right in the mirror. We are the Evidence. many religious-hardliners will always be sticks in the mud. The Church thought the Printing Press a tool of Satan. And the same with just about any hint of Human progress.

[@carsonwall2400]

@@jstube36 You sound like you've been taking history lessons from Aron Ra.

[@jstube36]

@@carsonwall2400 I do enjoy seeing Aron-Ra take down so many arrogant creationists again and again. But there are other sources. If I had a favorite I would refer you to the brilliant Dr. Alice Roberts. vimeo.com/454621740. Let's just say she's quite impressive. Check out her channel kzbin.info/www/bejne/oIPFfaSLqaxqhsk.

[@carsonwall2400]

@@jstube36 Cool. Not sure how that's relevant?

[@scottbrandon9390]

Evolutionary Theory cannot explain gaps in the geological record. Why do some species just appear as fully developed species, while others we can see develop over time? It does not mean you throw away they theory, but there are problems like that. There is also disagreement between scientists whether evolution is slow or quick. People like Dawkins believe in slow orderly evolution. Stephen Jay Gould would believe it is possible to have some species evolve quickly as need dictates.

[@katamas832]

Eh? Evolution surely can't explain those gaps, the rarity of fossilization can. Also, all fossils are fully developed species. Just some species show transitions of traits. I think the best explonation is a bit of both. Evolution can act slow or fast depending on circumstances.

[@Apanblod]

If we don't have an explanation, then we don't have an explanation. Our inability to account for certain phenomena doesn't lend any credence to the idea that a god exists. It doesn't matter how 'amazing' or complex we think that phenomenon is, if you propose a god is responsible, that claim needs it's own verification.

[@adamc1694]

That is called implication. A > B, B > C, there is no visual evidence of A > C, but by logical implication A > C. You people got it all wrong. It is not 'amazing' or 'complexity' that leads to a creator god or gods. It is all purposes, meanings that we can observe in this world leads to the conclusion that there must be a creator god or gods. Purpose/meaning and mind mutually define each other.

[@Apanblod]

@@adamc1694 But purpose in the universe must be demonstrated independently, we can't just infer intent by observing things. And I realise you probably weren't intending to, but lumping me into the group 'you people' isn't very productive to furthering the conversation, really.

[@adamc1694]

@@Apanblod you got to be kidding me. Purpose is all around you. Sun rise sun set give day and night, provide energy to living beings, oxygen exchange, molecule of water... The only way we can infer the existence of minds other than our own is through purpose.

[@takoja507]

@@adamc1694 How are those purposes of life? They are just natural events that occur. Purpose in life is something that you can personally give to yourself, like your purpose in life is to help others or your purpose in life is to be rich and famous etc. Not everyone needs or even want purpose in life, just living the life and being as happy as can be is enough (ok I guess you could call that a purpose too). But observing natural events happen is not a purpose in it self. If you study why those natural events happen and what makes then happen and how nature came to be, that could be purpose in life relating to those natural events. but just saying sun rise and sun set etc. are purpose, they are not.

[@adamc1694]

@@takoja507 In a logical communication, we don't point to a human being and say "just some water, carbon and minimal". We don't say a song is just air frequency. It is you that subconsciously argued for the sake of arguing. You thought you make sense. Actually it was your subconsciousness making a fool out of yourself. You just didn't know about it. The goal of Gnosticism, Buddhism is to realize the real truth. You are confusing the question of 'how' and 'why'. How is the mechanical steps. Why is the purpose, intention.

[@louis7974]

Why not get an evolutionary biologist of the stage as well? Instead of listening to an echo chamber.

[@robertklaers25]

This type of type conversation just hurts my head, not that I don't understand the subject, but that I do. Then when WLC throws in an argument for credulity as he mentions that the idea the Sun would have burned out before evolution would have happened. It shows an inherent misunderstanding of how the environment influences mutation and helps to propagate them.

[@MarkNOTW]

You seem to dismiss the possibility that creatures were designed with the ability to adapt to changing environments. Otherwise, you are simply substituting nature for God as if nature has volition or intelligence. That is a more logical and plausible explanation of the evidence.

[@robertklaers25]

@@MarkNOTW That would be counter to the general religious approach that all organisms were created as is, with no change. The very idea which had been taught even before Darwin. It was one of the things that caused him to question his own religious teachings, when he found evidence that countered the prevailing thought. The same approach that permeates religion even now, despite the findings that say otherwise.

[@MarkNOTW]

@@robertklaers25 I think there’s a misunderstanding among many people on one side of the aisle about the beliefs or understandings among those on the other side. Most “religious” people accept the idea that creatures change or adapt over time. That can be shown to be true and it doesn’t require eons of time. What we generally do not accept is that creatures change into different species or different kinds.

[@robertklaers25]

@@MarkNOTW Actually, no there isn't a misunderstanding and here's why.. Many of who are not believers were once believers themselves. So they do in fact know what the believers think having worn those shoes themselves. So when you say that about religious people, we know it's not true.

[@MarkNOTW]

@@robertklaers25 I don’t even know what you’re talking about. You’re using anecdotal evidence. Most “religious” people know that creatures adapt and change over time. We have proof of that. We don’t have proof of macro evolution.

[@w.8424]

Why do we have tail bones then? 🤔

[@vigorofavirgo3916]

ZE RO we don’t

[@w.8424]

@@vigorofavirgo3916 It's called the coccyx and it has coccygeal vertebra like the vertebrae in other animals' tails. It's vestigial. Consider yourself informed. It's one of the signs that we're evolved

[@eldin0074]

@@w.8424 no, it's required for several muscular functions

[@CNCmachiningisfun]

@@eldin0074 According to your boyfriend, Kent Hovind. Pathetic!

[@enmanuelsan]

Craig once again pretending to know better than the experts in the relevant field, didnt Carroll teach you why is that a bad idea?

[@maralvor]

Enmanuel aguilera leon how do the “experts” you prefer explain how DNA (information) arose ?

[@enmanuelsan]

@@maralvor Did you care to research that first or you just presuposed there isnt an explanation?

[@katamas832]

@@maralvor The current hypothesis is that it is an evolved form of RNA.

[@1godonlyone119]

Uh... everything?

[@georgebond7777]

"I think the Evangelical Christians have really sort of got it right in a way in seeing Evolution as the enemy. Whereas the more, what shall we say, sophisticated theologians are quite happy to live with evolution. I think they're deluded (chuckle). I think Evangelicals have got it right in that there really is a deep incompatibility between Evolution and Christianity." (Feb 2011) Richard Dawkins

[@redeemedchannel5580]

First ol’ Dick needs to prove macroevolution is true without using cartoons and “just so” stories. Scientifically speaking, the theory of evolution has more holes than Swiss cheese 🧀.

[@georgebond7777]

@@redeemedchannel5580 more holes than the Quran

[@Hyumifu]

The father of Genetics, Mendel, was a priest. Incompatibility? Right.

[@georgebond7777]

@@Hyumifu was Mendel a Theistic Evolutionist?

[@williamyoung7219]

More words of wisdom from the west’s greatest living philosopher and theologian. 🤣

[@pascalguerandel2771]

Evolution can not explain caterpillar to a butterfly!

[@pazuzil]

I hope Turek never accepts evolution. It would make him seem more credible

[@CNCmachiningisfun]

These lying religiots will *NEVER* accept the reality that is evolution.

[@youwillknowthetruthtruthwi8568]

Believing Theistic Evolution is just like believing Deism . If God of the Bible only if Transcendent being then Believing Theistic Evolution correct .But the God of the Bible both Transcendent and Immanence.No need to Believe any Evolution. Believing First three chapters of Genesis as Historic Narrative , then only Doctrine of Holy Scriptures holds good. definition "The Holy Scriptures (The Bible ) which we mean 66 books of the Bible originally given ,inspired ,infallible and it's supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct."

[@LilithLiberated]

Do you ever get tired of lying for a living?

[@CNCmachiningisfun]

Nope. WLC is a professional liar.

[@alemartinezrojas5285]

Biological similarities among species do not equal common ancestry. If all species are the outcome of the same Creator, you would expect some similarities in his effects (species).

[@dinohall2595]

Chromosome 2 shows a common ancestry between humans and other great apes. Molecular fossils in the genome show genes which used to be possessed in ancestors; for example, humans and other great apes have a pseudo-gene which previously would have produced the enzyme GLO which other organisms use to metabolize vitamin C from glucose. We have functional genes to produce the first 3 enzymes in this process, but without GLO, the process cannot occur, and we have to consume vitamin C from our diet. There are blind cave fish that have the remains of eyes. Humans not only have wisdom teeth we don't need but canines which no longer function as canines. The laryngeal nerve wraps around the aorta...I could go on, but you get it. Common ancestry is a thing.

[@IoDavide1]

Do you realize that even if you disprove evolution, and this is not the case, you cannot solve your problem with a "therefore god"?

[@IoDavide1]

@@HarryNicNicholas "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion."

[@RickStewart1776]

You do realize that Darwinian Evolution has not been proven, therefor I have no need to disprove it. There is not a single scientific data point to show any Family of organisms can become any other Family of organisms.

[@RickStewart1776]

@@IoDavide1 Without an absolute standard of good, there can be no good and no bad. If the standard of good and bad is to be found within us, then everything is good and everything is bad. Raping babies cannot be said to good or bad as any group of people may form their own opinion on the matter and enforce their morals. But more to you point, Stalin was not religious; he killed 40 million people. Mao was not religious he killed 60 million people.

[@IoDavide1]

@@RickStewart1776 do you realize you don't know what are you talking about? Evolution is one of the most demonstrated fact in the story of science. Your obsession to specify "darwinian" show how ignorant you are about the argument by trying to link the scientific theory to a single person without understand that no scientist is the owner of a scientific theory

[@RickStewart1776]

@@IoDavide1 First, if I don't know what I am talking about prove me wrong. Use science and logic. Second, please define evolution. I defined it by turning a proper noun into an adjective to describe the noun of evolution; it was not to show ownership. Darwinian Evolution is commonly understood to be the concept of all living organisms share a common ancestor. It has never been used to show that Darwin owns evolution like he took a patent on it. Third, please educate me by showing a single scientific data point which proves organisms can evolve beyond the Family level. At the Family level and below is speciation and is not in question as it is observable within a single generation. Common descent is not observable. Matter of fact, let me go ahead and answer for you from a list which I have collected from similar minds as yours: A) You don't know what you're talking about. B) It takes a really long time. C) Really important people said so. D) You're an idiot! You've already used A, D and C. Go ahead and tell be it can't be observed because it take s along time. Please don't provide a link to a paper which details the experiment which showed how organisms can move beyond their Family.

[@boriskaragiannis]

DID YOU GUYS SOLVE THE INCEST PROBLEM? :D

[@somerandom3247]

"Me no understand how we got here, must have been magic sky daddy!!"

[@johnnyappleseed5029]

Yep, you've proven you understand little, if anything at all

[@jesussavedme4221]

Oh yes. A first mover. Too bad your God hating attitude is preventing you to be saved

[@somerandom3247]

@@jesussavedme4221 I don't hate god, I have when people use dumb as fuck reasons to believe shit. Do you have any evidence of a gods existance? Or at the very least, a good reason to believe that any gods do, or ever have existed?

[@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n]

@@somerandom3247 Look into Gary Habermas he was going to be a zen buddhist or something before he did his phd and saw the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ which totally convinced him. Kent Hovind seminars demonstrate that the earth is probably less than 10000 years old. So if God acted in history to resurrect Jesus and we know this is a young earth and we are therefore created in a theistic universe just as the KJV Bible lays out perfectly and Jesus himself believed the biblical narrative of history then it becomes more rational to become Christian because you cannot even be an atheist. Because God could always exist outside of what you know which is very little we dont have near 100% knowledge of the entire universe only he is omniscient. There are only agnostics but mostly rebels who deny what they know to be true and thus the Bible says you are without excuse : 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Also read "new Age Bible Versions" by Riplinger it explains why the KJV is definitively where God preserved his word for English speaking people.

[@somerandom3247]

@@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n Have you got any evidence outside of the bible? It's hard to take it seriously what with all the contradictions and clearly fictional stories

[@samdg1234]

Jerry Fodor is a philosopher and cognitive scientist at Rutgers University. In his 2010 book, What Darwin Got Wrong, coauthored with Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, the two profess being “outright, card-carrying, signed-up, dyed-in-the-wool, no-holds-barred atheists,” but nonetheless contend “there is something wrong-quite possibly fatally wrong-with the theory of natural selection.” Like Margulis, they face pushback from peers who feel they are betraying science: “We’ve been told by more than one of our colleagues that, even if Darwin was substantially wrong to claim that natural selection is the mechanism of evolution, nonetheless we shouldn’t say so. Not, anyhow, in public. To do that is, however inadvertently, to align oneself with the Forces of Darkness, whose goal is to bring Science into disrepute.” They observe that in the ivory tower, “neo-Darwinism is taken as axiomatic,” “literally goes unquestioned,” and contrary views are “ipso facto rejected.” Nonetheless, Fodor isn’t afraid to challenge the consensus. Natural selection “cannot be the mechanism that generates the historical taxonomy of species,” he writes, for “the theory of natural selection is internally flawed...there’s a crack in the foundations.” This is from an article first appeared in CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL, volume 36, number 02 (2013)

[@RickStewart1776]

Wow, first time I have heard a major logical flaw from Dr. Craig. The Ford/Chevy explanation is blatantly logically false. Well, I guess no one is perfect.

[@RickStewart1776]

@@jsnlimbaugh First, I must say I am fan of both Dr. Turek and Dr. Craig having watched hour upon hour of their videos. Your's is a great question and I am having to go back and rethink what I was thinking when I posted. The question Dr. Turek posted was, "What can Theistic Evolution not explain (well)?" In answering this question Dr. Craig used the example of a human and a chimp having "broken" olfactory systems being akin to Ford and GM making a different vehicle with broken door handles. His example is off-kilter in a few places. First, he is assuming to know what God intended. Second, he is assuming to know how Adam's olfactory system was like. Third, and most blatant is using TWO intelligent designers coming up with the same "broken" piece. God had a singular plan in mind, and as we have seen, human designers coming up with similarly broken pieces on cars is really not all that rare. I would not say he used a "logical fallacy", but I would claim his analogy was logically inconsistent with a Young Earth Creationist worldview. I would never approach the concepts of evolution and cosmology from an Old Earth Creationist viewpoint, as they have no Biblical leg to stand on.

[@joeb2588]

I'll make it easy. Both Ford and GM, throw in Chrysler Fiat, don't last long enough to evolve.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

Craig has said he only has a layman's interest in the Evolutionism vs Creationism debate, given it's not his topic of speciality. I think he generally tries to steer clear of it as much as possible, to stick with what he truly knows and knows well.

[@RickStewart1776]

@@lightbeforethetunnel I agree about Dr. Craig, but I have seen him multiple times say he would side with the current scientific consensus. He could be caught up on the literature within a month and make a much better decision. Evolution is patently false as it has zero affirming data points with billions upon billions of data points already collected.

[@dajusta87]

Going to really miss WLC when he retires.

[@MrStamperh]

@@midlander4 you evolved from a rock bro 👍🏻

[@greendragonreprised6885]

Speciation has been observed so your personal incredulity at the idea is redundant. Simple question for creationists, why was there no bananas prior to 1836? If you can refute evolution by ignoring and misrepresenting the mountain of evidence in favour it because of personal incredulity, I can dismiss any and all forms of creation for exactly the same reason. Now magic has been destroyed can we start working out how to build a better world for all of us.

[@matthewroskind3019]

Biggest objection to theism?

[@samuelarthur887]

Apparently, bananas are 10,000 years old: abgc.org.au/our-industry/history-of-bananas/#:~:text=Bananas%20are%20believed%20to%20have,the%20Philippines%20and%20New%20Guinea.

[@richardjohnson6140]

“ speciation has been observed so your personal incredulity at the idea is redundant “ nice assertion but where is your argument ? Using big words do not equal an argument.

[@greendragonreprised6885]

@@richardjohnson6140 If something has been observed, any doubt about its existence is removed. It's very simple.

[@eldin0074]

Bananas have always had the required genetical code for the current form they have, the specification ("breeding") has only brought these genes to be expressed by eliminating or disabling the dominant genetic code that was suppressing it, or by switching on this genetic code.

[@brittoalosious544]

I didn't get this 🙄..Dr are you saying Evolution is right or creation? What is theistic evolution 🙄.. please explain anyone

[@baubljos103]

Theistic evolution is a cop-out for people who want to believe in some god and also tell their friends that they believe in evolution. So they say "god created evolution". Supposedly that way everybody is happy. Problem is, vigorous and critical research into evolution shows that it's mathematically impossible. Species are not evolving - they are devolving. Ecosystems are not evolving - they are devolving. Craig's argument is against evolution. He says - essentially - that the time period needed for a species to evolve into another species is far greater than the age of solar system. So - evolution is impossible. Bottom line is - something extremely powerful and intelligent created a massive bio-diversity on earth a long time ago, but the biodiversity has been collapsing. Life on earth will soon be depleted.

[@hyreonk]

Christians who argue for Theistic evolution believe that the God of the Bible used evolution to create the biological diversity we see around us. I find it more feasible than most Christians believe. The genre of Genesis 1-11 is either proto-apocryphal (a vision or dictation from God; I'm listing this as possible as a concession, not because I find it plausible) or mytho-history (an oral tradition passed down from prior generations). You'll note in any of these cases, a literal strict 7-day creation is not required, and God letting the Earth create the vegetation and animals is unusual if it were (the Earth cannot create any species in a single day!) Some theological ideas that it puts at jeopardy, like the fall, aren't so plausible either. The punishments God gives extend only to man, woman, and the snake, rather than to all creation. The only real biblical evidence for it is in Romans where Paul states that the world is in futility "because of He who subjected it to futility". Still, thanks to some issues I'm not going to recommend the doctrine to others. But don't condemn Christians who hold it; God has accepted them.

[@baubljos103]

@@hyreonk Seems to me that your "genre" claim is a false dichotomy fallacy because you didn't extinguish the possibility that there may be other genres that you didn't mention. How about a historical eye-witness documentation? Is that an option? And I personally favor the 6 day creation report, because that's what's documented. Darwin's traditional theory is inconsistent with a 6 day creation period, because Darwin's theory included the principle of gradual changes over very long time periods. The newer Darwinism called "neo-darwinism" or "neo-synthesis" is also inconsistent, or antithetical to gradual change. So, it seems to me that a so-called "christian" would have to reject the creation report in Genesis. And that rather opens the door for rejecting other documents in the bible, including reports about Yeshua himself.

[@baubljos103]

@@itisnow Your "You make Christianity" argument is a failure because I'm not a "christian", I'm technically heretic. Sorry! You wanna try again with some other baseless claim? Your "turn people away" argument merits a reply. Question is - "turning away" from what? Consider some scriptural examples of "turning away". The Creator tried to turn Adam and Eve away from the fruit of the tree of forbidden knowledge. Moses turned people away from worshiping a golden calf. I vaguely recall that Elijah turned a lady's some away from death. And I sort of figure that Yeshua turned people away from the wages of sin. So even though you couldn't specify the subject from which people are "turning away", neither did you explain what's wrong with turning away. So your "turning away" argument seems to be just a pathetic blog. Your "allegory" argument is amusing. Problem is that the Genesis I read does not say "this is an allegory". So your glorious "church fathers" didn't "know" what you claim but rather you'd have to explain how they drew an inference. But you didn't do that, so your "allegory" argument is unwarranted. Keep trying though. I like your "grew into a tree" argument. Please tell me more because I specialized in botanical studies in grad school. I'd love to know which came first: the seed, or the tree. Then you can move on to the chicken and the egg debacle. And if you do get into the "grew into a tree" details, please tell me if you noticed a similarity between the botanical chlorophyll molecule and the animal hemoglobin molecule? I first noticed a similarity when i was taking biochemistry, but that was ages ago. Do you see a similarity? Evolution seems mostly true? Well cowboy, please ride yer little pony over here and tell me how much is "mostly". And then tell me how did you measure "mostly". Is your "mostly true" on a scale of 1 to 10? Did you just randomly select "mostly" in order to defend a pre-ordained agenda in favor of evolution? Or did you actually test a hypothesis? Just that, "seems mostly true" is an apparently random and baseless claim. But go ahead and show me how you got "mostly true". Then please tell me if "mostly true" is sufficient to explain how a single pre-existing cell in a primordial soup of water and mud could diversify into what is commonly reported to be a 5 billion different biological species. Can your "mostly true" explain that leap? If so, proceed to the 2nd hurdle. Explain how the 5 billion different species suddenly collapsed by 99.9% down to just 9 million. How does your "mostly true" evolution explain that bio-diversity collapse? It is explained in the bible. But I never seen evolution explain it. Maybe you can enlighten me. Your "13.8 billion year" light beam is an interesting question. My reply is that you have not warranted the premise in your question because you have not demonstrated that "light" is 13.8 billion years old. I presume your "13.8 billion" year old time frame is based on some sort of galactic star light observation? Together with some sort of mathematical calculation - like dividing the distance travelled by the velocity, and then arriving at a time period? Go ahead cowboy! I aced physics and calculus - so I'm ready to see your calculations.

[@hyreonk]

@@baubljos103 that genre is actually impossible for the days of creation, which is the disputed data. Therefore, it is one of those I listed, so the plain reading criterion isn't helpful the way it is in the gospels. If I made a false dilemma, the only genre I excluded was pure myth. I do not take that seriously, nor have I seen a Christian do so, because Adam is spoken of to be a real person; the implications are not fatal to the faith, but they are destructive, and I see no evidence for it. This is tangential, but I'm confused: are you actually arguing for Adam *writing* out Genesis 2 in it's entirety, and his sons *writing* out Genesis 3? If not, then you're looking at an oral tradition which I included, which would put us on the same page. Now perhaps I made a false equivalence between oral tradition and mytho-history, but it's not a big leap. Such a tradition would be valued insofar as it explains content the ancient Israelites would be interested in, which would exclude scientific data but include historical and mythological data.

[@jaredbowen3527]

It doesnt explain how we were created

[@soulspiritghost2021]

It's not supposed to

[@jaredbowen3527]

HotdogTurtle so it doesn’t explain it? Ok got it

[@soulspiritghost2021]

@@jaredbowen3527 correct, it explains how we evolved.

[@Ryan-rh8rn]

@@HarryNicNicholas that's a very interesting story although it does fly in the face of reality.

[@maralvor]

Harry Nicholas Pity there is not enough time to permit your theory to be true. Not to mention the fact that nothing comes from nothing. What was there before The Big Bang? How did everything come to be constructed to an informational pattern? (information doesnt evolve) How do you account for the sudden explosion of so many complete variety of species in the Cambrian layer? Darwin would not have believed in his theory had he had access at the molecular level we have today

[@flimsyjimnz]

Oh! I'd all but forgotten about the 'Junk DNA' criticism levelled at theists -concluding that God is therefore a less-than-perfect creator!

[@wheels5894]

Well, you propose a problem with the Theory of Evolution (ToE) but you fail to do more than state it. It might be OK in philosophy but is science you would need a bit more. ToE is a result of huge amounts of evidence over various scientific disciplines. When will you do this or is it too much trouble? Have you forgotten the Dover trial? Behe and his Intelligent design idea was shown by Judge Jones as religious claims after all the examples Behe could come up with were showed wrong. Another problem with this approach is that one needs to show a designer before such a designer before claiming one acted in any way.

[@abraao2213]

Everything

[@jesuschristbiblebiblestudy]

What is it ABLE to explain?

[@88marome]

Common decent, fossils, the Mendelian laws of inheritance, antibiotic resistance, breeding, agriculture...

[@biffbiff7827]

Evolution’s biggest problem besides origin of life and consciousness is irreducible complexity. There myriad examples of systems needing to be entirely in place to function, the simplest of which is a mousetrap. Take one part away and it simply doesn’t work. You don’t develop a mousetrap, or an iPhone, or a beating heart with eons of time; complex working systems are only developed by design.

[@katamas832]

The origin of life is not a problem for Evolution. From an Evolutioniary perspective, an unicorn fart could've created the first cell. It plays out exactly the same. Conciousness is also not a problem, we have all the evidence for it being tied to our brain. We just don't know how it exactly works. A mousetrap is actually a great example of how evolution would work and how creationists misunderstand it. Here's something you need to know: The function of a structure can change. Take away the spring from a mouse trap, what do you end up with? Well, you could use it as a tie clip. Take away the metal rods, you're left with a piece of wood. Well, you can use it as a cup holder. That pretty much applies to most things claimed to be irreducably complex. We already have a working model for the eye, one of the first things claimed to be irreducably complex. It starts with light detection, then direction of light detection, then a blurry image, then a sharp image. Notice how the first form lacks a lot of function compared to the fully-developed eyes, but is still very much useful. So no, there ain't no such problem for Evolution.

[@biffbiff7827]

@@midlander4 Evolution is really variation over time. It’s positive connotation in biology is undeserved. The natural tendency is chaos and disorder, entropy and death. Information always comes from intelligence, another paradigm in our case. The sheer complexity of even a single-celled organism is to great to occur by chance. Apologetics videos can be edifying and full of truth, but I also have a science degree. Surely my ‘argument’ isn’t too ignorant since evolution as a real reason for the way things are is clearly a fairy tale told by people who desperately want it to be true so there’s no accountability.

[@biffbiff7827]

@@katamas832 I appreciate the respectful reply. I’ll never see how a completely random, mindless process could create the beauty and diversity we see when the natural tendency of everything in our paradigm is toward chaos and decline, randomness without work, entropy and death.

[@katamas832]

@@biffbiff7827 It's not completely random. While mutations are random, which specimens with certain traits are likely to reproduce and pass on those genes is not. That's not really the tendency. The overall universe is declining in the aspect of entropy, but that's not work toward chaos and randomness. The Sun is constantly losing entropy, but due to that, the Earth is recieving a large amount of energy that is used by organisms to survive and it runs many cycles on Earth, like wind and the water-cycle. Currently nature is only on the decline because of us, we are quite the anomaly.

[@biffbiff7827]

@@midlander4 That’s a good one, seriously. And it goes both ways.

[@Gericho49]

Gee Frank father time is catching up on you these days. And me to I might add!

[@mccaboy]

Like so what :)

[@alanroberts7916]

You're not going to hear an unbiased opinion from this clown.

[@prime_time_youtube]

I love Frank, but he is wrong here.

[@mysticmouse7261]

The cliche is to conflate micro-evolution with macro-evolution

[@katamas832]

What exactly is the difference? Scientists define macro-evolution as a change at or above the species level

[@mysticmouse7261]

@@katamas832 it passes because so many like yourself don't know the science. Micro-evolution never results in a species change.

[@katamas832]

​@@mysticmouse7261 I have found that literally no creationist ever understood the science, so make of that what you will. Well, kinda, since then by definition it is macro-evolution. But both uses the exact same mechanisms. Micro and Macro are really just an arbitriary line drawn by the human mind.

[@mysticmouse7261]

@@katamas832 are you a creationist? I don" t think it breaks down so simplistically. That if you don' t accept neo Darwinism you gotta be a religious creationist. I am neither.

[@katamas832]

@@mysticmouse7261 Nope, since I understand the science, for the most part. I didn't say either you accept Evolution or you're a creationist. But every single creationist who denies Evolution doesn't understand it. If you think it's false, you probably don't understand if. This is a conclusion I have drawn from talking to and seeing the leading people who deny Evolution. None of them has ever accurately described Evolution before. I don't know what you believe, but I can safely say you probably don't understand Evolution

[@Xarai]

craig has no idea what anything is at this point. like over 60 years old and never bothered to learn...thats sad

[@tonyrundstrom9574]

I'm 90 seconds in and already it is wrong. It starts with excluding design and morality, there is no design in evolution unless it is an incompetent designer responsible. I mean the body spontaneously tries to consume itself at random (Cancer) and safety mechanisms to prevent that have evolved, instead of just removing the flaw from the start. Besides that, morality is explained perfectly well through evolution; any social species needs a set of rules and regulations to interact with each other. There are stims of piranha, not just one in each lake, so they clearly have some sort of rules against cannibalism. Dr. Craig said "there are 10 steps in human evolution that cannot be accounted for" and mention photosynthesis. When did photosynthesis evolve in humans? I must have missed that class. He also talks about improbability in evolution, too. I can't deal with this guy anymore. Two minutes of bull is my limit.

[@mountaindew7190]

I am sure it took you more than two minutes to write the bull you wrote. Maybe a reevaluation of time management is needed on your part.

[@tonyrundstrom9574]

@Lolopopolo, assumption? If god is omnipotent, it shouldn't be without reach, if not, then where is the limit?

[@tonyrundstrom9574]

@@mountaindew7190, so, exactly where am I wrong?

[@mountaindew7190]

@@tonyrundstrom9574 That would take more than two minutes.

[@mountaindew7190]

@@tonyrundstrom9574 Not that you believe in truth anyway.

[@cajunqueen5125]

GREAT skit here; should be on SNL. Luv it!

[@mikefanofmovies]

"Thus says The Lord God: Peoples of the earth, your atrocities have kindled a great fire within Me! I am enraged as I look upon all these murdered innocent! My fury has come up into My face as I look upon all your false gods, O adulterous and perverse generation! Lo, multitudes of idols fill every corner! Both the believer and unbeliever bow down together and serve their gods! ALL nations worship the works of their own hands, for they have placed their own creations and the love of their own ideas above their Creator! False deities abound, while science and corrupt religion rule over them! Mere theories become truth and doctrine, and lawlessness is widely accepted! And behold, the love of money has become their new taskmaster, and materialism their god! Sins of every kind imaginable flow through every land! Yea, as a mighty river it flows into every nation, Reaching unto new heights in wickedness as the walls Are broken down, overtopped by these quickly rising waters! The levees are eroded from beneath, they are Undermined continually, widening the breach!... Behold, a great flood of sin has ensued, A terrible deluge covers the face of the whole earth, And still the fear of The Lord is all but forgotten!... THUS THE CUP OF THE WRATH OF MY FURY IS COME TO THE FULL! Behold, My Kingdom comes, and My will shall be done on earth as in Heaven. Even as I had purposed it from the beginning, so shall it be done to this generation. For My throne is set high above the highest heavens, and the earth is but a footstool set beneath My feet. FOR I AM THE LORD! YAHUWAH IS MY NAME! Therefore, let the enemies of The Lord be gathered! Let them be gathered together in one place for judgment! Let the hills melt in the heat of My wrath, and the mountains crumble under the weight of My fury!... LET THE WHOLE EARTH BE BOWED DOWN! - Until everything high and lofty is brought down, and every stronghold of man is broken and collapses with a great crash! Until every nation is plowed like a field and every city is left in ruinous heaps! Says The Lord. Thus says The Lord: Cut down the trees and lay the forest bare! Let neither stump nor root be left in it! Break off the branches and destroy every vine! For the vine of man is wickedness, and the stronghold of man a dwelling place of evil. Behold, the pillar of man is a tree of abomination! His every branch bears only diseased fruit, infecting the masses! For his roots plunge ever deeper into darkness, that he might secure his place and gain strength in his rebellion against The Lord! Therefore, I must remove My sheep and gather up every lamb, and destroy all these kingdoms of men!... NO MORE shall My sheep be hurt by all these briers and thorns! NO MORE shall they become entangled! NO MORE shall My lambs be given up to the slaughter, O most wicked generation! NO MORE shall My beloved be made subject to you! For I must call My children home, that they may be with Me where I am. Yet many refuse My voice, and will not listen to the sound of this Trumpet. For they plug their ears and hide their faces; they ignore My call and loathe My messengers! - Obstinate children who endeavor to grab hold of My robes with one hand, while pushing Me away with the other! For I reach down to them, with both hands I bend down to embrace them, yet they want no part with Me as I truly am! Behold, I have offered them bread from My own table, manna from Heaven has been sent down to them, and how do they repay Me?! - WITH EVIL! Stomping upon My bread, refusing all manna provided them! Yea, they loathe My correction and break My Commandments, DOING SO IN THE NAME OF THE HOLY ONE! Yes, in MY OWN NAME they do these things! By permission they claim they are free to do all these things! By permission, UNDER GRACE, they excuse themselves, that they might do all this evil in My name!... LAWLESS PEOPLE, PERVERSE AND DEGENERATE GENERATION! Your so-called faith is a loathsome sore upon the skin, a canker upon the lips of all who sing Me praises in your courts! Thus I declare to you, I NEVER KNEW YOU! Depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness! Says The Lord. Thus says The Lord: Shall you provoke Me to anger?! Shall you forsake The Moral Law, in the name of grace and Him crucified, that you might provoke Me to anger?! I tell you the truth, you know nothing of grace, and the true nature of The Holy One is hidden from your eyes! For your knowledge is useless! Your learned leaders desecrate My name and pollute the minds of My people everyday! And when they heard of My anger, they did not repent, neither were they ashamed, nor did they know how to blush! And when I commanded this Trumpet be blown, did they perk up their ears to listen?! Did they come close to know the heart of the matter?! NO! Instead they mocked and refused to give heed, turning their backs on The Holy One of Israel! Therefore, thus declares The Lord to this Most foolish and perverse generation: YOU SHALL NOT BE LIFTED UP, NOR SHALL YOU ESCAPE THE DAY OF THE LORD!... DEATH SHALL BE YOUR ONLY RELIEF, AND MARTYRDOM YOUR ONLY ESCAPE!... Says The Lord God. Thus says The Lord to all these blind and deaf children, to all these desolate people: How is it you refuse My voice and question My ways without ceasing, and have yet to consider your own? Test your hearts! Look upon your motives! Shall you question My ways, though you yet stand in judgment for your own actions, which were brought forth from your own deceitful hearts?! I tell you the truth, the lies thereof have led you astray, and the tablets thereof lack justice! For My cause is not pleaded before the people, and the jury of your peers upholds every evil platform. Therefore their cause shall crush them, and their controversy shall consume them in the Day of Judgment! Says The Lord. Behold, the cause of The Lord is forgotten among you, and the controversy of The Lord is held in secret, My every decree forsaken! Yet the cause of The Lord shall be fulfilled in His messengers, and the controversy of The Lord shall be trumpeted from the rooftops, and the sins of this people shall be exposed! For they have altogether hated Me! For every man is led by the deceits of his flesh, He is married to the selfish desires of his own heart, As he casts off the written Law of God to his own hurt... Behold, My Commandments are regarded As foreign and out of date, and My Law Antiquated and obsolete, in the eyes of this So-called modern generation of enlightened people... Yet I tell you, you are all perverse in My sight, A whole generation of arrogant And high-minded people!... Says The Lord. Thus says The Lord: And what of you, O churches of men? What has happened to you?! WHY HAVE YOU ALSO FORSAKEN ME?! How is it you have altogether become like the heathen, with the vanity of the world gleaming in your eyes, with the lusts thereof filling your hearts and minds?! I DO NOT KNOW YOU! Your self-created god is an abomination to Me, and this “Jesus” you speak of is foreign to Me, a great desecration of My image, an affront to My name and My glory! My people, look! Look at all these material things you have acquired! Look upon all these idols you serve! You are surrounded on every side, you are boxed in with no escape!... Therefore I am come down to destroy all these detestable things! Therefore I am come to wipe them from the face of the earth! For the multitude of all these idols must I destroy the kingdoms of men! O foolish and captive children, I am The Only God, your Creator, your Fashioner, The Maker of all things, The God who formed you by His own hands... I gave you breath!... And still you bring unwarranted charges against Me and think My ways unfair! Shall you continue to persecute those sent to you, provoking Me to anger?! I tire of all your accusations, your unending presumptuous ways weary Me! I can no longer bear to look upon all your lies and falsehoods! For your heresies have grown unimpeded, filling your unjust courts, which I hate!... O abominable vine, how long shall you grow contrary to the Way I have established?! How long shall you oppose My Word and pollute My name, by upholding your own way?! I AM THE LORD! My children, the judgment of your hearts is unjust and very foolish, for you have sought to draw charges against The Great I AM! Thus these courts in which you seek to weigh Me are unfair, and shall be your undoing! For your weights are deceitful, and your arrogant hearts corrupt! Shall you attempt to persecute The Lord your God?! Oh yes, you have persecuted Me days without end! For you have loathed My messengers and spit upon My servants! You have slandered My bride and lifted up your heel against My elect! Shall I not then bring charges against YOU, even against you, O churches of men?! Shall I not judge your courts, and recompense your deeds upon your own heads?! Shall I not correct My people, and bring upon them swift discipline?! Shall I not rain down judgment and pour out justice upon this wicked generation?!... Lo, the decree has went forth, the sentence has been declared, and behold, I shall institute the punishment without delay! For you have all dealt unjustly with Me! Says The Lord God." trumpetcallofgodonline.com

[@angrydoggy9170]

Thanks, that’s an hilarious rant.

[@maryclairebaang3473]

Evolution cannot explain everything therefore god? A classic god of the gaps argument. If electromagnetism is unable to explain adequately lightning, therefore Thor did it 🤪

[@vanessac0382]

Logic

[@noneofyourbusiness7055]

Nothing meaningful within the confines of its relevance. And a damn lot less than the non-answer of an invisible genie using literal magic.

[@jaikee9477]

We KNOW that all information must have an intelligent cause. DNA is information, so it cannot come into being by naturalistic causes. That's applied logic. Therefore macro-evolution is laughable and God is the intelligent cause.

[@katamas832]

Light carries information. Is the Sun intelligent therefore?

[@BrianBoese]

How can it be that you keep talking about evulation when you Christians have been disproved by the whole scientific community. In the scientific circles from all over the world do not want to discuss with you because you have been disproved so many times that it is about to be embarrassing. It is only very skilled youtubers with a scientific education who want to talk to you, but already now are also getting bored, because in "Christians" do not learn from your mistakes.

[@matthewroskind3019]

How has the scientific community disproven Christianity?

[@BrianBoese]

@@matthewroskind3019 Science has proven that we are not made of clay and have since been breathed life into it.

[@maralvor]

Brian Boese Bible does not say we are made from “clay” Your rather illiterate post and comments confirm an equally illiterate and flawed approach to the whole issue under discussion! PS “You Christians have been disproved...”. Really! And how do you disprove a community of believers? A post such as yours only reassures Christians in their faith!

[@BrianBoese]

@@maralvor listen to Friendly Atheist reciting Everything Wrong With Genesis 2 in the Bible

[@matthewroskind3019]

Ian Tweedie hey man, I know this came from a good place, but have you won over a lot of people to Jesus with this approach?

[@zulqarnainabdullah5891]

It is not about unable to explain. It is about that the unknown can yet be researched while the religion throws away the unknown to the work of God.

[@EMedNation]

Nope nope nope

[@drcraigvideos]

?

[@jameymassengale5665]

I'm hard on WLC, BECAUSE I LOVE HIM

[@zacharynash-pate291]

All i know is that animals have a different interest in the complexity of reality. It makes more sense to say "God created and theyfore similarity do exist within the confines of creation". The problems i think is the imagine people have of God. And that we assume on a physical/fleshly level we share the same image of God. There in becomes the confusion being we are not able to do what God does, so how can he exist. Our image similarities to God, is our conciousness towards life. That is what we share with God. But God is not a man, but in the image of his Son therefore. Trying to disprove God's existence is a waste of existence. Because we are a created being. By our mother and father and this can be trailed back further and further till we reach a point of singularity. We dishonor ourselves because willful creation does exist.

[@mickqQ]

Biodiversity isn’t the result of evolution Oh, what was it then It was a sky wizard , the sky wizard used magic to create all the kinds of animals.

[@CNCmachiningisfun]

@Eternity Get a life!

[@mickqQ]

@Eternity There is in sufficient evidence to conclude that So I don’t believe that I try to base my beliefs on evidence If there was evidence that “ nothing exploded” then that’s what I would believe ... but there isn’t , so I don’t If there was evidence a sky wizard done it , then that’s what I would believe ... but there isn’t , so I don’t.

[@CNCmachiningisfun]

@Eternity Either *PROVE* that your god exists, or S.T.F.U, fool.

[@CNCmachiningisfun]

@Eternity You dopey religiots are truly pathetic!

[@rubiks6]

The best objection to evolution is the Word of God, starting on page 1. Don't you believe God? How can you call yourself a Christian if you don't believe God? That's absurd.

[@katamas832]

I'm an atheist. Now how does your objection hold up to me?

[@CNCmachiningisfun]

@rubiks6 LOL. You obviously don't have a grip on reality. Sad!

[@rubiks6]

@@katamas832 - You need to believe in God and then believe His Word. He was there when creation took place. He is a witness. To evolution there are no witnesses. But if you had read carefully, I said, "How can you call yourself a Christian ...". Perhaps I was not addressing you.

[@rubiks6]

@@CNCmachiningisfun - Obviously, you are unable to form a coherent argument. Sad!

[@CNCmachiningisfun]

@@rubiks6 Obviously, you are a delusional fool. Sad!

[@fezzik7619]

Wow the amount of ignorance masquerading as intellect in the comment section is staggering. People so desperately want to cling to their indoctrination of mythological explanations that they prefer to stay blind.

[@bany512]

At least you are different, by acting arrogant and shaming people without even explaining why.

[@les2997]

Humans carry 100 mutations which originated in our parents (50 in each parent), 10 of these mutations are deleterious. Beneficial mutations are extremely rare and practically immeasurable. Mutations are noise, and noise never creates information. Noise does NOT improve the signal. Noise is an unwanted and damaging change to the initial signal, which is mathematically identical to entropy and its damage to a signal is irreversible. In signal processing, noise is a general term for unwanted (and, in general, unknown) modifications that a signal may suffer during capture, storage, transmission, processing, or conversion. The random genetic mutation process is a subject to the law of increasing entropy. This is fundamentally irrefutable as we observe it on a daily basis. Beneficial mutations are so rare that they practically never happen. Given these basic facts, how do you expect evolution to increase biological information? This is why the "Errors did it" theory is illogical and unscientific.

[@micahhenley589]

What you have said is very true. DNA is the program of biological life. However programs always require a brilliant programmer. There are no known cases of programs arising from something other than a mind. And DNA is a millions times more complex than any man-made technology. So where did the information system of life come from? The bible has the answer. The bible makes it clear that God(Father, Jesus, Holy Spirit) created ALL biological life in 6 days. All the credit goes to God! But the worst aspects of sin are not the biological consequences. The worst part is eternal separation from God. The bible makes it clear that God is holy. This holy God holds a perfect moral standard. Sadly, we have all fallen way short of that standard(Romans 3:23). The penalty for sin/imperfection is Hell(Revelation 21:8). Thankfully the bible also says that God is rich in mercy and grace. That is why He sent His perfect son to die on a cross to save us from our sin. You and I broke God's law but Jesus paid our fine. Then Jesus rose from the dead, 3 day later, thus defeating death. "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life. But whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on them." John 3:36

[@JohnDoe-zu2tz]

For natural selection to explain evolution, all it needs are a few basic assumptions. 1. More offspring are produced than carrying capacity. 2. Survival and reproductive traits are inheritable. 3. Mutations beneficial to survival occur. Not have to be likely, just occur. Suppose you want to here a song, but all you have is white noise and a system that takes in white noise and randomly teaks it. You start with 100 sample of random white noise, and pick the top 50 that sound like the song. Put those 50 in the system, and you now have 50 new and 50 old samples. Most samples are no better, but a small few are a bit closer to the song. Repeat enough times are you will start to approximate the song. Now, instead suppose that there are 3 songs you are looking for. If a sample is in the top 50 closest match to any of the songs, it gets sent through the system. Eventually, you will get three distinct songs.

[@les2997]

@@JohnDoe-zu2tz This is storytelling, not science. Any geneticist will tell you that the human genome is disintegrating because NS is not able to remove deleterious mutations. This is a fact of science.

[@JohnDoe-zu2tz]

@@les2997 Sure it can. If a mutation means a bird has no wings, it will likely be removed from the pool because the bird dies before reproducing. Human genetic errors aren't as significant thanks to technology and medicine and society (mostly) valuing universal humanism.

[@les2997]

@@JohnDoe-zu2tz I'm sorry, but you are wrong on both points. NS is a mild purifying force. It doesn't explain how the birs acquired the wing. Moreover. humans are on a path to extinction. Tee problem is very severe.

[@SaraKunoichi1096]

This is why Evangelical churches are losing membership hand over fist.

[@jesussavedme4221]

Sara Shinobi keep hating lol. Christianity is just starting

[@SaraKunoichi1096]

@@jesussavedme4221 I admit to being irritated when science deniers make all Christians look bad. And BTW you misspelled "fading."

[@encounteringjack5699]

Okay... Let’s say there is a God. It’s highly likely that the God is not all-good nor all-knowing. It’s also likely that this God is changeable or potentially changeable. Theism is therefore likely false. The deistic god is the most likely God to exist.

[@matteuslucas4223]

Why are the first two things highly likely?

[@optimisticdork8380]

"It’s highly likely that the God is not all-good nor all-knowing. It’s also likely that this God is changeable or potentially changeable." God is by definition a maximally great being, and it would follow that a maximally great being is all-good as opposed to all/somewhat evil, and all-knowing as opposed to stupid. Any evil that God permits is justifiable, because unlike us, his field of knowledge is unlimited and therefore has sufficient reasons for making certain decisions, whether we personally prefer them or not. And on what you said in the latter half of the quote: God in a sort of sense is changeless in terms of stature and omnipotence, but in terms of prayer and a personal connection to God, God is allowing us to open up new possibilities, while still making the best decision. In other words, He's considering what you're saying, but when making a decision, many other factors have to be considered, only that some may be disregarded under certain circumstances if the decision involves prayer. I don't think there are any contradictions to the changeless *nature* of God, and the question of prayer, while being frequently raised is simply irrelevant. The only way which the universe could've began was through a personal, transcendent mind, so how can deism be more likely? There are no other alternatives that precisely fits the criteria. Might I also add that you were way out of league when you said, "Theism is therefore likely false. The deistic god is the most likely God to exist." Deism falls under the bigger category of THEISM. Theism says God exists, and deism is a concept of the existence of God. I'm baffled at how you can get away for saying "It's likely", when the evidence points to the literal opposite direction.

[@baubljos103]

Hey Mr. Philosophy, I recently Aced college statistics. I learned to calculate probabilities. So, would you please show me your calculations by which you inferred what was "likely". "Likely" is a probability. Tell me how you calculated it.

[@encounteringjack5699]

@@optimisticdork8380 "God is by definition a maximally great being" Have you not heard of the Greek gods or Norse gods? A god does not have to fit that definition. "Deism falls under the bigger category of THEISM. Theism says God exists, and deism is a concept of the existence of God." That's one definition of theism. There's two that I've heard of. The other one that I heard of, which is the kind that I was referring to, is defined as the belief in a god who is both the creator and the sustainer of the world. Deism is the belief in a god who created the world but doesn't necessarily sustain it. I could be wrong about that definition, but that's what I mean by deism. "The only way which the universe could've began was through a personal, transcendent mind, so how can deism be more likely?" It's because God is responsible for practically all the terrible things in the world, and what? God does nothing but sit on his ass hidden away. If we could actually know he existed, that would make everything much more understandable, but we don't. For that reason, I think God's likely not all good, since being all-good means to be morally perfect (at least that's how I interpret it). The whole "god is infinite and therefore undeniable" thing is a terrible reason to just accept God's "morality". He doesn't even have to be infinite, he just has to be powerful enough to create solar systems, galaxies, and whatever else that can be created. Time and space is not one of them. Without those, nothing could ever exist, including God. There is no action nor sequence nor order without time, and definitely no existence without space. Just so you know, by space, the dimensions that create objects (not just physical objects). For example, length, width, and height. Everything has some form of that. It doesn't have to have a boundary, but it does have to have space in order to exist. As for time, I mean the order of events and non-events in which they occur.

[@encounteringjack5699]

Jacques Voigt Not entirely true. I am angry, but not sure if I’d be considered an atheist. I do agree that I haven’t exactly brought anything new, but I think it’s more effective than people give it credit. Why am I angry you might ask? Because everyone sounds so ignorant. I understand if people believe in an all-good god because they can’t shake the idea that morality can only exist with God or that evolution can only exist with God or something like that, first cause thing. But if every time I hear someone say God is good or God is infinite, they often sound like they’re either brain-washed or just don’t care (aka ignorant). I get it though. That kind of God gives us hope, no one wants to lose that, so I see why people might want to keep holding on until they can’t no more. I admit that I haven’t yet given a good argument for why God isn’t all-good, but at least I’m not acting like I know it. Though I admit, I am pretty confident that, under mono-theism, God can’t be all-good. Because I haven’t deduced what the objective moral system is (if not objective then the best one), I can’t say know it. But I think it is likely to be the case. Just know that I don’t think God is all-bad, I just think that he’s probably not as good as people think. With that, he’s probably not all-knowing either, since if he were trying to be as good as possible, he’d know what to do. But I’m not seeing that.