Why Evolution is a Fairytale for Grown-Ups

[@stanley6700]

"I think people should be open-minded, but not so open-minded that their brains fall out." Well said!!👏🏼👏🏼

[@78endriago]

what is that supposed to mean in english? since that is non-sense as is, since the brain is unable to fall out of the mind.

[@vikingskuld]

@@stanley6700 lol AN open mind is like to an open wound. It's bound to fester and rot......

[@stephenboshoff8316]

An old. Kent Hovind saging

[@78endriago]

@@stephenboshoff8316 in other words, you don't know what that garbage means either.

[@mchooksis]

@@vikingskuld An open wound is not bound to get infected and rot

[@evil_morty_41]

As a Muslim his scientific and rational reasonings really educated me on faults on theory of evolution . Great work.

[@BeefT-Sq]

"It is well-known that Darwin's theory has been accepted by the scientific community as one about whichthere can no longer be any reasonable doubt. In other words, his theory has been accepted as fact by most scientists on how man evolved, and they therefore reject the notion that God created man". -Vincent Bugliosi-

[@evil_morty_41]

@@BeefT-Sq so ur saying, a community accepting a theory makes is fact ? Which academic scholar said evolution theory as fact ? The fly soup is a great example that we have so little knowledge. Believing in an intelligent agent/designer (god) doesnot make me reject the evolution or mutation of living beings.

[@chupapi-o5u]

​​@@evil_morty_41 no what he's actually doing is starting with the conclusion and than searching evidence to back that conclusion up. There's enough evidence for evolution. Really simple evidence is enough to understand it. Like the fact we litteraly can observe fossils and the depth they're buried in and compare it with similar fossils that are buried deeper? Or the fact we have literally seen wolves evolve into dogs. And I'm not talking about breeding. I'm talking when wolves started living with humans and their cubs were born among us and the timid and tame cubs stayed while the wild and primitive cubs left. The timid cubs passed on their genes untill after 10,000 years they turned into dogs. That's evolution. The transition from one species to another

[@numbersix9477]

On a planet with 8 billion souls resident, a single individual's recognition of the theory's faults is trivial. Surely you have major planned usages of your knowledge for Allah's glory that involve more than KZbin prattle!

[@galileog8945]

@@evil_morty_41 Confusion here. Evolution is an observed fact. The theory explains how evolution takes place. Theories are NEVER facts, they just provide an explanation of observed data.

[@vashmatrix5769]

It's amazing people refuse to see it. It also really triggers the other side when you call out their falsehoods.

[@Jupiter1423]

no it's not. they rejected God when He walked on earth; "surely they'll respect my son." but no, they killed Him. we should always expect rejection of the facts.

[@artax7664]

@@Jupiter1423 Humans have short memories and hard hearts.

[@MrLogo73]

​@@Jupiter1423It's not on them to disprove. It's on you to provide the evidence.

[@Jupiter1423]

@@MrLogo73 huh? the burden of proof is one the on who brings the claim. considering you just addressed me, youre actually the one in need of evidence here. atheists have this strange theory that they have no burden of proof, i look left and right and see them often as the one's shoving claims in people's faces, but then turning and saying they have no burden to offer evidence for anything they believe. talk about silly and intellectually dishonest. you wanna complain, but offer nothing for it. talk about having your cake and eatting it to.

[@georg7120]

To see that the bible is a fairy tale, but not a book of history?

[@Steven-ze2zk]

"Non life cannot give rise to life." Well said carbon dude.

[@BeefT-Sq]

"The fundamental concept here is “faith.” “Faith” in this context means belief in the absence of evidence. This is the essential that distinguishes religion from science." -Leonard Peikoff-1986

[@Omit3]

Just because carbon exists in life, doesn't mean carbon gave birth to life.

[@radiantblue8001]

@@BeefT-Sq Faith does not mean the belief in the absence of evidence. Faith means belief based on the evidence already presented. Christians believe Jesus is God based on the evidence of His crucifixion, Resurrection, and His miracles, and works. Atheism also relies on faith. There is no evidence that the world existed from nothing. Meaning for an atheist to believe that, it would require faith, but in this case, it is faith without evidence as there is no evidence that the world was created from nothing. It would require more faith for an atheist to believe that the world existed from nothing, than for a Christian to believe that the world had a Creator, as everything that begins to exist in this world has a cause. When we see a house, we know it has a builder, even if we did not see who built the house. Everything that begins to exist in the world has a Creator. And because according to science, the world wasn't eternal and had a beginning, we know for it to begin to exist, it would have to have a cause which would have to be uncaused (God). Meaning it is more reasonable to believe that God created the world, rather than the world being created by itself. It would require more faith to believe in the latter.

[@sachinkumbhar5333]

Well, the Big Bang is not just an assumption. It is based on current observations that planets and galaxies are moving away from each other, providing evidence of an expanding universe. This evidence supports the Big Bang theory. What observations support the existence of God?

[@sachinkumbhar5333]

For the theory of evolution, there are some present observations as well, such as fossil records. We have seen the mutating bacterias and Viruses, how about that? Mutation is supporting the theory of evolution.

[@tedgrant2]

I can't believe life started from non-life. Therefore an invisible infinitely powerful person did it. That seems more likely !

[@PiyushzGurjar]

And He had life in Him so that would mean life created life which is the point there's refusing to believe 🎉😂

[@tedgrant2]

@PiyushzGurjar If we knew what causes lightning, we wouldn't believe in Zeus.

[@PiyushzGurjar]

@@tedgrant2 well the tragedy is that we know what causes lightning and we still believe in Zeus. The only way that we can be convinced that Zeus isn't real is if Zeus himself came and told it so. And since that's not happening, this belief goes on. 🙌🍬

[@PiyushzGurjar]

Actually I edited and added a candy emoji 😁

[@tedgrant2]

@@PiyushzGurjar You are so clever.

[@MarkoMakela-kk7qf]

One thing that people do forget is the probability calculus even on gambling games. I used to play card games both with my friends and even on casino, but what some of my friends didn't quite understand was the fact that you have calculate everything like in the game called 'Texas hold 'em'. One game can be won by just chance, but in a long run, what you are doing is the most important thing. This led always to a pitiful scenario, where usually two or three people lost all of their money and everytime during those 'sessions'. Math is something that you cannot twist nor bribe. It is always the same for everyone in every single time. But in this evolution theory you don't even have an intelligent mind to make any choices at all. The complexity of a single living cell is way too complex with the DNA genetic data, that having a cell with DNA just by an accident won't ever happen and what this bright minded scientist said, time won't help at all for the reasons he explained, Probabilities don't cumulate by giving more tiime and chances. It just doesn't work that way, They are the same every single time.

[@tomsmith2181]

Molecular geneticists like Dennis Nobel have tried to quantify this and it ends up a number greater than the number of atoms in the universe. Genes are not blueprints and are definitely not selfish so the whole idea of going through all the switches one by one completely breaks down. Theories like natural selection work well for micro evolution (birds evolving beaks, fish developing different coloured fins, etc...) but completely breaks down for macro-evolution (one species becoming another). Taking an analog from the physics world it's like trying to apply Newtonian mechanics to electrons and atoms, it just doesn't work. However with physics, the proof of new experiments is in the future so we have the luxury of studying experiments then forming the theory, whereas for things like origin of species, the proof is in the past so the equivalent of quantum theory for species creation may already have been lost in the dust. Either way, one thing is clear, the micro theory of evolution has too many holes to hold water.

[@alantasman8273]

@@jockyoung4491 So now your saying nature has a mind, sentience and thought ...what idiocy.

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

Origins - the secularists Achilles heel. 😊🙏✝️🕊️

[@alantasman8273]

@@jockyoung4491Quote "logical and possible" Ascribing logical thought to nature is not a good look for you.

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

​@@alantasman8273 that's true !

[@danielmb01]

Christians: "Something cannot start existing out of nowhere". But God can? Why are you comfortable with this idea that some ghost entity can start existing out of nowhere, but not matter and energy?

[@PaulSmith-qo4iz]

there is no god like some wizard in the sky. Consciousness is creation. We are consciousness.

[@Robinhim2002]

Because all you and I have seen is the finished product. A product that screams of design, everywhere you look in the heavens and the earth you see design.

[@petertheore668]

@@Robinhim2002 it screams evolution of life. You simply have two bibles plastered over your ears.

[@PaulPare-o6p]

GOD is the exception..he is not governed by the rules of the universe..he wrote them..good job

[@petertheore668]

@ he did not “write” anything

[@psam5074]

How can we deny a Creator when we in ourselves are the proof of His creation. That was a fascinating talk loved it from the bottom of my heart. Need more of it pls.

[@galileog8945]

When he created you, he had had probably too many drinks and really screwed up.

[@jeffguarino2097]

Don't lump me in with you. I was not created by any creator. Maybe you think you were but you can't just make statements and expect them to be true just because you state them. How are we proof that we were created by a god creator ? How ?

[@mmo2217]

​@@galileog8945 Humans are meant to be like that. Without evil, good has no value. Such is the reality of life.

[@mmo2217]

​​@@jeffguarino2097 Because matter doesn't come from nothing. Are you familiar with science ?

[@KelliAnnWinkler]

@@jeffguarino2097 How are we proof we came from "nothing"?

[@edwardhitti3422]

Mr. PhD didn't present a single argument against Evolution. He only spoke on the origin of life. The Evolution theory doesn't explain or for that matter claim to explain the origin of life.

[@Rev14v7]

Lately there's been a push to extend evolution into the realm of chemistry, when it comes to origin of life research. We all know there is a distinction. But Evolution hinges on abiogenesis really. Evolution pretends not to be a creation myth, but otherwise it serves no real purpose. That's what Creation vs. Evolution get debated all the time.

[@VeridicusMaximus]

@@Rev14v7 Creation is abiogenic as well. Unless biological life is eternal then abiogenesis is the only answer. It simply becomes did it happen naturally or not.

[@Rev14v7]

@@VeridicusMaximus And that's an important distinction. Naturally occurring abiogenesis is contrary to scientific laws as we currently understand them, and to everything we observe or can rationally theorize. People are welcome to believe in it if they like.

[@VeridicusMaximus]

@@Rev14v7 You have done nothing to show that naturally occurring abiogenesis is contrary to natural laws. Chemistry and bio-chemistry are a fact - the issue is how did the former transition to the latter. You guys have not done anything to demonstrate that it is impossible. Just stop! What laws (must be spiritual of course) can you demonstrated that show a disembodied mind can create biological life let alone anything without mere assertion and a priori definitions. Please give us the explanation of how your pet deity did it! All you guys do is sit on the side-line and pretend it is impossible and do nothing to show that and then complain, using fallacies, about real scientists doing real work for their position - you guys do nothing to demonstrate your own ridiculous disembodied mind doing things from nothing. It absolutely laughable.

[@usmankhalid951]

The designer proved responsible for the origin is the same designer doing this all "evolution" stuff.

[@jofsky9066]

Things that were falsely applied or represented: 1. The Big Bang cosmological model 2. The second law of thermodynamics 3. Our understanding of evolution 4. Our progress in chemical evolution 5. The radiodating of mineral structures 6. Using the correct way science is performed as a way of undermining science Things that were on full display: 1. Personal incredulity 2. False dichotomies 3. Anecdotal and hearsay evidence 4. Mixing unscientific and scientific definitions in order to push a conclusion

[@factorousfactorous3522]

I am genuinely scared for the West. We are falling backwards into medieval ways of thinking. Just look at the comments. We are paying the price for not educating people with more epistemological rigour.

[@shameem8743]

@@jofsky9066 The speaker employs several logical fallacies and rhetorical tricks in his argument. Here’s a breakdown of where these occur: 1. False Dichotomy (False Dilemma): He presents the issue as if there are only two possibilities: either life was created by a divine being or the theory of evolution is completely false. This ignores the complexity and nuances of the debate, including the fact that many people accept both evolutionary science and religious beliefs, as well as the existence of multiple scientific explanations for how life evolved. Example of Fallacy: He suggests that rejecting evolution automatically means one must accept creationism. However, there are other scientific theories (such as abiogenesis) about the origin of life, and many religious individuals reconcile evolution with their faith. Trick: This framing forces the listener to choose between two extremes, ignoring alternative perspectives or middle ground. 2. Straw Man Argument: The speaker misrepresents the theory of evolution by reducing it to something absurd, like claiming molecules can't self-assemble into complex structures, or that evolution suggests something magical happens. He distorts the actual scientific process to make it easier to attack. Example of Fallacy: Saying evolution is a “fairytale” simplifies and mocks the theory without engaging with the evidence and processes (like natural selection, genetic drift, etc.) that support it. Trick: By exaggerating or misrepresenting evolution, he sets up a weaker version of the argument, which he can easily refute, rather than tackling the actual scientific claims. 3. Appeal to Ignorance: He implies that because we can't directly observe the origin of life, it must be wrong or impossible. This is a classic appeal to ignorance fallacy, where the absence of evidence is used as evidence for something else (in this case, creationism). Example of Fallacy: He argues that because we weren't there to see life arise from non-life, it couldn't have happened through natural processes. This assumes that just because something hasn’t been directly observed, it didn’t or couldn’t happen. Trick: He leverages the human tendency to be uncomfortable with uncertainty or gaps in knowledge to shift the burden of proof onto the other side. 4. Equivocation: The speaker plays with the meaning of terms like "science" and "belief." He tries to equate the scientific theory of evolution with belief in a divine creator by using the word "belief" for both, as though they are equivalent forms of knowledge. Example of Fallacy: He says belief in a creator is just as valid as belief in evolution, conflating scientific evidence-based belief with faith-based belief. In science, "belief" is based on evidence, experimentation, and observation, whereas religious belief is not. Trick: By equivocating the term "belief," he blurs the distinction between faith and empirical evidence, making it seem like science and religion are just two competing belief systems on the same level. 5. Appeal to Consequences: He might suggest that if evolution is true, it would lead to negative consequences (e.g., moral decay, loss of faith, etc.), which makes the theory less appealing. However, the truth of a theory is not dependent on whether the consequences are desirable or not. Example of Fallacy: Implying that evolution shouldn't be accepted because it challenges certain religious or moral views. This does not address whether evolution is scientifically valid, only that it might have undesirable implications. Trick: He shifts focus from the evidence for evolution to the emotional or moral consequences of accepting it, attempting to sway the audience based on fear or discomfort. 6. Appeal to Authority (without proper context): He may invoke certain scientists or quotes out of context to argue that some experts don't believe in evolution, without addressing the overwhelming scientific consensus. Example of Fallacy: If he were to say, "Even [insert famous scientist] doubted evolution," without context, this suggests that a single expert's opinion outweighs the massive body of evidence supporting evolution. Trick: This plays on the audience’s trust in authority figures, but it lacks the full picture and ignores the broader consensus in the scientific community. 7. Moving the Goalposts: If someone counters his arguments by providing evidence for evolution (such as fossil records or observed instances of speciation), he might raise the bar and ask for even more proof, never being satisfied with the evidence presented. Example of Fallacy: If someone points out observed instances of evolution, he might say, "But that doesn’t prove how life started from non-living matter!" constantly shifting the argument to avoid conceding any point. Trick: This tactic makes it impossible to win the argument because every time a valid point is made, he changes the criteria for what constitutes “proof.” Conclusion: The speaker uses fallacies like false dichotomy, straw man, and appeal to ignorance, along with rhetorical tricks like equivocation and moving the goalposts, to make his arguments against evolution and in favor of creationism seem stronger than they actually are. These tactics are designed to manipulate the audience's thinking rather than engage in a fair, evidence-based discussion.

[@richardcooper9167]

@@shameem8743 thank you.

[@mirziyodm]

@@shameem8743 1. It really goes down to ONLY TWO alternatives: either life originated naturally (without intelligent interference, abiogenesis falls into this category) or it originated non-naturally. So there is a real dichotomy, not a false one. While your argument that there is a 'false dichotomy' in a video that goes as "many people accept both evolutionary science and religious beliefs" in no way shows that the dichotomy is false, but that people might live with two contradictory positions in their mind. And so goes ALL of your 'counter arguments', they hold no ground whatsoever. I really recommend you to study some formal logic before critisizing someone on logical fallacies.

[@giorgiosaade]

@@shameem8743 you talk a lot but say nothing.. the man was very clear.. rewatch and rethink. Thank you

[@stephenhill3286]

Evolution doesn't explain origin of life. You would think that a phd would know that

[@tigeremmy]

I really doubt his phd especially if he believe in the bible .

[@AlOliver-m2y]

@@stephenhill3286 evolution doesn’t explain anything.

[@stephenhill3286]

@@AlOliver-m2y go take an elementary school science class. You'll learn a lot

[@AlOliver-m2y]

@@stephenhill3286 I’ve studied biology for forty four years.

[@stephenhill3286]

@@AlOliver-m2y reading the Bible does not count as "studying biology". Nice try

[@FactStorm]

"Why Evolution is a Fairytale for Grown-Ups" The projection is strong among religious apologists. The level of obliviousness and delusional arrogance is quite staggering. There's no reason with religious dogmatists who were indoctrinated into supernatural ideologies during childhood. It's both sad & unsettling..

[@averilloanthony7527]

@@FactStorm I wasn't born up in a Christian family It took me 50 years to get to where I am so ( who's projecting 🤔👌)

[@averilloanthony7527]

@@FactStorm delusional 🤔 now you are projecting 😭😭😭😭😭

[@connorlambert]

Religion is just cope for the unknown

[@Myst.Riddles]

No random process can create complex symbolic information.

[@FactStorm]

@@Myst.Riddles Yawns, an argument from incredulity per usual..very predictable of apologists, this is one of the first go-to's for them when they rise to the defense of religious faith. That doesn't add to the topic, because even if it was the case, you still have all your homework ahead of you to prove a creator, let alone that your specific theology is true.

[@noles9998]

Atheist make fun of us who believe the resurrection but yet they believe in a greater resurrection 😂😂😂

[@Jupiter1423]

@@noles9998 if they were willing to reject the prophets and kill Christ then of course they're willing to believe we came from monkeys made by natural forces..."surely they'll respect my son."

[@raygiordano1045]

Exactly, it would be a lot more likely any dead critter or human is far more likely to "reanimate" than building up from raw chemicals. It's still not going to happen, though.

[@airpower7692]

So you're putting up a straw man and assume all atheists except the same things. I'm an atheist and I just don't believe in things to believe in any things I follow factual evidence that can withstand peer review and is repeatable. What repeatable evidence do you have of Christianity that could withstand peer review

[@Jupiter1423]

@@airpower7692 he's just making an conclusion based off the evidence. i thought thats what atheists were all about 🤡🤡🤡.

[@raygiordano1045]

@@airpower7692 I'm not sure what believing in things, just because other people (with the same biases) agree with something has to do with the problem of undirected biogenesis.

[@kozmailaksa]

If we find a porcelain plate in nature, we say, "This plate did not come into being by itself, someone made it." But when we look at a human being, who is more complex than even the most complex machine, and we exclaim, "Ah, this living thing came into being by chance, with molecules coming together correctly over billions of years." What a science! Now, do I have to throw away the probability course and thermodynamics that I studied for 4 years at university?

[@numbersix9477]

You didn't "have to" throw ANY of your education away. You weren't required to toss aside everything you were taught about probability and thermodynamics; you did that of your own volition.

[@marksevel7696]

@@kozmailaksa yes

[@son9872-k8o]

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BILLIONS OF YEARS

[@wingfield04]

@@kozmailaksa what's the alternative? An old man in the sky?

[@lukeewing4274]

Because complexity is a hallmark of evolution, and simplicity is the hallmark of intelligent design.

[@numbersix9477]

Kudos to you on one front. You don't shadow ban comments that take issue with your video (as producers of multiple other creationist videos do). In that, you have my respect.

[@firecloud77]

One thing to keep in mind is that KZbin sucks. KZbin randomly hides comments for no discernible reason. When you "Sort by" "Newest first" you will see that your comments are still there, most of the time. It's surprising how few people know about this. Not only are they hidden, but the person you are responding to does not receive notification that you responded to them, so they assume the conversation is over. It is beyond frustrating that KZbin has created this conversation-destroying algorithm.

[@katiek.8808]

KZbin is responsible for what you are talking about not channel owners. My comments are nearly always hidden on scientific and atheist channels especially when I provide books to read. Seriously you are on team “the ones in power”. Stop and think.

[@Trini84818]

Evolution is NOT about how life started. 🤦‍♂️

[@andybrock4250]

@@Trini84818 Darwin’s book was called the ORIGIN of species. So it may not try to answer how life in general started (but the same people who believe in evolution also do try to give us the fairy tales of how life started) and it does claim to answer how all of the species originated, so it’s not far off.

[@JuanManuel-ep8do]

You stupid answer it's very stupid, no scientist would say evolution is the origin of life. The changes in the DNA creates new species

[@larryhagman3543]

Evolution is the process by which populations of living organisms change over generations through alterations in genetic traits. These changes may result from mechanisms such as natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, and gene flow. Evolution explains the diversity of life on Earth, as well as the development of species over time, and is a fundamental concept in biology. Conflating this with the origin of the universe is disingenuous. The study of the origins of life is called abiogenesis or origin of life research. This interdisciplinary field seeks to understand how life on Earth began, focusing on the transition from non-living chemical systems to the first living organisms. There is no scientific answer to the question - ‘what is the origin of life?’. This does not negate the evidence for evolution which is substantive and widely available. This chap must know this. And i must assume is purposely muddying the waters. By arguing a different point.

[@mrng1724]

Earth could be in the process of "Terra forming" started by some more complex intelligence(we call him/her/it divine Creator). Where does the Creator come from? I think, that there is a problem with understanding the initial condition. There is never "Nothing", there must always be "Something". Infinity in space and eternity in time are both only expressions of that "Something". It could be that this "Something" has only one purpose, which is "To Be". The expressions of this "To Be" are endless. An ant doesn't understand the workings of ants colony, but if can progress and then eventually it might guess.

[@frankieRandle8779]

So why not look at the fossil record? It does not support evolution but it does support species suddenly arriving.

[@larryhagman3543]

@@frankieRandle8779 Is this a response to my comment or to someone else?

[@frankieRandle8779]

@@larryhagman3543 yes

[@larryhagman3543]

@@frankieRandle8779 My comment is about the video conflating evolution with the abiogenesis. Don’t get what you are asking.

[@gerald56]

Great interview! The Gospel of John describes over and over that people who saw the miracles of Jesus still did not believe. That's the power of unbelief. In Luke 16 it states "if they don't believe the writings of Moses - even if someone rose from the dead - they still will not believe".

[@samyakchhajed]

That's what the Hindus say about their Gods, however sadly you don't believe

[@antilaw9911]

Can't force someone to love you

[@TheMainezetetic]

You haven’t seen those “miracles” and yet you believe 🙄

[@Pegasus.GT1]

To "believe" is not the same as "knowing". Even the Bible teaches this simple concept. "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." The Bible refers to believers as simple-minded.

[@lodewijkvandoornik3844]

First of all evolution doesn't tell the start of living-being but it's evolution. If you believe (by religion or not) that all Humans have the same origin, then you can not even disagree with evolution or you'll contradict yourself. Let's assume, Adam the first man was light skinned with East Asian looking (Khoisans), how did all the other races come to be ? Something happened between the first human and the modern races. That thing is called evolution. You can believe that Chihuahua and Wolf share commun ancestry but Human and chimps can't ???

[@mcdonaldsgaming3974]

@@lodewijkvandoornik3844 very true. Everyone agrees that we are not close to knowing the origin of life. And it is understandable when someone questions the existing thoeries of origin of life. But evolution is a real and proven thing. We have real life examples of it. I really your point about adam. Muslims claim adam was 90 feets. Allah created adam and we are all descendants of adam. I find it absurd that they believe we 6 feet humans are descendants of a 90 feet beast but at the same time reject that ostrich, crocodiles and dinosaur could have a same descendant.

[@QuranRevival2.0]

@@lodewijkvandoornik3844 adams was found in Africa and eve in jeddah. He travelled to jeddah to find eve from their they made childern. Than it’s a must their childern or childerns of childern travelled the world and that’s how other races came into

[@lodewijkvandoornik3844]

@@QuranRevival2.0 They traveled and adapt to their new environment. That's evolution.

[@lodewijkvandoornik3844]

@@QuranRevival2.0 Adam has never been found.

[@QuranRevival2.0]

@ within the human specie they didn’t make another specie thru that. According to weather lifestyle food they developed

[@stumccabe]

The theory of evolution says nothing about the beginning of life on Earth - that's an entirely different subject.

[@troyl5498]

@@stumccabe How so, Artful Dodger? The gods Time and Chance cobbled "first life" together just as they're inexorably mucking about in your guts and slogging around in your nuts right now to evoke New!™ Improved!® Advanced Evolved!© Future You ! You cannot leapfrog magical, mystical "Life" from non life -- curiously, just as their saying -- ! 🤔🫢🫣😶

[@stumccabe]

@@troyl5498 I'm not sure what you're trying to say with your cryptic terminology, but I think you are asserting that life cannot arise from non-life. Well I see no reason why not.

[@troyl5498]

@@stumccabe 🎼🎵🎶 "All things are possible/ If you BELIEVE" 🎶🎵

[@Vernon-Chitlen]

The naturalist, materialist mantra: Given enough time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable, the probable virtually certain.. The probabilities of one small protein forming by a mindless process of trial and error is calculated as 1 chance in 10 followed by 70 zero's. And there are 42 million proteins in the simplest cell. The longest known protein is the molecular spring Titin, @ 25,000 to 35,000 amino acids. Only the 20 specific, out of 500+ kinds. In only their left hand forms except for glycine and specifically sequenced, not unlike 20 amino acid letters spelling protein words.

[@Loading....99.99]

Good try, but imagination will always trump your facts 😃

[@Vernon-Chitlen]

@@Loading....99.99 Always helpful when vaccines aren't vaccines? And believing a person with XY chromosomes can menstruate? 🤪

[@w12ath040211]

​@@Vernon-Chitlen "science isn't true because of these other things that are silly and no one has ever suggested is true."

[@Vernon-Chitlen]

@@jockyoung4491 Consensus hardly determines truth. That man cannot make carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, sulfur and phosphorus form a single protein or gene. And still believing a mindless process of trial and error is responsible for the forming and organizing the 473 genes coding for the specific sequencing and assembly of the 16.8 billion of only 20 specific amino acids out of 500+ kinds in the 42 million proteins in the simplest known cell. In a warm little pond exposed to 98 elements, diluted by 1.5 sextillion molecules per drop of water. And scientists cannot make 1 gene or protein starting from the 6 elements?

[@Vernon-Chitlen]

@@jockyoung4491 The facts and figures I present are all verified by naturalist scientists. Srch: New Technology Enables Fast Protein Synthesis An article about MIT's biomimicry of a ribosome. The molecular machine made of 40 proteins and 4 rRNA's. That assembles amino acids into proteins. This sound like the qualities warm little ponds have?

[@allysondoerfler8688]

Natural origin of life says that inanimate objects (molecules) without brains or even nervous systems, somehow "decided" to join together and become more complex. Even IF they could it doesn't explain how it came to life.

[@markgilrosales6366]

@@nathancook2852 keep coping. Abiogenesis is your version of creation-you cannot just defend it.

[@w12ath040211]

Can an inanimate object decide anything?

[@markgilrosales6366]

@@ConservativeMirror 2nd law of thermodynamics says hi

[@vikingskuld]

​@@nathancook2852the prproblem with your explanation is its just as flawed. Then you offer no counter arguments just like most who don't know anything. The worst comment I ever hear is you just don't understand evolution. You obviously haven't studied it. As everyone knows it's true. Then I start talking to you guys and I pin you down and you stop replying.

[@vikingskuld]

​@@ConservativeMirrorwell then let's see you do it? Come on show your work and let's see how life began.

[@Samblack-n1j]

I'm afraid there's great confusion in this talk, your guest claims evolution is a "fairytale" but then spends long minutes attacking the validity of a different field completely which is Abiogenesis (study of the origin of life). honestly and respectfully, I think someone not capable (or not wiling) to make this distinction is probably not a good source for criticism on such a widely accepted and multidisciplinary proven theory. take care✌️

[@MohamedAbdullah-k5i]

@@Samblack-n1j 👋

[@DeltaChimp]

I agree...to many people come out trying to argue evolution but they very rarely understand all necessary terms to understand the science behind such things

[@manuelteixeira2496]

A theory is by definition not proven yet at least.

[@manuelteixeira2496]

@@DeltaChimp A theory is by definition not proven yet at least.

[@MedellínInsider-n3o]

@@manuelteixeira2496 Theory of relativity, anyone? It is treated as a done deal...

[@chadbrown4758]

No mention of any evolutionary mechanism occurs in this 24 minute video.

[@notreally5255]

Because he's a chemist. A tech chemist at that. He studies minerals. That's why he keeps talking about helium, rocks, left right. No genetics, no biology, no physiology, no history background. He's an interesting person and clearly educated, but I'll have to disagree if someone says he's the best person to talk about this topic.

[@jasonroberts9788]

@@notreally5255 you can’t get to biology without passing through chemistry so you’re critique that he’s only a chemist is self defeating

[@MH-rs9we]

@@jasonroberts9788 What kind of logic is that? Without bricks you can't build a house, doesn't mean brick makers know how to design and build houses. Everything, including chemistry is ultimately applied physics so does that mean physicists have the authority on every subjects? No. He's a chemist, I can grant that he knows chemistry. But knowing chemistry doesn't mean he know about other subjects extensively enough to act as the authority on them, and this video demonstrated that he either doesn't know jack shit or simply lying about biology.

[@jasonroberts9788]

@@MH-rs9we you’re giving a false equivalency (that’s a logical fallacy). Please don’t try to come at me with logic only to come bearing logical fallacies 🤡

[@MH-rs9we]

@@jasonroberts9788 Pray tell, what's fallacious here? Chemists study, research and analyze the chemical properties of substances to derive knowledge and develop new materials, products. Biologists rely on the work of chemists to understand life on the molecular level, but the study of life is much more expansive than that. Biologists every aspects of living organisms, what are they consist of, how are they structured, their behaviour, etc... including things that the field of chemistry isn't concerned about. Just because part of the study of biology relies on chemistry doesn't grant chemists the authority on biology. The same way mathematicians are not the authority on physic theories, despite mathematics' important roles in physics. Pointing out that him being a chemist and not a biologist in a video supposedly talking about biology isn't self-defeating. It's funny you whine about logical "fallacy" when someone pointed out the flaws in your logic.

[@johnosborne7637]

You also have to ask how did male and female develop?

[@anthonyprince2095]

God created male and female. Simple

[@MatthewPeeters-l7i]

@@jockyoung4491 Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success for the same resources as sexual reproduction. How could sexual reproduction ever gain advantage to be selected and how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complimentary apparatuses needed at the same time when non-intelligent processors cannot plan for the future coordination of male and female organs?

[@globalcoupledances]

Result of natural selection. Explained by Bill Nye in his first debate with Ken Ham

[@zacharyayaga6661]

​@@jockyoung4491😂😂

[@alantasman8273]

Not just develop...but develop contemporaneously with compatible chromosomes to procreate with a compatible sperm capable of swimming in a harsh environment capable of killing it with the directed objective of reaching the compatible egg to fertilize it while the women was not menstruating. What are the odds?

[@ryanlog]

Bro thinks believing "god sent another god who is himself to kill himself to redeem the rest of his creation of the sins that he caused them to do" is not ridiculuous but Evolution theory is.. Atleast the latter makes some logic lol

[@TommyMarcinek]

This was a fantastic video! Thanks for interviewing this scientist. One of the most poignant things about this video, is that when he was saying he was confronted with logical questions from a believer (one of his peers), that he felt uncomfortable. I've noticed this too when I state the very same subject matter to people who believe in evolution. Rather than try to answer the questions (because they know they cannot provide rational answers), they resort to insults. Hearing such an accomplished scientist present these things, in such a way that any layperson can understand, was very encouraging and edifying! Peace and blessings. Tom. M.

[@alantasman8273]

@@jockyoung4491 Scientists use shame and character assassination against other scientists all the time to keep real scientific inquiry from being done. If character assassination is not an insult what is? Your comment is ludicrous.

[@alantasman8273]

@@jockyoung4491 Tell that to Drs James Tour, Mark Armitage, Mark Snelling, Kurt Wise and Mary Schweitzer, and other scientists that have been slandered and in some cases lost their jobs because their research went against the paradigm of their peers. Watch the movie "Expelled" for more examples. Get up to speed.

[@TommyMarcinek]

@@jockyoung4491 How so? Did you NOT watch the video and hear the scientific IMPOSSIBILITY of life even GETTING STARTED much less becoming complex? Variation within the maximum threshold of an organism's genomic information (micro adaptive changes), is ALL that we see in nature, is all that has ever been seen, and all that will ever be seen. "Evolution" on a "macro" level, has never been seen, is NOT reproducible (see the fruit fly and bacteria experiments - even Darwin's beak variations), and will NEVER be seen. Why? Gee, I wonder if there could be a CREATOR behind it all (sarcasm intended).

[@TommyMarcinek]

@@alantasman8273 I have no idea why you would consider my comment as "ludicrous." I pointed out that, from a lay person's perspective, people resort to insults rather than actually engage in ration debate. I agree with you that the "character assassination" of scientists who stray from the mantra is equivalent to "insults," if that is what you were TRYING to say.

[@TommyMarcinek]

@@jockyoung4491 Possibly so, but the "debate" in the literature is centered around a myth (Macro Evolution), which has been inculcated into the mushy brains of children from a very young age. It's no wonder that so many cannot see the impossibility that, say, the universe could self-create and that life could self-assemble from non-living chemicals. Even a cursory view at the data, from a standpoint of pure logic, confirms that NEITHER of those two scenarios are possible. With those scenarios then becoming thoroughly moot, only one possibility remains, i.e., Intelligent Design/Special Creation.

[@aloshkleins7530]

Wow, talk about how evolution is a ferry tale but continues with the big bang and Abiogenesis. Non of those is evolution. If you're to talk about evolution talk about it and its evidence. The big bang isn't evidence for evolution nor is Abiogenesis.

[@s.unosson]

When did evolution begin according to you? With which process?

[@vladim73]

"We have all seen the canonical parade of apes, each one becoming more human. We know that, as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is nonsense. Yet we cling to it." Henry Gee, staunch evolutionist

[@mchooksis]

It is a depiction of evolution, and makes a great image for the non scientific lay person.. But it is NOT a depiction of how evolution works, it was not even trying to be. Evolution evolved all the creatures depicted in the image individually, not sequentially, but they are still all related. " Yet we cling to it." Lay people cling to it. Evolution scientists, even at college level, never did.

[@MatthewPeeters-l7i]

Here's another interesting admission, this one from Professor Richard Lewontin (1929-2021), who was a world leading evolutionary biologist. "It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our _a priori_ adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." You can read the full quote here: creation.com/amazing-admission-lewontin-quote

[@mchooksis]

@@MatthewPeeters-l7i Science is now looking more and more at the relationship between the quantum world and the material world, not just in relation to gene expression in evolution, but also in the OOL. The paths that science is taking are getting more and more exciting.

[@OlegLankin]

​@@jockyoung4491 an evolutionary scientist admitted how he saw scientists work, from all his experiences. How convenient, to dismiss it as nothing but "one man's opinion", but then take another statement by an evolutionary scientist as "science".

[@VaughanMcCue]

@@MatthewPeeters-l7i It would be better to look for the alleged original comment and review it in *FULL* context. Reading a quote-mine knocked up by a fraudulent source is folly.

[@Arminius420]

You guys can't even get one simple definition right, evolution isn't about creating life, its about how life become diverse over time. Why can't you guys ever get that right. its not that freaking hard for regular people. My guess is, you guys straw man it so that regular people don't understand it. This is why I can't take creationists seriously, you guys continue to straw man our current theories because it challenges your beliefs.

[@michaelbrandt5416]

Life has to start somewhere and somehow in time. Now please explain why the molecule thing he mentioned, is wrong from your perspective ?

[@MedellínInsider-n3o]

Sinners against the common sense, undoubtedly.

[@kc_h7h]

@@michaelbrandt5416 like he said evolution isn't about when life started its how life developed. Idk much about the actual beginning of life but I'm pretty sure it's when in some point in time a self replicating molecule started to form. And because it's replicating that means there's competition, so it's forced to evolve. We don't know how this self replicating molecule formed. But I don't think it matters that much. Evolution itself is a fact we can observe and verify and already debunks most religions. You guys only ask this question as a form of desperation. What if the answer is "we don't know how this molecule formed"? It doesn't prove god exists or even made it

[@tangorello]

@@Arminius420 what challenges your beliefs? How can life spontaneously begin? Why do you put faith in a mathematical impossibility?

[@averilloanthony7527]

@@Arminius420 evolution is just a theory ( nothing more)

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

Amen CMI 🙏🙏🙏 thank you for being faithful to God's word and always standing on the truth of his word

[@RobertSmith-gx3mi]

Evolution is a Fairytale is the assertion from people who quite literally believe a character written about in a book spoke everything in the universe into existence. How did this character do this? well they couldn't tell you.They've only been groomed to accept the assertion.They've never been given any kind of explanation for how it was accomplished, But again they reject the overwhelming amounts of evidence to suggest evolution is the best explanation for the Diversity of life on the planet.They again call it a fairy tale, Which is also a funny little bit of projection from the sheep in the congregation

[@neuromancer845]

Because creationists know that they're taking the "fairytale" on faith. Evolutionists claims are also based on faith (not observation), but they don't admit that.

[@lavictorsermons5345]

@@RobertSmith-gx3mi 😂😂😂 that is all you got?

[@RobertSmith-gx3mi]

@lavictorsermons5345 Well that and a hundred and fifty years worth of evidence to reinforce the fact that evolution happens

[@lavictorsermons5345]

@RobertSmith-gx3mi ok. Where is the continual evolving happening? When did we stop evolving from apes and monkeys? What did sharks evolve from?

[@RobertSmith-gx3mi]

@lavictorsermons5345 Thanks for cementing the fact that you don't understand evolution.I would suggest there is a 150 years of evidence you need to start reading up on. Spoiler, alert, we don't evolve from things and then have those things die out. We share common Ancestors with other great apes in our great ape family. Now either go educate yourself or reject evolution and believe something else. Your eternal soul does not depend on you believing evolution happens

[@dougmoore4653]

when talking to people it is useless to talk about eye evolution or ape to man evolution. you need to ask them to THINK about how could 5000 different cellular items and organs that are needed to breath could EVOLVE and at the same time those organs and cellular items are all REQUIRED to breath.

[@alantasman8273]

@@jockyoung4491 Did they just decide to create lungs for themselves somehow having the foreknowledge that they would need them ...or did the oxygen say to the living organism...here I am get yourselves in shape for the new world order. Your comment attributing thought to nature is idiotic.

[@alantasman8273]

@@jockyoung4491 Oxygen is corrosive...yet life thrives on it. Ascribing thought and logic to how nature operates is not good science.

[@MedellínInsider-n3o]

Ask that catholic protestant priest who invented the evolution genius. His name is charles darwin. A very religious man, serving catholic protestant church all his life.

[@VeridicusMaximus]

Another person who doesn’t understand evolution - why do you think everything needs to be evolved all at once? What kind of nonsense are you spewing? You’re completely ignorant or you intentionally lying.

[@daverobson3084]

That diidn't . Try studying some basic biology. The first cells were single cell. they respired directly through their cell walls/membranes. Some clumped together , but were still small enough that respiration through their cell walls/membranes was quite sufficient. We have both of these still arounf now. Then, we have larger conglomerations of cells , like spnges. They have lots of cells, but, because they are so simple and have lots of surface area, they can still respire through their cell walls.membranes. Organs don't then pop up " all at once". They evolve one ( orm, perhaps two) at a time. We have life with onpy one or two organs iin their entire bodies. They will then usually have very simple respiratory and circulatory systems . Just like a pocket int heir bodies where blood( or something similar) can be right next to the cavity where air or water can collect. For the smaller, simpler ones, no muscular movement of the water/air is necessary. Insects have simple systems llike this . They don't have lungs at all. They have these holes that go into their bodies , called spiracles, and air moves in and out through air currents and pressure. tyhey are so small that they can still glean all the O2 they require from that simple syuystem. But, this means that they can only get so big. To get bgger their needs ot be either more oxygen in the atmshere ( and we see that happened in the past where their were larger insects becaus their was more O2 in the atmosphere), or there has to be a muscular system to move the air in and out of the pockets( lungs) inside the organism . Insects have plenty of organs, but, no lungs. Same with most " fish", crustaceans, worms, ect. They have plenty of organs wiithout anything like a lung. This stuff is readily available to learn in biology classes( you probably learned some of it in school, but forgot) , in books, or on line. The problem with most creationists is, they ( flippantly) ask these questions, but never bother to expendd the slightest effort to find out if thhere are known answers out there. They just yell out " question" and drop the mike, while people that know what the answer is stare in awe at their arrogance and ignornce.

[@Whatyelooking]

😑 Instead of talking about evolution He is talking about Abiogenesis

[@555atU]

@@Whatyelooking that's a copout. Both fields have an information problem regarding the code in DNA for example.

[@JohnMathiang-wn3nt]

Didn't finish or comprehend all of his arguments but a statement he would like to back up, would be violation of 2nd law of thermodynamics, the fact that according to him time and energy are just wrong parameters to vouch for emergency of order and complexity from their counterparts, doesn't fit in. Then this creation would be limited to the moment of design, the systems having come forth from the broth would then not need a designer to traverse their history, otherwise the processes that maintain any living system are all improbable implying at each progress of these living systems, a designer is ever present to overcome the second law of thermodynamics. More complexity arises all the time from simple order, perhaps the designer is ever available to enhance this leap, my house came by chance oh there was a designer, a new watch or car has been invented, yeah there was obviously a designer, then is the history of the prototypes that led to these new incredible watches or houses or cars disregarded, perhaps, you know it's just history, it's not science! My point is the designer should not be limited to the origin of life, it should be detected at every difficult advance of these systems, or don't these systems undergo change as well, oh wait evolution is just history, it's not science. The problem to the origin of life lies in the definition of life. And by the way he's right in suggesting that it needs greater faith to believe in evolution than creation, one of these that has collected a handful of these, and the latter, nearly none. Good irony.

[@daverobson3084]

He has a PHd and doesn't know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. He should get his money back from whatever university gave him his degrees.

[@sanjeevgaha]

We all are physicists in comments who refuse to hear the real physicist talking about his subject!

[@danielhammond3218]

@@sixfootoneistall2002 yes but his logic is impeccable

[@fepeerreview3150]

The man is not a physicist and we don't need a physicist. We need an evolutionary biologist or a chemist who specializes in the very specific chemistry related to Earth's underwater chemical environment 500 million years ago and more. This man is a chemist but in another completely different and narrow branch of chemistry. If he thinks he can refute evolution he needs to address his arguments to evolutionary biologists and see how well they hold up. If he thinks he can refute current hypotheses on origins of life he needs to take his arguments to the relevant scientists in that field. This guy doesn't even seem to realize there is in fact a major different between evolution research and origins of life research.

[@alantasman8273]

@@fepeerreview3150 Dr. Stephen Jay Gould …paleontologist comments on the fossil record debunking macro-evolution. • “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. … In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, 1977) • “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” (Gould, 1980) • “All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.” (Gould, 1982, p. 189) • “No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seemed to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields … a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere!” (Eldredge, 1995, p. 95)

[@555atU]

Real physicists don't know where life came from or know what energy and consciousness is.

[@kafka1343]

😂😂😂😂he is PhD in chemistry 😂🤣 lol you are living in different dilemma fool

[@darkoz1692]

The irony of him stating that evolution is a fairly tale is astonishing. The mental gymnastics he performs to justify an unfounded belief is even more astonishing.

[@Lipmip2376]

How many decades of experience do you have in chemistry brother? He's stating it requires more faith that life came from non life rather than designer / creator from a chemical processed POV. Please rebut this.

[@darkoz1692]

@@Lipmip2376 -You don't have to be a chemist to know nonsense when you hear it.

[@malayneum]

@@Lipmip2376 just because you dont know or dont understand evolution does not automatically mean its god. this is argument from ignorance.

[@AcoolUserName999]

@@Lipmip2376 He's a chemist. Not an evoulutionary biologist who's dedicated their whole life to studying it. Life has persisted by adapring to it's enviroment. We have OBSERVED micro evolution. Macro evolution is just a long line of micro evolutions. But him saying in the video how it's impossible to observe in studies is false since he has no idea what he's talking about.

[@Robinhim2002]

@@darkoz1692 For example,...a prehistoric soup concocted life from chemicals and elements by random uncontrolled processes.

[@jpmalopes]

Racemization is actually used to determine the age of some fossiles. The claim in the video is absolutely wrong. Racemization IS found in fossiles. Racemization to 50:50 may take a few million years depending on the conditions. L-enantiomers are fabricated by the biological machinery, especially resourcing to a bunch of enzymes in the liver. It is indeed extremely complex but we know for ages why L-enantiomers are required for life and why only L-enantiomers are fabricated. It may sound indeed extremely difficult for life to have emerged from nothing. Nobody knows for sure how these events happened, but science DOES NOT exclude the evolution. The second-order of thermodynamics applies to closed systems. Earth is not a closed system. The sun has been around for billions of years...

[@JohnSpencer90]

At 2:09 Dr. Grocott begins by misrepresenting what physicists theorize about the origin of the universe. No leading physicist has claimed that the universe came from nothing or that it exploded into being. This is not intended to diminish Dr. Grocott's obvious competence as a chemist, but simply to note that he is not an authority in the field of physics, particularly in cosmology.

[@allysondoerfler8688]

Narrow minded is people who will not consider anything other than natural origins.

[@anthonyprince2095]

@@nathancook2852 silly statement

[@williambourbeau4374]

Rebut what the speaker said! ​@@nathancook2852

[@w12ath040211]

Wise people will always consider any idea and have varying degrees of confidence based on the evidence supporting the idea.

[@atulofau9006]

@@nathancook2852 I know some people keep telling they were Christian, they were raised in Christian family. It doesn't give any proof to back up arguments. Some people choose believe not because they are too lazy to find out your matter, but because they don't need to do it. You put your matter on the table, you figure it out yourselves. And you should not call others narrow minded, just because they have no interest on your matter. When people learn and find out the answer, they stop searching and they embrace the truth. What the world offers are questions and they will make you live in despair and restless. What do you do when you find the answer of a question ? You rest. Not because being a narrow minded, but because you have the answer and you take a rest. That's what Jesus said : You will know the truth and the truth will set you free. See? The offer is freedom from all of those confusion and restless way of life. Jesus said : “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. God knows what we need, freedom from all of our worry and burden. God knows our need. People keep burdening their life with all questions that they can never answer, God say stop worrying, come to me and take a rest. The danger of keep searching is when lost control and you have no idea how to stop it. Why don't we learn from human too? We create, and our invention has its creator. So does this universe. I make it simple that way for myself. I hope you find rest.

[@alantasman8273]

​@@jockyoung4491 As the Scriptures have a fantastic record explaining the natural world around us, the heart of man, and the history of God's relationship with man, it stands up against macro-evolution thinking which has never been observed in nature or the fossil record.

[@bobdownard]

This video should be called: Argument from Ignorance. This “scientist” is not even talking about the right thing. He keeps talking about “evolution” when he’s actually attempting to argue against is abiogenesis, which is in no way a part of the theory of evolution. The reality is we don’t know how life started on this planet. The evidence seems to suggest that complex chemistry results in simple biology, but we don’t know all the details yet. We DO know how that life evolves. We know because a mountain of evidence from several independent lines of study. This man has a conclusion that he needs to be true: God is real. By starting with the conclusion and working to find evidence to support his conclusion he is blinding himself to what reality is telling him. A true scientist does not start at the conclusion, rather keeps an open mind and goes where the evidence leads.

[@Creolemonkey]

If you know how life evolved then you should be able to replicate it. Go ahead! What is a true scientists-an atheist?

[@wazirshujaatali5570]

Common Sense: Almost everyone accepts that big bag happened due to some unknown forces. Theists say these unknown forces comes from an ever existing divine nature and scientists say they don't know about these forces because they need imperical evidence which is impossible. Conclusion: You cannot go deep into the past because it will take you to infinity which is beyond human limit. You are right in your statement "we don't know" in a sense we don't know the divine force which is responsible for all the phenomena in the universe.

[@airbus7373]

I affirm the theory of evolution. I just think that it is how God created the world. Many bits of the Bible are symbolic.

[@Creolemonkey]

@airbus7373 Then you are fooled majorly. Because evolution disavows God completely...

[@hosmanalya5058]

We have been replicating it in many ways, like mutations, genetic flow, and microorganisms to count a few. Moreover, our medicinal capabilities are a tangible evidence to how far we've come in navigating evolution. They are all built inductively, so there's still a lot to falsify and reevaluate while your god said that he created the earth before the sun. (Assuming you are Christian)

[@leifbodin3411]

A creator does not explain anything to me - where did the creator com from? Who created the creator? If there was a creation, maybe the evolution was included in the creation. Does the creator still exist? If so can we expect some more creation events?

[@nathanielalderson9111]

Those are different questions with different answers - and some of them don't contribute to our current question of the origin of OUR life/planet/system. The concept of God is bigger than a "person", which I think is the stumbling block for "a"-theists. When we think of a "God" as a contained "person" that we can "see", (because that is the ONLY framework that WE can understand as a "person"), it misses the very important point that The Creator has revealed to us, that The Creator IS, the FUNDAMENTAL Foundation upon which all other matter and nonmatter is dependent on. Consider these statements. God is Light and in Him is no darkness at all. God is Love God is Truth God is Spirit God is not a man. This is talking about God as the structure, the basis, THE SYSTEM, AND the REALITY itself. In essence we are living in HIS Mind. And when people focus on God as a Person, it is easy to miss the bigness of God the Power. And This God, has shown Himself to us in ways that we can understand, many times using our experiences to point to another facet of Him. Otherwise this God would be incomprehensible if He didn't show Himself to us. Having a creation that points to it's creator is logical. That is the pattern that we see in nature. "Where did the creator come from" - is a distraction question, but one that the creator CAN answer. The God of Abraham answered this question with "I AM". As in eternal. You ask the above question because you are approaching God with a limited physical material mindset, instead of the metaphysical, spiritual infinite mindset. God is not a physical being. He does not have a physical body. If you asked where Jesus the Man came from we can say from his mother. We know He had a body, and one that could be destroyed. And He says he came from "heaven", from "God". But God WAS before we ever were. This is a thing that I doubt we physical beings can understand. And God can't be destroyed. So there is a mystery here.

[@nathanielalderson9111]

@@alexojideagu God didn't "appear from nowhere." That's the fundamental misunderstanding of who and what God is. And that's coming from atheists personal incredulity, from people who have not done the philosophical work.

[@nathanielalderson9111]

@@alexojideagu its all around you bro. You can't see it because you're used to it.

[@letsrumble8933]

Nobody knows where the creator comes from or who he is ? But the point is a creator exists Nothing came by some random chance.. it's not possible

[@nathanielalderson9111]

@@letsrumble8933 The Creator, who identified Himself, from the Jewish ancient times, is recorded. Both in the Godly form, then visitations, then as a Man, then back to God. He took responsability for it all. Our role is to choose to believe Him and obey or not. Our belief does not change what God has said about Himself.

[@МыколаНетребко]

And incest doesn’t lead to genetic diversity. So, what’s your point, creationists?

[@farhadkhan8727]

She looks narrow and almost no mind when she says that beleiving creator is narrow mindedness. Some non living particles made a living particle, some decided to become human, some elephant some tree and some monkey, this does not look hollow mindedness, amazing. Theory of evolution is totally unbelievable and impractical. The universe is an intelligently designed by the creator.

[@BeefT-Sq]

"The Dark Ages were dark on principle. Augustine fought against secular philosophy, science, art; he regarded all of it as an abomination to be swept aside; he cursed science in particular as “the lust of the eyes.” -Leonard Peikoff-1986

[@antireligiousforever6984]

Oh dear. As soon as he said historical science all credibility is lost especially when he claims to be a scientist. Anyway I am off to see my eye doctor on his take on my wisdom tooth🫡

[@tomesplin4130]

Typical. They get someone completely out of their field to argue against something they know absolutely nothing about.

[@satyanaveeny9464]

No one is claiming with absolute certainty that evolution is the ultimate truth, but it is one of the most plausible theories humans have developed to understand how we evolved. If there were a creator who made life, why must we make that creator divine? We could simply appreciate the artistic skill and try to understand how life was created. So far, no plausible explanations have come from religions either. But at least science provides a reasoned approach to why we evolved. No one is stopping anyone from finding a better explanation. Instead of dismissing the theory of evolution, let's focus on producing convincing explanations. We should be grateful for those who have at least tried to decode the mystery of life

[@aloshkleins7530]

That's exactly what I always think about. Debunking one's theory doesn't make yours right. That's what these people fail to understand.

[@leocondoric.2391]

I find a designer more logical than the theory of evolution

[@aloshkleins7530]

@@leocondoric.2391 Ok, how about we share actual evidence instead? I’ll give you what supports evolution, and you can share what supports your belief. Chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans have 24 pairs of chromosomes, but humans have only 23. Why? Scientists think it’s because two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to form human chromosome 2. Here’s the evidence: (1) there’s a fusion site where two chromosomes joined; (2) telomere sequences, usually at chromosome ends, are found in the middle; (3) there’s a second, inactive centromere; (4) the banding patterns match two separate ape chromosomes; and (5) genes on chromosome 2 align with those in the two ape chromosomes. So share your evidence and then tell me what's more plausible again.

[@NazHamid-r7d]

@@satyanaveeny9464 How is a creator of all these impossible creations not divine? Is this human arrogance that can’t accept there are things greater than us, beyond our comprehension?

[@SikandarKashfi]

You have wrote exactly what was I thinking, the theory of evolution is the best explanation of life on earth.

[@aitoreilusuomi]

Please correct me if I'm wrong; even if we ignored the fact that dividing of a cell is a vastly complex process, and were to assume that the first living cell just somehow happened to make itself out of non-living mud, this evolution should have happened during the life span of the first cell? If this first ever cell did not develop far enough quickly enough, it would have died and no second cell generation would have been born. Has any evolution believer tried to answer this question?

[@numbersix9477]

It has been explained here that the theory of evolution and hypotheses about abiogenesis ae unrelated . You completely ignored those explanations. Why?

[@AlOliver-m2y]

@@numbersix9477so they are not related but you need one to get the other.

[@numbersix9477]

Notice that fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims say EXACTLY the same thing in support of their significantly different history of life stories - "The theory of evolution is wrong and MY creation story is the only alternative."

[@mikeballard8404]

On day 6 Adam was a young adult, not a single cell.

[@XYisnotXX]

@Homo_sAPEien there is zero credibility that life originated from non life. There is also zero credibility to the idea that somehow the chemicals acting apon the chemicals inside of the matter of your brain can produce proper logical inference and the emergence of "true" speech. That is the real myth.

[@robertramsey653]

​​@Homo_sAPEienoh? And there is for a big bang? And evolution? Please enlighten me with the evidence? Whether you or anyone else that doesn't believe in GOD and creation, I'll say this. Your belief is a religion also. The supreme court said your belief system is a religion, but we don't need them to know it. Religion is a belief in something, faith in something. Oh, and the name of the case is, Torcaso V Watkins. Still want to read your evidence for these things

[@gab1172]

⁠​⁠@Homo_sAPEien if life spontaneously came into being from inanimate soup, why did it happen once a long time ago?

[@wefinishthisnow3883]

@@gab1172 That's a good question! Keep asking those! The answer is that it might still be happening. The Perseverance Rover on Mars might have recently found evidence of past life in an ancient lake. There's also a small chance of evidence of life in the atmosphere of Venus and potentially ocean planets like K2-18b.

[@MedellínInsider-n3o]

How about THAT evolution, huh!!!???

[@albert3504]

We are sinners saved by grace through faith. Scientists are sinners too. Blessings for these Creation Ministries it would get rid of Racism.

[@elilane8627]

@@albert3504 I’m sorry what? What would get rid of racism? And how?

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

Amen 🙏🙏🙏

[@albert3504]

@@elilane8627 We are all brothers and sisters. through Adam and then through Noah I was indoctrinated in Malaysia in Races till I had a light bulb moment by Answer in Genesis.

[@tosuchino6465]

I couldn't deny the possibility of a religion getting rid of racism, though it seems highly unlikely. However, I'm highly confident that monotheism would promote tribalism, which is just as bad as racism.

[@VaughanMcCue]

Embrace your sin, or believers have nobody to gossip about.

[@Queensdecline]

Life did start from non-life, in a process of nuclear fusion called 'nucleosynthesis'. We know this because the human body is made of mostly oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon, calcium, and phosphorus, the stuff of dead stars. In organic chemistry there's a concept called "abiotic chemistry” (chemistry which takes place in the absence of biology). The beginning of biology 'abiogenesis' was an organic chemical process that gradually created 'prebiotic synthesis' the building blocks of life. So, to summarize, life did start from non-life through a process of nuclear fusion and organic chemistry.

[@glenliesegang233]

No random process can create complex symbolic information.

[@GuillermoPenaCedeno]

That is a key point!

[@cyrus3316]

Evolution is literally the opposite of random 😂 go read it

[@Blinky25256]

​@@cyrus3316It's all random but a guy who was guessing with nothing to back it up with WITHOUT the technology we have. What are you talking about?

[@cyrus3316]

@@Blinky25256 it's no where near random... Do you think black ppl living in sun radiating areas are randomly black ? Do you think white bears and rabbits living in ice areas are randomly white ? Do you think long ppl living in foresty high grassed areas are randomly long ? Don't be absurd nothing about evolution is random everything fits exactly the environment it is in

[@s.unosson]

@@cyrus3316 Genetic mutations are considered random and accidental by evolutionists, If it weren't so, one would have to talk about programs, about intelligence. Genetic mutations are the corner stone of evolution theory, its engine, since natural selection is only a tool.

[@marvelous3235]

i just watched the first 6 minutes. it seems to me that this man does not understand evolution. also he's describing abiogenesis, an hypothesis for the origin of life, which is just an hypothesis. no one is claiming to know for sure the origin of life. but evolution? the process that explains the increase in complexity of life over billions of years is a scientific fact. there is a lot of data and evidences that supports evolution.

[@tangorello]

I’m sorry, there is evidence of evolution? Where have you observed the simple becoming more complex? Just one example please.

[@VeridicusMaximus]

@@tangorello First, evolution is not about things becoming more complex. Second, to answer your question - Embryology - two single cells (sperm and egg) unite an then they become more 'complex' or Synthesis reactions - CO2 + H2O → C6H12O6 + O2 or very simple - 2 H2(g) + O2(g) → 2 H2O(g). Next!!

[@purelyrandom1230]

@@marvelous3235 proof?

[@purelyrandom1230]

​@@VeridicusMaximus have you seen it happen real time? Or just pure assumptions

[@purelyrandom1230]

​@@VeridicusMaximus what will humans evolve into next? If evolution is a fact, then, we should be able to predict what species humans will evolve into

[@Adesign-f6l]

13:02 he felt that way, because he is a truth/fact seeking scientist not an arrogant ones like his fellows he mentioned. When you search for the truth without putting on any "glasses" you find it at the end. May God bless him❤

[@Emma-cy9lp]

@@Adesign-f6l if no living thing can come from a non living thing, then the question becomes, where did god come from?

[@Adesign-f6l]

@@Emma-cy9lp no the real question is where does this perception come from that "GOD" must b created? He is not created by someone or something. Thats what actually makes Him God. Common sense! Not to be created by anyone and be there forever is a significant trait of God.

[@edmondtetrault4322]

Poppycock. It takes way more faith to believe their was a designer/creator because that posits something we have no direct experience of. On the otherhand we have plenty of experience with systems that in essence constitute a typical kind of thing, but when they become more complex become fundamentally a different kind of thing. Take individual atoms or molecules for instance. In simple combinations they express specific qualities, like H20, reorganize the atoms and the become something entirely different like peroxide. Different arrangements lead to emergent qualities. Life is an emergent result of complex organic reorganization. What is the source of the changes? Natural processes again, attraction, repulsion, conservation of energy, hydrodynamics and so on. Just because you can hold the complexity of those interacting forces in your mind for even a moment doesn't mean they aren't always going on. Your argument is the one used for millenia when humans can't wrap their heads around something. Supernaturalism and anthropomorphism. They serve to make you feel better, not to explain anything.

[@coffeetalk924]

He's in a minority. His colleagues do not agree with him, nor should they. Incidently, Sir Francis Collins is a devout Christian, who is also a Nobel Prize winner and head of the human genome project. He firmly believes in the FACT of biological evolution and has demonstrated it to be a fact. It isn't a "fairytale"

[@wefinishthisnow3883]

He's an inorganic chemist/minerologist talking about organics and physics and suffers from Dunning-Kruger, what else did you expect?

[@coffeetalk924]

​@@wefinishthisnow3883and these religious agenda programs love to do shows like this absent the invites to his colleagues who would effectively challenge and refute what he's claiming. That would ruin the party and their agenda 😉

[@wefinishthisnow3883]

@@coffeetalk924 Yep. I don't think I've ever seen any of these literal 6-day creation believers actually interview a qualified scientist that talks about actual science in their field of expertise, rather than just throwing more misleading/bad science or 'god of the gaps' arguments. Please CMI, just have one biologist/astrophysicist/astrobiologist/geologist/paleontologist/archaeologist/linguist/Egyptologist/Virologist, etc talk purely about their issues with 'old earth/mars/universe' in their ACTUAL field of expertise for once. In fact, are there any Genesis/Exodus literalists from NASA that work on the Mars rover missions? I'd be curious how they even get that mission done with people who believe Mars is only ~10,000 years old.

[@coffeetalk924]

​@@wefinishthisnow3883💯

[@MiselPeric]

It would be interesting to hear how would he explain the examples of evolution we can observe in front of use. Like squirrels, mosquitoes, and other organisms evolving in response to climate change.

[@veniqe]

They don't become different animals. They stay squirrels, mosquitoes, and whatever oganism they were.

[@MiselPeric]

@veniqe No I mean when they actually do change. They change so much that they can't mate with the original species anymore because they become a different species aka evolution happens. There are many examples of observing this even in a short time. And you can also do this type of experiments at home.

[@s.unosson]

They are not evolving, they are adapting. Epigenetics is the program that governs gene expression making adaptation possible. It is for example known that the changes of the famous Galapagos finks' beak size and form are epigenetic adaptation that needs only a couple of years to happen, not millions of ages; and those changes are reversible. Epigenetics functions above (epi) the DNA without modifying it.

[@DawnMilligan-bw7zg]

Explain?

[@alexcontreras6103]

@@s.unosson Adaptation is evolution: 1.Variation: Individuals in a population differ in traits like appearance or behavior, forming the basis for natural selection. 2.Inheritance: Traits are passed to offspring, allowing advantageous variations to persist. 3.Selection: Traits that improve survival and reproduction become more common over generations, altering the population. Why adaptation is evolution: Adaptation refers to the process by which populations change over time to better fit their environment. This change happens through evolution, driven by variation, inheritance, and selection. Essentially, adaptation is the outcome of evolutionary processes in action.

[@toosiyabrandt8676]

Hi LOL! So a ‘non agency’( = Evolution) process can’t be replicated by INTENSIVE AGENCY ( = Laboratory) process???? WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT????

[@andrewshear2927]

We never say non life gives birth to life. We don't have every single step for evolution but we have an overwhelming amount of evidence to say that it happens.

[@francoisgoosen9529]

@@andrewshear2927 Ok good - with all the evidence you have (observed and tested) give us one example where there is change of kind (macro evolution)

[@andrewshear2927]

Wale evolution, Dinosaurs and cats.

[@francoisgoosen9529]

@@andrewshear2927 ??? What impirical evidence is there for evolution of a wale, dinosaurus and a cat? So what was the wale before it became a whale? - in other words change of kind

[@andrewshear2927]

For Wales we see animals adapt from land to water, for Dinosaurs we see small creatures adapt and change to more diverse animals. For cats we have the same thing. Evolution is not a Dragonfly changing into a cat or a dog. That's not what is going on.

[@francoisgoosen9529]

@@andrewshear2927 I dont think you understand - you use a wale as an example - so what observable tested evidence do you have for a whale that started off as another kind of animal or being? The problem is you have no evidence but rather rely on assumptions, statements and theories seen as the truth and created by scientists

[@transient_]

The guy began with saying he can't prove creation, but thinks that proving evolution is false automatically proves his god. No, it doesn't work that way.

[@lenawagner6405]

❤😂well said and true🎉

[@dolphinboy9717]

he never said any such thing and you don't know what he 'thinks'. He specifically says @9:34 and @22:37 that its via scientific observation that the possibilities are narrowed down. He doesn't say 'proves' because he knows its ultimately faith based, but not blind faith - its based on reason. You on the other hand believe in something that has virtually no evidence and goes against reason, so you're in the realm of unreasonable faith.

[@silentroar8264]

@@transient_ then how it works ?

[@DarkAesthetics33]

Thank you for stating the obvious

[@fazalali9227]

You are not different from the one who is believing in creation well you believe in evolution you have faith in evolution and the other guy believes in true creator

[@Enemyofdabeazt]

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: Romans 1 : 20

[@johnharris7353]

Thankful brother, one of my favorites !

[@VeridicusMaximus]

If we are to understand things about god by the things that are made then he must either intended death suffering and pain or was so incompetent to avoid such that this god is not Omni-anything. Thanks!

[@alicehodges9964]

@@VeridicusMaximus I Still Think It's A Sin To Think The Earth Is 60.000 Years Old

[@simonhorna5081]

Dr. Grocott’s points are thought-provoking, but they seem to overlook some established principles. For example, his use of entropy to challenge evolution misinterprets thermodynamics: Earth, with constant solar energy input, isn’t a closed system, allowing for local increases in complexity. Additionally, research shows that organic molecules can self-assemble with natural catalysts on early Earth, challenging the idea that life’s building blocks couldn’t form naturally. I see evolution as a process God could have designed, adding depth to creation’s beauty. For instance, he claims that complexity can’t increase naturally because of entropy, suggesting this as proof against life’s origins. However, the second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems, whereas Earth receives a constant input of energy from the sun, allowing for increased complexity locally. This isn’t ‘violating’ entropy; it’s a natural outcome of how e

[@Johnny-pi1vk]

It's foolishness to believe in the Darwin theory

[@RFC72]

Dr Grocott has 35 years’ experience in minerals processing technology and process development and is a world authority in the processing of nickel, cobalt, bauxite, alumina, copper and uranium as well as experienced with rare earths, titania, tailings, oil shale oil, biofuels and sensors & analysers. His expertise includes leaching, crystallisation, SX, electrowinning, IX, beneficiation, solid-liquid separation, tailings, process safety, online analysis, environment (liquid, solid and gaseous emissions) and risk communication. He has created many technologies and processes which are now in commercial use in operations around the globe and has published ~50 papers and been granted ~10 patents. And here he is talking about everything other than what he's trained in. He's out of his depth. It's funny how creationists leverage PhD's to talk about things they have no business talking about. It's like a licensed plumber telling you heart disease isn't real.

[@MatthewPeeters-l7i]

Another skeptic deploying their favorite tactic, the genetic fallacy. It's like me claiming you're wrong because you don't have a Ph.D in logic.

[@RFC72]

@@MatthewPeeters-l7i The fallacy is only valid if I claim the information is wrong because of the source. Instead, this is about the reliability of the source. Imagine that during a trial, the prosecution brought in some random guy off of the street and asked him to testify about the forensic evidence of the case. Or bringing in a mathematician to testify on complex biology....precisely what young earth creationist organizations do. Luckily, despite the source, the information is still wrong. The 1990 paper by Austin and Humphreys that Grocott cited was shredded to pieces in peer review, yet 34 years later, they're still peddling the same false information. Where I'm from that's called dishonesty.

[@DeltaChimp]

@@RFC72 agreed....and if he did use his PhD, he would have to reveal he was tought about uranium dating that is part of his feild...or is that just a part of the feild he refuses to accept?

[@RFC72]

​@@DeltaChimp Welp, he signed the statement of faith that says any data or evidence that contradicts scripture is wrong. These are professional liars.

[@MedellínInsider-n3o]

@@MatthewPeeters-l7i Mate, you messed up the comments section with that of some geneticist. The comment you are responding to here has nothing to do with the "genes" as you claim. What is that telling you about your religious blinkers over your brain... (a statement, not a question. Hence no "?" at the end) An AWFUL lot, I say...If you want to see a skeptic, just look at the nearest mirror. Everything you need to know about a skeptic is there.

[@sameesamee2917]

If evolution is a fairytale, creator or desinger is a larger fairytale.

[@numbersix9477]

Maybe God created Himself. Maybe aliens from another dimension created Him and sent Him here to create us.

[@alankwellsmsmba]

I prefer to think of it is as "unknown" and in that respect it's not a fairytale. But it's not a tale either. Science is what we know, it's practical. We call particular branches "theoretical" for reasons.

[@GTRalso]

Thank you professor.

[@vanavatareight5135]

@alankwellsmsmba Evolution is both a theory and a fact. It's "known" to be true with more certainty than almost anything else in science, and all branches of science have been confirming it since the early 1900s. I would suggest getting some knowledge about evolution from books that have NOT been written by Sunday school teachers and creationists.

[@UNIRockLIVE]

Not true, logically false... Study More

[@kytoaltoky]

We know molecules exist. We know life exists. Does a god exist? Perhaps, but science can only hypothesize about the origins of life using those elements that we know exist. Appeal to an unknowable, unobservable deity doesn't answer any questions, it only creates new ones

[@ahmadkidwai3141]

Yes THe God exists there is enough proof in the universe like the examples here, now you don’t want to investigate that is your problem

[@leonardgibney2997]

The signature for life, amino acids, can be found in the interstellar medium. Everything is made of atoms. Rocks, stars, life. It all starts with hydrogen.

[@tiborpurzsas2136]

How about skydaddy making Adam out of a pile of mud, and Eve out of Adams rib? Is that not a fairy-tale for adults?

[@gregorytoews8316]

Material cosmology says nothing exists outside of the material universe. If this is true, it's not possible for material beings (like us) to invent ideas of immaterial things like gods. A catch 22 like this is probably why atheists like Daniel Dennet and Thomas Nagel say a material universe can't account for consciousness. Since nothing exists outside of a material universe there can't be a god, because a god is immaterial. If a god is immaterial, the idea of a god also has to be immaterial, and since the material universe can't step outside of itself, it therefore can't invent gods. Given this catch 22, the only conclusion one can arrive at is that we're not purely material beings. Another catch 22 that's created by a material cosmology is that a purely material brain can't arrive at the conclusion that it's a purely material brain.

[@oldol12]

Your body becomes mud after a while, if you would let it out in the wild and not in a coffin. It doesn't become plastic. Soo... Ashes to ashes....

[@mullahosk585]

It's far more plausible than everything out of nothing

[@劉炎-p9z]

​​​​@@mullahosk585I agree, except nobody believes that other than atheists in theists' mind.

[@mullahosk585]

@@劉炎-p9z And only atheists think nothing is something appearing to be nothing.

[@ragnarkisten]

Evolution is fairy-tale but Christianity is not?

[@egoiisticprince7977]

Christianity too is fairy tale now, but when Jesus was born it wasn't. It was real

[@dodumichalcevski]

Says the one who LITERALLY believes in a fairytale 😂😂😂 Theists are hillarious

[@cyrus3316]

I wrote a comment about what this "evolution is a fairytale" guy believes ... Winged men in the skies waging a war against a horned tailed red ex- winged man 😂

[@dodumichalcevski]

@@cyrus3316 🤣🤣🤣

[@cyrus3316]

@@dodumichalcevski 🤣🤣🤦

[@cyrus3316]

@@alexojideagu the education system sucks!! They give a PhD to anyone that made it

[@joedavenport6156]

I have no doubt that Dr. Grocott is qualified as an inorganic chemist. I'm not sure that is the background needed to fully understand organic chemistry.

[@RC6790]

A theory is the best explanation which is supported by the facts or evidence! It has the highest standing in science (our knowledge) because science theories underpin our understanding of everything we know that is happening around us. It is not a religion, it is not understood by faith in something that is not sensed such as an unseen spirit. Evolution has literally millions of facts or data supporting the theory while religion has only stories from the past. If a God showed himself, he could be instantly elevated to the same level as evolution but alas, that has never happened. Believing in a God is like someone telling you a supernatural spirit is living in his barn and he has a book from his ancestors that tell fabulous stories of this spirit's power but you are not allowed to look inside the barn. For not looking you are promised that you get to live forever with that spirit as long as you have blind faith enough to believe the story! Good luck with that!

[@seanpol9863]

Also, claiming "God did it" just shuts down inquiry.

[@huzefahabib1137]

What about carbon dating

[@seanpol9863]

And radiometric dating, which determines the age of the Earth.

[@huzefahabib1137]

@seanpol9863 exactly. These are legit questions

[@seanpol9863]

@@huzefahabib1137 In what sense?

[@huzefahabib1137]

@@seanpol9863 the earth is 4.5 billion years old. This guy says it isn't. Can he prove it? I don't think so. There is enough data available that suggests it is billions of years old.

[@mrsmith4662]

I hadn't thought about the blended cockroaches idea.

[@OpolotAbel]

😂😂😂 I hope you won’t try it.

[@daverobson3084]

Mkaes you smarter than this guy.

[@SojournerDidimus]

Atheists could have a field day with this video, the wording is just too sloppy. For example, a cockroach soup will "become alive", because you failed to describe the sterilization. Those roaches are rife with germs and fungi that will "cause life".

[@EmehIfeanyi-nz5lf]

@@SojournerDidimus so you mean fungi and germs as you said, just came into being without a parent organism. According to Virchow, cells came from pre-existing cells .

[@SojournerDidimus]

@@EmehIfeanyi-nz5lf quite the opposite. I mean that making roach smoothie will not kill off any bacteria, so you just created a nice meal for them to multiply in.

[@s.unosson]

No cockroaches will turn up from the mix, however, unless a living cockroach puts its eggs there.

[@tosuchino6465]

The problem is with this chemist's thinking. He says that he reached his conclusion by elimination, which assumes that he has considered all possibilities. No one scientist can conceive ALL possibilities. That is extremely arrogant, in my opinion.

[@alexzendermarunsai]

@@tosuchino6465 please suggest what may be the alternative. Just like math , when there is no other way we can safe to say that is the only conclusion. If you can show otherwise then please show it.

[@tosuchino6465]

@@alexzendermarunsai One possible is that there were forces at the quantum level at work. There are other mysteries that cannot be explained in the realm of traditional chemistry. That's why new concepts like quantum chemistry and quantum biology were born. He is an industrial chemist, who probably has no knowledge of quantum chemistry, especially at the times when the earth's rotation rate and angle were quite different from today. Of course, my idea is pure speculation. I'm a computer scientist, not a chemist. In any case, my original point stands. No one scientist can conceive all possibilities, and there will be more discoveries in this field that no scientist has slightest ideas of yet. You surely don't mean to suggest he is scientifically omniscient, do you?

[@Grimtheorist]

This guy sure is confidently wrong about everything he said...

[@trickymind6755]

@@Grimtheorist so state the truths if u know better

[@Lipmip2376]

He's got 40 years of experience in organic and industrial chemistry... what experience do you have brother?

[@Grimtheorist]

@@Lipmip2376 That's called an "Appeal to Credentials" fallacy. His credentials don't prevent him from lying or simply being mistaken.

[@wkngtim8219]

How is he wrong and lying, can you explain and, state your case

[@muhammadawan7197]

Creator does exist : creation is the evidence of the creator: creator by definition is uncreated

[@cezar211091]

Wow, such logic.

[@markLawley-g8u]

Not Allah the false god but YAHWEH the true God.

[@Dominick13777]

1. Macroevolution is a theory that is increasingly facing skepticism within the scientific community. The evidence supporting macroevolution has become harder to substantiate due to the intricate nature of living organisms. These complexities are so profound that a timespan of 13 billion years appears inadequate to account for the emergence of life as proposed by macroevolutionary models. This does not imply that the scientific community will universally adopt a designer model; rather, it suggests that the macroevolution theory has reached its limits and requires a new framework. Ultimately, the designer theory is likely to emerge as the most plausible explanation.

[@globalcoupledances]

Macroevolution is a straw man. Now creationists are including emerge of life into macroevolution because creationists hate the truth

[@alantasman8273]

Stephen Jay Gould …paleontologist quotes on the fossil record: • “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. … In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, 1977) • “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” (Gould, 1980) • “All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.” (Gould, 1982, p. 189) • “No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seemed to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields … a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere!” (Eldredge, 1995, p. 95)

[@globalcoupledances]

@alantasman8273 - 1995? @Dominick13777 - what is macroevolution? a straw man?

[@Penrodyn]

@@Dominick13777 I’ve not met a single scientist, especially a biologist that is skeptical of evolution. The only people who are skeptical are religious people. It is there right of course to be skeptical, what I don’t like is their dishonesty in how they present evidence. How about we keep religion and science separate?

[@Dominick13777]

@Penrodyn microevolution is accepted and proven but macroevolution has not been proven.

[@muhammadbello9341]

Uh people! The hallmark of evolution isn't about rejecting a creator, evolution is a science and what science does, is to describe a process, HOW something unfolded, how it is changing, evolution is not interested in the WHO question, and it is not the same thing as saying the creator doesn't exist or he's not behind the origin of life, most of us are not interested in who found KZbin, we are only interested in how KZbin work, and if I decide to study and follow all the techniques, policies, changes and processes down to the birth of KZbin, I still don't need to question who gave birth to KZbin since my aim is to find how it is operating and it keeps changing. But I do agree that it is a mistake for biologist to suggest that life starts from a single cell molecule, even though a physicist can boldly say the universe starts from the singularity of the big bang.

[@avejupiter8486]

I doubt this guy could even define evolution let alone disprove it.

[@RFC72]

He has a PhD in physical and inorganic chemistry; with 35 years in mineral processing. He shouldn't even be up there talking about what he has zero training on.

[@avejupiter8486]

@@RFC72 all that knowledge but can't even describe what evolution is accurately because he thinks if evolution is true it somehow conflicts with God. Pitiful.

[@vladim73]

​​@@RFC72So you and the other arrogant commentators are the "qualified" ones!? How insolent!😁

[@amazighidourarehammoudi409]

athiest : peoples believe because they are afraid of darkness . The believer : peoples don't want to accept the existence of God because they are scarred of light .

[@s.unosson]

How do you define evolution?

[@2027Judah]

Thank you for the upload

[@tomwiedemeier4406]

Not only did God create the world, He holds all the molecules together, keeps the electrons from flying out of orbit, with His own hands. Some day He will let go and BABY! Watch out. One giant Universal fireball.

[@stephenbell-booth2648]

Spot on

[@brunobastos5533]

but allow to all evil and wars and suffer

[@alantasman8273]

By Jesus...all things consist.

[@stephenbell-booth2648]

@@tomwiedemeier4406 when you think about it, everything that exists in the universe has to be held together otherwise it would fly apart. Going to be a bit messy when God calls time out, as He did when he commandeered the fountains of the deep to let off a head of steam, but next time it’s fire. The Climate change industry will have their work cut out

[@viermidebutura]

if god holds all molecules, is it the perpetrator or god responsible for the crime?

[@Freliop]

It’s really a best guess and they are trying to link one idea to another. Creationism is a story people told to explain existence which appears to have always been a question. Humans have always looked for an outside cause to the brilliance they see on Earth. They know they didn’t do it and yet it’s here…but they also know something had to be done because human experience shows that effort creates…but the scales are unimaginable so it has to be magic and it had to have happened rather quickly….and the person is not around, the entity is not anyone you see so they are now praying to statues, getting people who are messengers, praying about their issues…focusing in their issues and just like the Earth provides sustenance without you having to do much (in a sense, plants grow and bear fruit and this will happen as long as the process is not disrupted) so should the outcome of prayer…I pray and wait for fruit to bear. Does that mean there isn’t a creator…no…it would seem if we were created with purpose and intention we’d know this because we wouldn’t be made to be passive to the experience of life….scientist believe because we are passive, we are just here…we don’t have a direct outline for our purpose so we must just be here through a series of random events….childish…because life takes effort and there is purpose in everything that works to create and sustain itself it speaks to a creator and not chance. People know people so when they don’t understand something they start making up their own stories as to why…some stories have been more successful than others. So we know everything said is not true, no matter how ardently it’s stated. But there is a creator and I’m not going to make up a reason as to why we can’t see him, talk to him or understand the purpose of our lives…I’ll say we have the ability to ponder these thoughts and we all have an internal dialogue, instincts, feelings that help,guide our decisions….free choice believed or not…so without labeling it to put a bow on an argument I can defend by saying…well how do you know, you don’t know. I believe there is a God because I’ve been taught there is a God and I believe there is a God because I see the effects of rumination on negativity in my life and what focusing on good thoughts does. I see the world and I believe it was created by God…but my beliefs are shaped by where I was born and the family I was born into…it’s not an independent message I receive, but is what I am taught to believe and can figure out how to connect all experiences back to this central idea later in life…but it isn’t why…as I’ve stated purposeful effort brings about life and though people do certain things…there is a consistent string and some portion of truth in most stories…I’ve seen ghost and gotten warnings…people will say ghost don’t exist…I’m not sure but I know I got a clear message, they left because they thought I wasn’t listening or didn’t care and it happened. I hadn’t seen them since but who is going to listen to some random ghost saying something impossible. They said I need to leave my room because it would be covered with ants and the next morning my entire room, all the walls were covered with ants…who’d believe that? So are people seeing things maybe, is the messages unclear and seem impossible…could be which is why they are often dismissed….the messages seem impossible and also low stakes…like why is a supernatural being coming to tell me that….we have a body but we have a spirit and I do believe that lives on…the ability for that to happen is through God…who I believe in.

[@francisa4636]

It's pretty embarrassing that he conflates evolution with abiogenesis. Its also pretty embarrassing that he doesnt seem aware of any of the research including experimental evidence of self assembling proto rna chains. The man is just ignorant

[@alanpfeiffer9686]

If you don't have abiogenesis then you don't have evolution

[@josephbarkley3301]

@@francisa4636 also it's willful ignorance.

[@creationministriesintl]

"Abiogenesis" is also commonly called "chemical evolution". No naturalistic theory for the origin of living creatures would be complete without it (and "cosmic evolution" too, for that matter). Using "evolution" to speak of the grand sweep of naturalistic thinking about origins, as well as each of its parts (e.g. "cosmic evolution", "chemical evolution", "biological evolution") is not a creationist idea!

[@francisa4636]

@creationministriesintl None of this negates the fact the speaker conflates the specific theory of evolution and origin of life theories. The same applies to cosmic evolution too, it's a distinct theory and has nothing to do with the abiogensis or evolution as theories. Your damn right those theories have nothing to do with creationists, it involves actual science not the distortions, misunderstandings, conflation and general ignorance that's constantly used as justifications to attack actual science.

[@Frankdfn]

I don't think it's ignorance, I thinks it's lying.

[@iriemon1796]

Just once, it would be nice if one of these creationist videos had a speaker who actually has some knowledge of evolution. It's like these creationist video makers only watch other creationist videos and just repeat the same strawmen arguments falsehoods over and over and over. Evolution has nothing to do with creation of life. There is nothing about the process of evolution that purports to explain how life began on this planet. So claiming that evolution doesn't explain how life began and acting like that is a death blow to the theory of evolution is a complete straw man. It just shows ignorance. Yet we see this claim made over and over. And the true believers just fawn over it. Critical think seems sadly lacking, these days.

[@seanpol9863]

You're absolutely right-evolution doesn't claim to explain the origin of life, just how life changes over time through natural selection. The confusion often comes from mixing up the origin of life (abiogenesis) with evolution. Abiogenesis is still an area of scientific research, but evolution explains how life evolves once it exists. We have a wealth of evidence supporting evolution as well, including fossil records, genetic data, and observable evolution in species like bacteria. Creationist arguments that misrepresent or misunderstand evolution only hold back the conversation. And claiming "God did it" just shuts down inquiry.

[@DMilbury]

If you believe the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe, and that life came to be through undirected, natural processes, then you believe evolution is the origin of life. Sorry, it’s your science bro.

[@Ozzyman200]

Well the challenge stands. Can anyone find an actual flaw in evolution that creationism can fix?

[@timbuckman1232]

The existence of information.

[@Ozzyman200]

@@timbuckman1232 Not even a sentence, but the best attempt creationists have had so far.

[@Ozzyman200]

So no one has anything. All this money creationists have, and nothing.

[@ronbyrd1616]

The Cambrian explosion, watch the film "Darwins Dilemma" and be amazed...it's not for the faint-hearted atheist however .

[@Ozzyman200]

@@ronbyrd1616 I've seen a lot of conspiracy films that claimed to be not for the faint hearted and none of them had any substance. I've posted many times challenging creationists to present a flaw, yet no one can. It's always dodges. Can you give any more detail? Scientists are well aware of the Cambrian explosion. Can anyone explain the flaw in evolution it presents and how creationism fixes it?

[@vladim73]

Perhaps the most frequently repeated mistake that evolutionists make in their attacks on creation is to assert that ‘natural selection’ and ‘speciation’ prove evolution and disprove the biblical account of origins. Their bait-and-switch arguments imply that creationists believe in ‘fixity of species. But no reputable creationist denies speciation-in fact, it is an important part of creationist biology. As I showed it before, the real issue is whether evolution can explain the increase of genetic information content-enough changes to turn microbes into men, not simple change through time. Creationists, starting from the Bible, believe that God created different kinds of organisms, which reproduced ‘after their kinds’ (Gen. 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25). Thus the biblical kinds would have originally been distinct biological species, i.e., a population of organisms that can interbreed to produce fertile offspring but that cannot so breed with a different biological species. But creationists point out that the biblical ‘kind’ is larger than one of today’s ‘species.’ Each of the original kinds was created with a vast amount of information. God made sure that the original creatures had enough variety in their genetic information so that their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments. Based on the biblical criterion for kinds, creationists have made several deductions about the modern descendants of the original creations. They deduce, for example, that as long as two modern creatures can hybridize with true fertilization, the two creatures are descended from the same kind.3 Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same kind.4 The hybridization criterion is a valid operational definition, which could in principle enable researchers to list all the kinds. The implication is one-way-hybridization is evidence that two creatures are the same kind, but it does not necessarily follow that if hybridization cannot occur then they are not members of the same kind (failure to hybridize could be due to degenerative mutations). After all, there are couples who can’t have children, and we don’t classify them as a different species, let alone a different kind. The boundaries of the ‘kind’ do not always correspond to any given man-made classification such as ‘species,’ genus, family, etc. But this is not the fault of the biblical term ‘kind’; it is actually due to inconsistencies in the man-made classification system. That is, several organisms classified as different ‘species,’ and even different genera or higher groupings, can produce fertile offspring. This means that they are really the same species that has several varieties, hence a polytypic (many type) species. A good example is Kekaimalu the wholphin, a fertile hybrid between a male false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) and a female bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), i.e., between two different so-called genera.

[@numbersix9477]

I think you have both a Nobel prize winning falsification of the theory of evolution AND a proof of the Genesis account hidden in your post.

[@Guyver871]

It is very funny how skeptics debate the opposition, whilst creationists preach to their own choir...

[@aitoreilusuomi]

Sceptics in this matter are those who are not sure if creation or evolution is true. Who is their opposition? Those who believe evolution or creation? Or do you think sceptism just means denying the Bible?

[@aitoreilusuomi]

And what extra value would it have provided to the discussion if the person asking the questions had had opposing beliefs about the Bible? Is it not the truth that we are after? It can be searched together regardles how much each person's beliefs differ.

[@Guyver871]

@aitoreilusuomi truth is established by trying to disprove it, not deny it. It should be considered truth only after the claim withstands scrutiny. As for the bible... it just doesn't. It is by definition "a belief", not truth!!!

[@donalddarko9636]

These talks are always entertaining "millions of years millions years! second law of thermodynamics" they always take things that are easily and universally understood and lie about how they are impossible cracks me up everytime

[@hagiospneuma7436]

If we are looking at evidence, why not follow sumerian logic in terms of a designer since there is archaelogical evidence of the annunaki? Despite extensive research, no definitive archaeological evidence has been found for the Exodus or the existence of Moses as described in the Bible. Some scholars argue that Moses is a composite figure or a mythological creation based on various Middle Eastern cultural influences. The Exodus story might reflect collective memories of different events, such as smaller migrations or social upheavals, rather than a single, unified event. A lot of information presented in the bible can be easily disproven if we looked at real data and some scholars believe some stories from the bible are based on annunaki folklore

[@richardvitty1745]

It's ok to say I don't know. Lack of knowledge doesn't have to lead to " it must be god " ( whichever one of thousands that have been invented by men )

[@fmkhan213]

I think you are still listening to it with a closed mindset. As he said, if there's a clear indication of a design in the living beings, someone must be designing it, all of this cannot be just a coincidence. It takes far too less to believe in a designer than extraordinarily almost impossible to occur chances

[@VaughanMcCue]

@@fmkhan213 Humans are pattern seekers, so we 'see' (pareidolia) recognisable images in clouds. Snowflakes and numerous elements may appear designed in their original form. Take a look at: Giants Causeway. Unique geological hexagonal formations of volcanic basalt rocks on the coast of Northern Ireland.

[@NorthernGrit]

So he finds it easier to believe that some unknown entity called God, formed the Earth and with it the Universe in 6 days and what’s more, this all took place 6,000 or so years ago.

[@Loading....99.99]

He's not alone, he's backed by millions of us who have the same belief.

[@w12ath040211]

And that God created the earth, plants and animals BEFORE creating the sun.

[@eugenebroski]

God is known, not unknown.

[@tomwiedemeier4406]

Yes, it’s not up for debate because the consensus among us Christians is that it’s true. You know, the same argument tree huggers use as proof for climate change.

[@Jupiter1423]

​​@@jockyoung4491 supported by science...? you mean infallible human observation? because that's what science is.

[@AngkyMac]

Very well communicated as a well designed and carried out interview. Especially I like the sensible presentation of the topic and how the conclusion is so very well supported.

[@MrPDTaylor]

Who designed the designer?

[@fighter-nj7vl]

@@MrPDTaylor The Creator has no beginning or end, and He is the First, meaning He is not created. If He were created, His divinity would be lost.

[@josephpublico2337]

@@fighter-nj7vl Oh well, we wouldn't want his divinity to be lost, would we? That ends that then... On the other hand, I can say "Life had no beginning, it just was. It became more complex because it did."

[@MarcelinhoTheRock]

Excelent content, thanks again CMI for making creationism worldwide accessible.

[@dodumichalcevski]

He is a liar

[@Hillmanh2832]

yeah full of scientific illiteracy 😂😂

[@MarcelinhoTheRock]

@@Hillmanh2832 Ow yeah, scientists with PhDs Full of scientific iliteracy

[@Hillmanh2832]

@@MarcelinhoTheRock its out of his expertise and he has zero knowledge of evolution.

[@MarcelinhoTheRock]

@Hillmanh2832 You said scientific iliteracy, not Evolution iliteracy, or maybe you think Science = Evolution.

[@torenicolaifjelldal]

We need to distinguish between 1) Creation of the universe 2) Origin of life 3) Evolution Number 1, I don’t know. Number 2, I don’t know. But number 3 is proven, beyond any doubt. I wish people who argue against this just checked it out. But a nice vise guy with a meaningful conversation and very valid arguments. About fossils, and left handed proteins. He suggests the fossils are young because of the left/right ratio, but didn’t he say hours and weeks young? (The left right ration is very quick) Why is it almost only species that don’t exist anymore? Response to his ending. I used to believe in God, it was amazing, really an unbelievable good part of my life. If you can believe, do it!

[@christophersmith2470]

Evolution is NOT proven beyond doubt. Even athiest scientists call it the THEORY of evolution. Not the FACT of evolution. As far as the rest of what you wrote, it literally makes 0 sense. You're obviously misguied and easily manipulated.

[@secrostegatops6554]

​@christophersmith2470 tell me your homeschooled without telling me your homeschooled. A scientific theory is the highest position in the scientific field, the explanation that best supports the facts by the greatest consensus, hence it is fact unless a better explanation comes along.

[@christophersmith2470]

@@secrostegatops6554 Lol, me homeschooled? No, I went to public schools in the inner city so I'm sure I was indoctrinated with the same propaganda that you are still today. You have your worldview that you call 'facts', and even more revealing as ignorance, in 'consensus', but I have my beleif system. I pray that Jesus Christ reveals himself to you some way, so that you can experience real truth, and more importantly, peace. Also, science that considers itself settled, isn't actually science at that point.

[@BeefT-Sq]

@@secrostegatops6554 " If there's any sensible question to answer, I believe that it is done via philosophy. Whatever it is that makes religion "religion" -- mystical claims to knowledge, a belief in the supernatural, etc. -- are mistaken. Whatever is left over that is good about religious institutions, including a sense of community, artistic inspiration, charitable organization, etc., is no less available to the secular and the rational." -Anonymous- from an Objectivist forum

[@Tiny_and_Reese]

This video should have been titled, "Yet another creationist video where we interview a guy with a PhD in a field totally irrelevant to evolution but we're going to use his credentials to trick people into thinking the theory of evolution is up for debate." Honestly, I'm not mad at these people. I'm mad because the whole notion of the "faulty appeal to authority fallacy" hasn't sunk in yet over repeated exposure to it from, let's be honest here, mostly creationist. I don't have time to go through everything, but here's the little that I did catch. "I call it a fairytale because fairytales start with once upon a time..." You're referring to the origins of the universe. I'm pretty sure no cosmologist uses the term "once upon a time" but hey certainly helps the narrative you're selling to characterize it that way, right? That aside though, tell me how you might describe THE BEGINNING of something? This association with fairytales is literally as flimsy as, "Well Hitler had a stupid moustache and so do you, so we should lock you up before you do a Holocaust." But hey if you have such a problem with "once upon a time" perhaps you have a similar problem with "In the beginning." "The big bang theory is becoming under increasing secular criticism from the scientific community." Okay so this is him as a scientist committing a lie of omission at the gullible or uneducated. Science is not in the business of proving things right. It's in the business of proving things wrong. Every theory (scientific) is under constant scrutiny/ criticism at all times forever from everyone who is in the relevant field. To say that "the big bang theory is under criticism", is not untrue. The problem is, it's basically just saying "science is doing science" but what a non-STEM audience hears is "oh this theory is on shaky ground!" As a scientist, he should be ashamed of himself. "All the normal laws of chemistry and physics were suspended..." If he knew a single law of physics or chemistry that was suspended for the sake of abiogenesis, he would have named it. The fact that he doesn't and instead says "all the laws" is exactly like Donald Trump saying, "Everyone knows it, you know, I know it." when he's trying to sell you on bullcrap. It's basically saying "You don't have to research this, because it's so flimsy" without actually saying this, and hey if you say it confidently enough, people won't actually look it up. It's like a game. A game of confidence on might say. A confidence game. "It's not supported by observational science." And this comes from the mouth of someone who's never observed the science regarding origins of life. Look I don't want anyone thinking that I think I'm smarter than them, because I'm not. I draw for a living, I'm not a scientist. What I'm just upset at the world about, really, is the injustice that arises from people like this who will take advantage of your ignorance (not an insult). Please, read about these things, learn about the world, so that people like this can't get up on a stage and tell you lies designed to comfort you and profit them.

[@neuromancer845]

Why do you think chemistry is a field totally irrelevant to the origin of life? Origin of life is the question of how chemistry transitioned into biology. The problem is that a lot of biologists work on origin of life, when it's actually a problem of chemistry. Not sure why you would dispute that. Chemistry is quite literally the field most situated to address this problem.

[@MH-rs9we]

@@neuromancer845 The commenter: a guy with a PhD in a field totally irrelevant to EVOLUTION You: a field totally irrelevant to the ORIGIN OF LIFE Not saying chemistry is irrelevant, but you know evolution and origin of life are two different subjects, yes? Looks like you and the guy in the video are both confused. And here is the thing, whether it's evolution or abiogenesis, I'd rather listen to scientists working in those fields than a chemist who, in this video, trying to deny the most well supported scientific theory while demonstrating the level of knowledge (or lack thereof) that's lower than highschool or just straight up lies.

[@Tiny_and_Reese]

@@neuromancer845 couple of things. 1. He’s not a general chemist. His specialty is in inorganic chemistry, appropriately so, since his specific job and area of genuine expertise, and impressive resume was in mining and metallurgy. 2. I said evolution, not origin of life. 3. Even if I had said origin of life, that wouldn’t matter, because people who have expertise in studying the origin of life absolutely disagree with his position. 4. Do you really think people who study the origin of life haven’t considered chemistry and hired chemists to help answer these questions in their gap in knowledge? 5. Do you yourself have the expertise to actually know what the problems are with origin of life, and if so, on what grounds do you say it’s a chemistry problem? Like what’s the specific problem? 6. Does none of the rest of my comment sincerely not give you pause for thought? Lying by omission, flimsy comparisons, confidence games…. None of that?

[@numbersix9477]

@@Tiny_and_Reese Genesis 1:1 - Once upon a time, God created the heavens and the earth.

[@jamesstrawn6087]

With abiogenesis, this seems to be evidence for a designer, an engineer, not (necessarily) a (G)od. This solves nothing "in a positive way" since it only puts the question back a step. So there always reamins the matter of faith. One thing I do know: I am not God nor am I "a" god. As a Christian I have deep convictions. But as someone arguing about abiogenesis, I can say (also with conviction) that here we see design and this by some entity far advanced from (a presently rather arrogant) mankind. One last point: If the possibilities are just two: randomness and design, then the odds of the one must be inverse the odds of the other. This is why even the "possibility" of design must be inadmissable for one professing random chance. If abiogenesis amounts to odds of 1 to 9 then the odds for design must be 9 to 1. A problem.

[@igorkrugly4842]

When will you stop mixing abiogenesis and evolution. Read a Wikipedia for a start.

[@gordonlynn8300]

I think you got it backwards , Creationalism is a Fairytale . You live in a modern world created by Science , this is yet another guy who is an embarrassment to Science .

[@farukkonuralpeser2906]

Bilim yapabildiğin determinist bir dünyanın varlığı dahi bir yaratıcıya işaret eder. Asıl utanç verici olan, adına bilim dediğin şeyin aslında bir sanat olduğunu göremiyor olmanız.