Debate: Creationism vs Evolution
2015 ж. 25 Мам.
80 727 Рет қаралды
Honors society Phi Theta Kappa presents a debate on Creationism vs Evolution. Dr. Jay L. Wile debates for Creationism, and Dr. Robert Martin debates for Evolution.
Paducah 2 Television is produced through the facilities and administration of West Kentucky Community and Technical College.
04:55 Wile Opening (Cre) 22:00 Martin Opening (Evo) 37:25 Wile Rebuttal 43:20 Martin Rebuttal 51:35 Wile Rebutt to Rebutt 56:40 Martin Rebutt to Rebutt 01:02:30 Q&A
Adorable how these creationists are reduced to arguing on KZhead while the real frontiers of science have moved far past them.
Ahhh not there problem that the world continues to grow apart from God and hate his people
@@joelcarter2535 When folks claim to represent science and lie, misrepresent it and talk irrationally abput it, as creationists do, of course people are going to walk away from God.
@@ozowen5961 ok so now you have to back up that claim!
@@joelcarter2535 Have you ever heard a creationist say: There are no transitional forms (fossils)? Evolution is just a theory (not a law)? There are only deleterious mutations? Evolution cannot be true if Abiogenesis cannot be proven? Nothing became everything? We all came from a rock? There are lots of frauds to prove evolution? Evolution cannot be observed? Evolution cannot be tested in a lab? Mutations cannot provide new information? The reason we have deep time is to allow evolution to happen? Dating methods are unreliable? Sedimentary layers prove the flood? There are kangaroo fossils in South Africa? All of these are false Happy to discuss.
@@joelcarter2535 So Joel........
The creationist keeps saying vestigial = useless. This is completely wrong. Vestigial means the structure has vestiges of a former usage, but they certainly can still have a function! The whale pelvic has a usage but it isn't walking.
The word "vestigial" is not a scientific term, it is an unscientific claim void of science and used through ignorance of its function.
You assume that the Whale originally had the bone so it could walk, and now it has a different use! You see the problem, you ASSUME it used to walk! There is no evidence for that, just your imagination. What we observe is that Reproductive muscles attach to the bone, which acts as an anchor! You ASSUME alot!! Evolutionists do lots of ASSUMING, without actual evidence!
The Creationist avoids mentioning all the mistakes in nature eg 'design' faults in human such as astigmatism and short-sightedness, cancer, inherited disease and deformities, children born with missing brains, limbs, heart defects etc.
@@jomc20that's because you have absolutely no clue what your talking about. Biblically once the fall of man happened all things like what you pointed became something man has to deal with. I would at least recommend you reading the Bible if your going to try to complain about it. When you make uneducated comments like you just did, well it honestly makes you look like an ignorant moron having a temper tantrum or your just lying and being a deceitful turd. Just a piece of advice for u
Sorry you can't show it was related to any non whale. There is no real way to prove anything you said. Whales have never walked therefore your statement is crap.
Was the audio error at 14:00 covering something important?
Perhaps it was your internet. Everything seems smooth to me.
A good question would be- to what degree are the different positions (what Wile calls "flavors") held by young and old-earth creationists determined by evidence, or rather by preexisting beliefs?
You'd have to include Old Earth Evolutionists in with that question too. The difference mainly boils down to: each of the three groups choose differing interpretations of the same observable scientific evidence. For example, young earth Creationists choose different dating methods than Old Earth Evolutionists (who actually rely on dating methods that are provably false, like radiometric dating which shows dinosaur fossils are 10s of millions of years old despite finding soft tissue in them often which is literally scientifically impossible.)
@@lightbeforethetunnel lol snaps back with the predictable lies and misrepresentations of the research of Mary Schweitzer who has publicly repudiated creationists frequent mis characterization of her research’s conclusions. Creationists are so predictable because none of them are thinking for themselves. They are simply regurgitating dogma passed down a long human centipede of disinformation from the heads at ICR and DI.
@@isidoreaerys8745 Wait a minute, are you trying to imply you think Mary Schweitzer is the only scientist who has discovered soft tissue in supposedly "ancient" dinosaur fossils? If so, it's become an ongoing trend. There are numerous examples of it now. I recommend looking into Mark Armitage, who was a respected scientist who found and evaluated soft tissues in and around the horn of a triceratops fossil. He got it peer-reviewed, which really angered his co-workers who then illegally fired him & he sued them for it. His supervisor stormed into his office, declaring "we won't tolerate your religion at this university!" And fired him. Which is interesting given all he did was get the facts peer-reviewed without making any conclusions, simply saying more work needs to be done. But apparently the facts aren't appropriate when they conflict with Evolutionism. There are numerous other examples too, many of which are blatantly attempted to be covered up.
@@isidoreaerys8745 I'd also be curious to hear what you think of the recent breakthroughs in cellular biology: Extremely complex machine-like structures which they've detected now that they have extremely improved technology and can observe at a much more microscopic level. These machine-like structures which are involved with DNA simply could not be the result of natural selection, given they are far too complex & show obvious signs of design & purpose. Cellular Biology is in an interesting state, overall, because of it. It's borderline a crisis for Evolutionists who don't know how to react or handle it because it's so overwhelmingly obvious what it means but many of them have staked entire careers on Evolution being true. So they have to pretend like there may be other explanations when anyone with more than two brain cells to knock together can clearly determine what the implications are.
@@isidoreaerys8745 By the way, Mary Schweitzer's is not the sole arbiter of truth about what she happened to discover by the way. She has spoken out against Creationists who made false claims, yes. But that does not change the fact serious Creationists don't do that... nor does it change the fact that the evidence itself clearly conflicts with the Evolutionary model and supports the Creationism model when properly evaluated. Just because she, herself, does not happen to be a Creationist makes no difference. If you understood how science has always been a battle of paradigms, you would realize her personal views are completely irrelevant to what the evidence actually indicates. Plus, many of the claims she has made have been countered by the fact numerous other similar discoveries have been made since then along with the fact she was indoctrinated into Evolution & her career is heavily invested into Evolution being true, so of course she's going to want to distance herself from Creationists. You seem to be completely dismissing the history of science and how it has always been a battle of competing paradigms with a lot of dogmatism about those paradigms. The opinions of one scientist makes little to no difference, even if she's the one who happened to discover it. What matters is: The objective evidence itself and the actual implications of it.
Dr Wile seems to think there are no vestigial organs in human beings. All these organs have a purpose. Animals have a way of keeping warm by raising their fur or their feathers to create insulation. Humans have this feature as well, it's called goosebumps. This serves no purpose in humans. It can be explained as a leftover remnant from when we were furry or hairier creatures. But as an independently designed creature, there's no reason for that to be introduced into the design. It can be explained as of vestigial organ. It can't be reasonably explained as a design feature.
you must haven't met anyone with a lot of hair lol. It's to keep us warm, just like ant other mammal
1:09:00 - magnetic fields flip. Do they flip or strengthen and weaken?
They weaken, they strengthen, they flip. All of the above. They often weaken prior to a flip.
Congratulations Dr.jay from evolutionist to creationist
If there was any scientific evidence that there was a better explanation/theory then that new theory would be the the most likely or prevailing theory/explanation. And that scientist would get a Nobel Prize
Many thousands of scientists have now proven evolution to be impossible, but the evolutionists try to destroy their credibility. My friend, Raymond Damadian, a great scientist who invented the MRI was told by evolutionists that would be impossible to invent, and after he invented it he was denied the Nobel Prize ONLY BECAUSE HE WAS A CREATIONIST. Atheistic professors throughout the USA have intentionally ruined the career of thousands of scientists and educators because they presented proven scientific facts that were against the story of evolution, only because those atheists wanted to keep the story of evolutionism in dogma, trying to protect their own reputation. This has been well documented.
Your comment reveals a lot of faith in the academic community. Unfortunately, bias and corruption exist in reality. People, in general, are prone to defend their pre-existing beliefs in an irrational way due to bias. When you have a scientific community filled with people who were taught Darwinian Evolution is real growing up, it is not an easy task to get them to admit it's false. People become emotionally attached to their pre-existing beliefs and many of their careers depend on Evolution being true. There's a famous quote that goes: "All truth comes in three stages. First, it is ridiculous. Then it's violently opposed. Third, it's accepted as self-evident." There is a lot of truth in those words. I suspect it won't make sense to you at first, but please research it until it does. Once you understand the meaning, you'll understand why it can be so difficult to update the current scientific consensus with the truth, regardless of evidence/reasoning.
@@lightbeforethetunnel - It is refreshing to read what you said, which is the same thing I have also been saying. God said that in the last days that the elite (who are considered wise in their own eyes) will believe a lie. For what is in dogma in the 'scientific community" to change is for them to die off and a new generation then replaces them.
@@danminer5343 That's refreshing to hear that you understand! Thanks for your response. The Bible tells us the truth all this time. It's amazing to me because I'm somewhat new to realizing the Bible is actually true. I wasn't sure about it growing up. But over the past few years I've done almost nothing but research the lies of society. We've been lied to about a lot more than just evolution! The heliocentric model is false too, and much more.
@@lightbeforethetunnel - Another big attack on the Bible are the many revised versions that intentionally change the theology of the Bible,. I am reading through the King James Bible for the 27th time, after reading though the corrupted NIV twice. All modern revised versions mixed lies with the truth, a clever way to mislead people from the truth. May God bless you, my brother.
Show the screen!
Does anybody have side by side of actual fossil pictures to prove evolution and not drawings?
The easiest to find is that of human skulls. And I use "human" loosely.
The create model prediction is simply restating what evolution stated would have happened, then asserted it was the work of a creator
That is total baloney. For example, the creationist model predicts stasis and that is what we see. For example evolution predicts that new species will turn into new families, new orders, new classes, new phylum. You can see that in Darwin's so called Tree of Life and all over evolutionary lit. Creationists predict lifeforms will never change above the level of a new species. This is based on where the Bible says creation stopped on the 6th day. And it is backed up by all data. We are told over and over and over that a new species shows evolution. Nope. Speciation (the creation of new species) does not support evolution as it is an example of stasis and stasis is the exact opposite of evolution. For ex. over 200,000 species of beetles are all still beetles. There are thousands upon thousands of species of birds, bees, lizards, trees, bacteria, trees, yeast, flowers, whatever. If a new species develops within any groups at all, you can bet your bottom science dollar that it will still be just a beetle, bee, bacteria, tree, fish, or whatever. . We are supposed to fill in the blanks here with...faith...and think, "Well! If a new species develops then things just keep evolving and evolving from there on." But the next step above a species, in the animal or plant kingdom, is a family. (A genus is just a grouping of similar species together). We aren't seeing any new families (much less any new order, class, phylum or kingdom) forming. Anywhere. Ever. According to Darwin's so called Tree of Life and peer reviewed evolutionary literature, new Families have evolved. Over and over and over. Not just new families are claimed, but also the creation of new orders, classes, phyla. . However, nature operates today as it did in the past. In the real world, with trillions o f life forms around us, we never see anything developing above the level of a new species. Those life forms out there have purportedly had eons and eons of ancestors preceding them which should be revealing at least one example of a part this family "transitioning" to be a part that of another family. Again, we see stasis. . We only see "transitions" to those higher levels in the purely theoretical, unverifiable, ancient past, in the realm of evolutionary literature, and never in any life around us. If there is no evidence for transitions from one family to another - and please provide data if you know of any such evidence in the observable and not theoretical realm - then there is no evidence for evolution. It's that simple. And that's just for starters on how evolutionism defies real science. . Anyone: Kindly don't say some fossil provides the evidence. It is easy to point to a pile of petrified bones and make up stories about how its invsible and evidence free descendants turned into some other life form. But if you insist, use a fossil. Name it. Then tell how you know it even had a descendant, much less one significantly different from it, much less one that crossed the family barrier. Name the family it is transitioning out of and the one it is transitioning into. . Or, here's another chance to support evolution with data. They say the two driving forces behind it are natural selection and beneficial mutations. Great. Name a life form. Tell what act of NS or what beneficial mutation is causing it to "evolve." Again, use real life forms. There are trillions out there. And we're told evolution is happening all the time. Remember, evolutionary poster kids like antibiotic resistant bacteria, walking stick bugs, some geckos, snowflake yeast, people with sickle cell anemia and so on show evolution is NOT happening. That's because they are all steadfastly staying bacteria, walking stick bugs, geckos, snowflake yeast and people. If not, what are they "evolving" into that doesn't fall into those categories? Cite your data. . But you will not. When evolution defending supporters on YT are asked to name a life form and then a mutation or act of NS that is causing it to evolve, they don't do that. They may put down a plethora of words, but there is no data in those words, whatsoever, provided for that request. When they are asked to name a life form that is moving from being more than just a new species into a new family (not to mention class, order or phylum), ditto. . You are not a goo through the zoo update. You have a Heavenly Father Who made you in HIS image and likeness. He loves you and wants you to know Him, and to love Him, too. If you are an atheist and evolution believer, if you are anyone at all, He wants you to be His child. Forever. I know I found that out myself when I was an atheist and evolution believer who had never looked outside the box.
Just utter nonsense. The entire body of scientific of discovery until the 20th century was by devout christians. Science in the western world was developed to understand Gods creation. Most if not all of the most profound thinkers in antiquity were Christian’s. So you have it backwards, my friend, the religion of atheism has co-opted in the study of the natural world from Christians, and the other God-fearing people.
@@psalm1tree466excellent reply. I just wish it was about half the length as most won't take the time to read it. It's great to see someone else out their using their brain. I just wanted to say thank you.
@@vikingskuld wow, your response was really different. I have left postd on creationism for years under evo vids. Two or three times it seems that I’ve gotten positive responses. So I thank you in return. Yes, mine was an incredibly long post. Maybe I should’ve made it shorter. Too late now. ☺️ I am not currently initiating any posts on the Crevo issues, only replying to whatever is sent to me. And the replies are usually way shorter. Blessings to you and yours as I have prayed.
Too bad he didn't say the watch also evolved and was not complex at first.
You weren’t lustening
Debate ? There is no debate. One side has evidence, one side has myth
correct evolution has zero evidence that supports it as a valid scientific theory.
@@kennethgee2004 yes, evolution is a conclusion based on evidence, in fact, evolution has more proof than all other theories combined, However some people cannot believe it because it conflicts with their religion,
@@caryfrancis8030 Really? Where has anyone ever observed evolution? Where has any test of evolution been performed that did not included intelligent input? Where has anyone ever been able to reproduce anything that evolution supposedly has accomplished? No, there is exactly zero evidence for evolution as a valid scientific theory. Evolution was designed specifically to remove the need of God, so by definition and design evolution is at odds with the Bible.
@@kennethgee2004 The corona virus is evolving, We observe variants. We also have math to predict mutation rate. lets face it, you are not allowed to believe it because of your religion. So it doesnt matter to you if it is true or not
@@kennethgee2004 The ecoli experiments have constantly witnessed evolution. The one where the mutations allowed the ecoli to consume the medium they lived in was a surprise. There is a constant stream of evidence for evolution. Constant. All the evidence is for evolution. Just because your fave creationist sites repeat the same old cant about how there is none does not mean they are right. They are objectively wrong.
Enjoyable debate. I'm still looking for a reported observation where a random mutation creates new functional genetic code for a new functional protein. Without a profuse abundance of that observation, the basic mechanism alleged to drive evolution is a fairy tale. Mathematical calculations appear to indicate that it is impossible for random mutations to create functional code, which corroborates evolutionists failure to observe what they allege is their basic mechanism.
Of course we have examples of that. Enzymes are proteins, for example, and we've got examples of the evolution of new enzymes, such as nylonase, both in the flavobacteria (naturally) and in E Coli (in lab).How about instead of just stating what you did, you actually go and read about the subject you're talking about? Are you more interested in learning about it, or more interested in spreading misinformation?
+antiHUMANDesigns send a link to the Nylase enzyme evolution please. Some claim the nylonase enzyme was pre-existing, even if it's catalytic cleft was altered by 1 point mutation. There seems to be a dispute whether - or not - nylonase is a "new enzyme" resulting from genetic mutation. It may be an altered but pre-existing enzyme. It may - or may not be - beneficial. Did the alteration make the enzyme less effective on typical media? If so, then you may have a problem with an evolutionist claim because nylons are not very wide spread. There may be a fallacy of logic to the extent that evolutionists claim that since nylon was developed recently that any bacteria found to digest nylon MUST be a recent evolution. There's also the claim that the flavobacteria did not evolve into a new species and that the nylon digestion is merely an adaptation, which was designed into the genetic code and sub-cellular machinery. Do you have any whole new genes created by random mutation?
+Joe Baublis The Lenski experiment is another documented example of mutations giving rise to new genes with new abilities that help an organism survive.
armbender Actually the Lenski debacle is another example of evolutionists rushing to proclaim something that later turned out to be wrong. Contrary to initial claims, Lenski's E. Coli did not mutate new genes. Rather, the E. Coli mutated in a way that destroyed an existing gene. As I recall, the destroyed gene was a suppressor. The suppressor normally suppressed citrate metabolism. But when the suppressor gene was destroyed - the resulting strain began to metabolize citrate. Contemporary Darwinism - requires the observation of mutations creating a profuse abundance of completely new operational genes with new operational proteins in such a profuse abundance that new species "originate" (as in the "origin" of species). What HAS been observed (Lenski is an example) is the destruction of pre-existing genetic code by mutation. But obviously, if species gradually lose genetic code they will eventually have no genetic code at all. So, the observation of the loss of genetic code does NOT support evolution. It actually supports the creation model.
Joe Baublis False. The experiment showed two existing genes creating a new gene. Of course new genes have to come from somewhere else e.g. existing genes. Only creationists use magic to explain the natural world. New genes just don't poof into existence out of nowhere. No offense, but duh!
In the advanced world it's 2019, what year is it in much of America?
About 1320 judging by the responses of some of the posts in this thread
This debate is pretty much dead. Hopefully the holdouts will eventually die out and their kids will know better.
The second you have a book/explanation which cannot be thrown away then it is no longer science it’s religion
Dafuq??
But you use science text books?🤷♂️
Exactly. Evolution is the only religion allowed in schools today.
Wow you described evolution just perfectly.... I mean spot on, you use all these books and bad papers and say it's real no matter how much proof there is against it lol.
After this debate the good folks at Answers in Genesis will be hosting the Crane Delivery vs Female Birth debate to decide where babies come from.
8:01 How is a doctor's opening argument for Creationism the phrase "ANT REPELLANT" in all quotes?
Because it shows how clearly designed nature is. If you take one single type of animal out of a coral reef system, *boom* no more coral reef system. That is very strong evidence to show that things could not have evolved over time randomly, because if that were true they simply wouldn't have prospered at all. Another nice example is the symbiotic relationship between pollinators and flowers. Without bees, flowers wouldn't exist, but without flowers, bees wouldn't exist. Tell me how either of those two life forms can evolve separately if they literally rely on each other to exist at all.
I don’t get it? It’s like ya wing a debate about what weapon is best an ar15 or a light saber? One is real and one isn’t
debate is about if ar15 is real or lightsaber not which is better
So according to Wile nothing is natural?
I do not thing he said or implied that. I think he only claims that creation is the bettter model.
@@DesertFlowerQueen So what does he think occurred naturally?
@@giuffre714, clearly in the questions part he admits that there are some changes which occur naturally but within the species. He agrees there are mutations, but these mutations do not add new information and therefore can not produce evolution. Only adaptation.
@@DesertFlowerQueen So why are there 45,000 species of spiders? Some people will say "Yeah but they're all spiders". There are 6,000 different species of mammals. We are one of them. Nobody ever says "Yeah but were all mammals". I think we're just prejudice : )
@@giuffre714 there is a difference between species and genus and families. These are called taxonomies and this is a way to classify existing animals. This does not imply or "proove" evolution in any way. I think that the question is if mutations or all other processes are really a good enough explanation to "prove" evolution. And my personal opinion is also: NO. Not good enough. This falls under the confirmation bias.
The "predictions" of the creation model? That's quite a generous definition of the word "prediction." And let's not get into the usage of the term "model."
It's not only a "generous definition", it's flat out wrong. Creationists like to "predict" things we already know, which means it's simply not a "prediction".
@@antiHUMANDesigns- Wrong. Every prediction made by evolutionists have failed, while every prediction made by Creationists are successful. Creationists predicted that there is no "junk DNA", that Neanderthals are human, that nobody would ever find a half man-half ape, that ERVs are not ERVs, that there are no vestigial organs. Russell Humphreys successfully predicted correctly the magnetic field of planets while the evolutionists' predictions failed miserably.
@@danminer5343 Absolutely correct Dan, thanks!
@@danminer5343 That was an extremely slanted and duplicitous post, even for a creationist. Creationism makes no predictions, according to it's tenets things now are the way God made them so if there is no change there is not much to predict .Junk (or non coding, as it is known today) DNA was first investigated by David Cumings in the 1970's - and he's a genomic biologist, by the way, not a creationist. The term was formalised by Susume Ohno who is a geneticist and evolutionary biologist, also not a creationist. ERVs are endogenous retroviruses whose insertion into the human genome, as measured by cross sectional analysis has been calculated to have occurred about 800,000 years ago - so much for Young Earth Creationism. They were first predicted in the mid seventies by, you've guessed it, evolutionary geneticists, not creationists (gasp!). The half man/ape is unlikely to have ever existed as both humans and apes have evolved since their last separation about 400,000 years ago so predicting that they would not be found is a no brainer. Finally Russell Humphreys is a scientific mustang, beloved of creationists, because some of his wilder claims align with those of a Young Earth hypothesis. He did not predict the magnetic fields of other planets he merely claimed that his theories, which are unsupported by the entirety of the astrophysics community, better explained some of the readings taken by space probes on a number of flybys. So there you have it, creationism at it's worst, false claims, half truths and out and out lies. But I am sure that you have more.....
@@madgeordie4469, you should really be embarrassed. Don't you fell ashamed, that you fell for all of that false propaganda and failed predictions? It is because you swallowed a false philosophy instead of real science. Every prediction made by an evolutionist has failed. Never has any evolutionist been able to find any science that favored the story of 'evolution'. Evolutionism is anti-science. Today we find that there is no "junk DNA". In fact, all DNA has a function except where mutations have destroyed its function. What was labeled "junk DNA" is now known to contain codes for over 6,000,000 transcriptions. Evolutionists predicted that DNA had only one layer of codes, but today we know that there a many layers of codes on the DNA and can be read in many different ways. Evolutionists predicted that each gene coded for one protein, but that prediction failed, as each gene can code for multiple proteins. Evolutionists predicted that mutations could be evolutionary, that they could increase information, but today we know that all mutations lose information. (Excluding back mutations correcting previous mutations). Evolutionists predicted that antibiotic resistance in bacteria occurred by gaining information but today we know that it is by either losing information (most often) or using already information due to excellent original design. One mutation can damage multiple codes. Evolutionists predicted that mutations make viruses stronger, but today we know that mutations eventually can cause viruses to become extinct. Evolutionists predicted that there are ERVs and mislabeled them as such. Today we know that they do have a function except for those few that were disabled b y mutations.Russel Humphrey's prediction on the magnetic fields was extremely accurate while the evolutionists claimed that there could be no gravity. Evolutionists predicted that man evolved from an ape like creature that evolved from something else that evolved from something else, etc. Creationists always believed that each kind (baramin) was created already containing all of there required parts and systems so that they could live and reproduce. Today this is verified by DNA studies that show that each kind contains a high amount of Orphan proteins and TRGs (Taxonomically Restricted Genes) that do not appear in any other taxon. The uniqueness of each DNA each with unique genes show that is no mechanism that could change one kind into a different kind, since all mutations lead only to extinction. Creationists have never believed what you falsely said. Creationists always believed that God created each kind with the ability to reproduce with the same anatomy with different traits. These traits contain the same anatomy with the only differences being the amount and size of each same part and system. God created man with up to 10 million places where heterozygocity can exist to control how much each same part or system grows. This is excellent design using only already existing anatomy. This proves that everybody who has ever lived had the same anatomy, otherwise nobody could still have the same anatomy, proving that there is no evolutionary difference between anybody today or in the past. Same way with dogs as every dog has the same anatomy, only difference in the amount that each part or system grows. Every prediction evolutionists have ever made failed. Creationists always made many prediction with complete success. You, sir, have been very brainwashed with lies.
The prediction that creationism does is that the Creator is perfect and so should His creation be aswell, so how are the existence of vestigial organs and junk DNA a prediction made by creationism? Creation would predict that there would be *no* unnessecary parts, not just *fewer* than early predictions made by evolution. Dr. Wile assumes that a prediction of a model is vindicated by discrediting other predictions made by contradicting fields of science. That's a false dichotomy.
I predict that an invisible pink unicorn would create a very complex amazing world! Since I see complexity and design I can therefore conclude that invisible pink unicorns exist and I shall worship them
Oh thank you so much. Your post was so filled with scientific data. Like you actually addressed the points in the vid and used available evidence to refute the points made. Either that or you just went for cutesy. Your mind was...created..for better things.
I predict that an amazing world came into existence and popped out of nowhere for no apparent reason! And then, through a process that took billions of billions of years --produced oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and all the elements and resources necessary for human survival (a mathematical impossibility). I haven't even mentioned symbiotic relationships within the biosphere. It's as if ppl don't choose to explore other possibilities and just take in whatever their teachers and society tell them --a lot of ppl r so prejudice about creationism and christianity without having even tried to take into account. They simply rule creationism as a stupid fairytale and call themselves intellectuals while calling evolution 'scientific'. All of a sudden a Theory --something that hasn't been scientifically observed because we weren't present when the Earth came into existence becomes factual, something 'scientific'.
Amy Exactly. And let's look at just a few of the imaginary friends and myths from evolutionism and atheism. . First there is the belief in the imaginary time fairy friend. Evolutionists promote the idea that life can come from inorganic matter. (And don't say they do not. It's easily found all over Google and on YT. Who came up with the mythical primal pond theory? Creationists?) When it is pointed out that life only comes from life and life of the same kind they respond "Well, with enough tiiiiime, anything can happen. We have...faith...therefore, that things happened differently in the conveniently invisible past." . They have faith, too, in their imaginary crystal ball friend that sees into the unverifiable past. For ex. they will pick up a fossil from a rock and tell you what happened to its invisible and evidenceless descendants for over 100 million Darwin years. They also talk about 'missing' links, more of their imaginary friends. Don't bother to ask how you tell missing links from never existed links. They have...faith...that they are just "missing." . Next we see the imaginary Geologic Column friend that "supports" evolution. The real evidence shows the fossils are jumbled. Giant shark fossils are found with dino fossils in Montana, for ex. Whales' fossils are found in wildly improbable places like the Andes mountains and the Sahara desert. Deep sea "Cambrian" fossils are found at every level on the planet, including on most mountain tops, as with the world's highest, the Himalayans. Take a look. Notice the one in the middle, 2nd row, that is an ocean floor dwelling, extinct, trilobite. www.bing.com/images/search?q=Marine+Fossils+On+Mountains&FORM=RESTAB ) . "Cambrian" fossils, like ocean floor trilobites, are found in the hills of Kentucky and countless other places on the planet, high and far, inland. Etc. Now why do we see evidence of sea life all over the planet at every level? And, how did all that sea get everywhere? Hmmmm.... And btw, oceans don't, and can't, create fossils. Fossils are created when life forms are rapidly buried - so that animals can't eat them and natural forces can't erode them and the chemistry of fossilization can take place. There are no fossils anywhere in the oceans, or even after such things as local floods and tsunamis. . Next, there is the imaginary genus-changing fairy friend. Put a species of fish, bird, lizard, tree, bacteria, whatever, under your Darwinian pillow. Voila! Over an evolutionary "night" it will change into the next step up in the Animal (ditto for plants) Kingdom, i.e. a different genus. However, in the real world of trillions of life forms, and throughout recorded history, there is not a single example of any species of fish, bird, lizard, bacteria, tree, or any life form at all, turning into a different genus and stop being a fish, bird, bacteria, tree, etc. Since all the evidence shows that never happens, you just have to have... faith ... that it happened in the unverifiable realm of the ancient past. . Then there is the supremely imaginary god-friend of nothingness. Richard Dawkins and others tell us that everything came from nothing. This defies the laws of thermodynamics and physics, not to mention common sense. But their imaginary friend, the nothingness god, sells big time to those who want to believe they can be their own, puny, little gods. . Are you willing to take a serious and open minded look outside the box? If nothing else you can hear what the creationists are really saying, not the spin about what they are saying. . On this webpage you can see Nobel Prize winning scientists, other secular scientists - including some world famous evolutionists - admitting there is no evidence for evolution. You can see them calling evolution a kind of religion, something that leads to "anti knowledge", etc. Notice how many of these secular scientists acknowledge evidence for a Creator. freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1435562/posts . Are you aware that more and more blood cells, blood vessels and soft stretchy materials are being found in dino bones? Forensic science and common sense tell us such things could not last for more than a few thousand years. Go to Genesispark to see ancient art depictions of dinos from around the world. My fave is the stegosaurus carved on a 1,000 year old Cambodian temple. That site has lots of info on soft tissues and blood cells being found in dino bones, and historical reports of dino type creatures, including some from the famous historian Herodotus and from Alexander the Great. All information is gleaned from secular sources. www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/ancient/dinosaur/ . See Don Patton's The Fossil Record and many others. In this link he uses the fossil record to place evolutionary and creation predictions side by side. You can see for yourself what the real record of the rocks shows: .kzhead.info/sun/adWpY9OGgISYbGg/bejne.html . Thomas Kindell's vids are great, especially Thermodynamic Evidence For Creation where in the first 10 min. you hear quotes from well known evolutionists like "Evolution is unproven and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable." kzhead.info/sun/fJWypNNoZKxolYk/bejne.html . Wazooloo vids, particularly The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution and So Ya Think Yer A Chimp, and the DNA ones, are full of scientific fact presented in an often humorous way. Also see Wazooloo's refutation of Aaron Ra's 8th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism to see how evo. supporters make big claims but give out lots of false "information" and sloppy "research." kzhead.info/sun/oM6KpNWfaquvnaPL/bejne.htmlttps://kzhead.info/sun/bL6Bosexb55vlo0/bejne.html kzhead.info/sun/o9Cnp7GGeZ9vrWw/bejne.html . Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed shows the politics of Neo Darwinism which harasses and expels those in academia and the media who even hint that there MIGHT be evidence for a Creator. kzhead.info/sun/Z6x-otGobIKwpK8/bejne.html . Physicist Dr. Russell Humphreys gives scientific evidences for why people believe in a young, yes young, earth. Check it out and see: kzhead.info/sun/p7xylaiMhZiHe5E/bejne.html Part 1 And regarding the speed of light "problem", there are many unproven assumptions about light. It was always assumed, for instance, that the speed of light was constant. Now some secular scientists are saying it is slowing down. However, here is another perspective. We have found that space, as in outer space, is stretchy. Several times in the Bible we are told that the Almighty stretched out the Heavens. This would mean the light from stars got stretched out, too, thus creating a false impression of distant time for light travel. . Answersingenesis.org covers just about everything . You are not a goo through the zoo ape update. You were created in the image and likeness of the Almighty Creator Who loves you. Why are you trading in those astounding truths of who you are for pseudoscience fairy tales and imaginary friends? Rhetorical Q.
Rounded gravel worldwide PROVES water transportation worldwide aka flood, did your unicorn predict that too? Did it predict that we would discover hydrothermal vents which were mentioned in the Bible 4000 years ago? We discovered them in 1977 and that proves that there is water under the crust of the earth just as the Bible says
@@jim6834 Too bad that's all bullshit. Might have been nice if the buybull mentioned the germ theory of disease...would have saved hundreds of millions of lives don't ya think?
16:09 "mutations erode genetic information" - how is this derived from creationism? what is the support for making such an assertion in creationism? mutations are proven. their effects are sometimes known. characterizing their effects as "erosion" is subjective and nonscientific. is being taller or having different eye color an "erosion"?
Enis Zita, eye color change is the result of losing information. No basic protein, enzyme, micro system has ever changed into a different kind of protein, enzyme, micro system, etc. They can only be disable by losing information by mutations, no exception. Evolutionists have to believe that they can change, but they cannot. They can only be disabled. Creation scientists believe that none of them can change into a different kind., which is observed by observable fact, thus they have true scientific beliefs. Evolutionists do not accept observable science, thus they are not true scientists in their beliefs.
@@danminer5343 "eye color change is the result of losing information." totally false. there is no loss, only different genetic code in the ~8 genes that control eye color.
@@danminer5343 "Evolutionists have to believe" false. no belief is required. you seem to think the theory of evolution is a religion which requires belief. totally false. evolution is a theory that is consistent with the observed facts of genetics, geology, archaeology, and chemistry in the world we observe.
@@eniszita7353 - It has absolutely nothing to do with 'evolution' as nothing new evolved. All of the genetic information in the body was present in Adam when God created him..Differences occurred by certain heterozygous genes and modules becoming more homozygous which is a process whereas the offspring loses information. No gene changes its function.
@@danminer5343 All you have is a fairy tale. And there are plenty of other fairy tales from around the world to choose from if you like fairy tales. Yours isn't that special.
Great debate, watched all of it
Next debate, 'Werewolves vs ordinary wolves'. You'll love that one for sure!
The evolutionist didn't handle the debate well.. He let the opponent stay on the offensive and the creationist was able to make assertions without any challenges. Even when the evolutionist pointed out good evidence, he failed to challenge the creationist that the creationist model cannot account for the evidence (transitional forms, the banding on the seafloor, or the changes in fauna over geologic time as opposed to the same kinds of life for all time). The creationist also made some assertions that went unchallenged (radiometric decay going so fast as to make creation model possible, a flood sorting by ecosystem which isn't true, the magnetic field thing, Berthault as refuting all varve studies). Basically the creationist was able to set up the facade that his model makes predictions and is scientific, but the fact remains that 99% of scientists don't think the creationist model is even functional and discarded it 150 years ago. If the creation model was robust then there would be lots of scientists presenting and defending it in the scientific literature.
the creationist sees engineering. the evolution sees self-creation out of nothing. if you think only one side has science you are mistaken, both sides use pre-scientific philosophy as their base assumptions.
Rayrard You are using the Appeal To Authority logical fallacy when you put your...faith...in peer reviews. Peer reviewed evidence, huh? You mean like when they told us that the Peppered Moth was darkening due to the industrial revolution and showing evolution, buuuut, there had always been dark moths and it was exactly the same species as before the industrial revolution? . You mean like when tons of peer reviews hailed the "extinct" Coelacanth as a "transition" between fish and tetrapods, and then a live ones were found and they were all nothing but 100% fish? You can see them swimming around on You Tube. See any "vestigial legs"? And oh yeal, turns out the Coelacanth is a deep sea fish. Gee, that would be tough, going from the depths of the oceans to learning to walk on land. . You mean like when they tell you that antibiotic resistant and nylon eating bacteria are showing evolution, but hey are still just bacteria. Or, if not, what nonbacterial type life form are they "evolving" into? . You mean like when Richard Dawkins and others say you "evolved" from bacteria or bacterial colonies but all the data - you know, what real science uses - since 1670 shows that no matter how much they change bacteria always stay bacteria? . You mean like when they told you that the tonsils and appendix were "vestigial" based on no evidence whatsoever? The children who were most likely to suffer from the polio epidemic last century were those who had their "useless, vestigial" tonsils removed. Real science has shown that the tonsils and the appendix are highly useful for immunological purposes, particularly for children. . You mean like the peer reviews about the phony "horse evolution" series which shows animals from different continents that are somehow mysteriously all connected, with ribs and lumbar vertebrae whose numbers go back and forth, until we get to the modern day horse? . You mean like the glut of peer reviews that say - just as they did with Coelacanth - that Tiktaalik is a wonderful transition from fish to tetrapod? Buuuuut...check it out on Wiki. It is described as an extinct species of...lobe finned FISH. Period. . You mean like the peer reviewed articles that hailed the Miller and Urey experiments for demonstrating that life can come from inorganic matter? It didn't matter that they didn't even get close to creating life. They created some amino acids, the kinds that KILL life. They never bothered to explain how even the right kinds of amino acids could gather the many other components needed for a single "simple" cell, put them together in statistically impossible ways if done by random chance, and then bring them to life. . My favorite type of peer review is seen when they try to explain why the countless billions of fossils of extinct, deep sea, creatures are found wrapped around mountain tops around the world, not uncommonly in almost mint condition. (Google: Trilobites on mountains tops, for example.) They go on and on about how it certainly wasn't a Great Flood, but "plate tectonics" that moved the fossils for, they say, millions of years to the tops of those mountains from the depths of the sea. It's like they never even heard of something called erosion. , Mark Armitage discovered some soft tissue in a dino bone - one of many such examples being discovered more and more - and had that published in two standard science journals. Shortly thereafter someone from his university stormed into his office saying they were having no religious fanaticism in their school, and he was fired. He had never even mentioned religion in his two peer reviewed articles, but oh well, he sued the university and won. . Then there are the science mags that flat out say "We will NOT publish any creationist writings!" After that they turn around and say "How can you trust them? They never get published!" . Also see the movie on YT, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, to hear scientists, a doctor, a journalist, and others speaking out about the persecution and represssion of those who even hint that there might be a Creator. . Friend, learn to think for yourself. Don't just have lots of...faith...in peer reviews, published by a vehemently self protective, orthodox, politically correct, highly lucrative, industry based on Neo Darwinism. Why would they want to publish things by creationists who use DATA to show that their beloved sacred cow is pseudoscience?
@@bobphin6454 evolution doesn't see "self-creation out of nothing," that's a misleading statement. the evolution model explains processes of millions of years and many generations. transitional fossils are not out of nothing, vestigial organs are not "nothing" and the same goes for feathers in dinosaurs
No. He made no good points. In fact, he made explanations, but failed to provide evidence supporting his explanations. The Creationist did provide evidence. He provide evidence that sediment does lay down quickly. He completely destroyed that idea of vestigial organs. And the evolutionist only make denials. He admitted that there was a function for the hip bones of the whale, but he was implying the function was not good enough to satisfy him.
@@rtmcdge I think you typed "creationist" by mistake on the "provide evidence" part. The creationist did not provide evidence for his position that can only be explained by the Biblicalk model and NOT the secular model. Sediment frequently being laid down quickly happens NOW all over the world NOW, so isn't useful evidence for the Biblical flood. Vestigial organs never meant "useless", but "has a reduced function or a function different from the ancestral usage". The hip of a land animal provides attachment points for muscles, and that wouldn't just stop in the whale because it's hip bones are reduced now. They are STILL vestigial hip bones, and the creationist needs to explain why God designed them to look like a reduced hip and not one of hundreds of other novel intelligent designs that would have worked just as well. You must have missed the debate if you claim the evolutionist provided no evidence. I even mentioned that evidence in my post!
Creationist no matter how scientific they tried to make it, in the end is "God Did It"
+Jin Chuong Ya they think God made your computer, they can't fathom it suddenly forming through random events. Lol
James Pellitteri lol. Not even I knew that. He still has yet to mention the function if the DNA. Out of curiosity, how did the original virus come about?
+Logical APE Computing and biology are becoming closer and closer. And comparing humans and any other biological system to computers is not at all crazy. viruses replicate, both in biology and in software. What's funny about this whole debate is that as technology and biology blur themselves together in the next century, this debate will be extremely difficult to have. Humans will not be able to distinguish biology from technology.
Logical APE lol Now you're trying to speak logical? If you can't figure it out then this conversation is going nowhere. In other words keep up with the conversation.
James Pellitteri FOCUS. When bio physicists are comparing computers are they talking in relation to the Theory of Evolution? If not, you are brining irrelevant stuff in the conversation. Living things are self replicating systems and non-livings things are not. So when we are talking about the Theory of Evolution, please explain to me what is common between the two? When technology catches up (wow we not talking SIFI) ?? We are talking about now not what and when...So if technology catches up. Computers will become living things in the future?
why was the creationist didn't get his slideshow on screen?
This was awesome! Two knowledgeable guys talking about and contrasting their world views, with NO BICKERING.
Michael Selhost Except the one is lying and the other is presenting facts.
Michael Selhost only one is knowledgeable. It isn't the creationist.
+Holz Name EVOLUTIONISTS ARE DEAD HEADS...THEY DONT PAY ATTENTION...AND BELIEVING FAIRYTALES...AND GET GET NO RESPECT FROM ME WHO STUDIED ALL MY LIFE BOTH SIDES..AND KNOWWWW NOT BELIEVE GOD LEFT EVERYTHING TO EMBBARESS STUPID ATHIESTS DEAD HEADS.
+Michael Long Wow. You're comment has about as much substance as Dr Martin's presentation. I really shouldn't even bother. Watching this debate and concluding that Dr Wile is not knowledgeable proves your about as perceptive as a used tissue. I guess it should be a comfort to know that when all the evidence is considered, the only people who truly believe in evolution are only the most extreme anti-God fanatics like you. Then again, based on your comment, I don't really have any confidence that you've considered any evidence at all.
+whisper012 the Us National Academy of Science classifies evolution as a fact. 99.85% of biologists accept that fact because of evidence. You can go to any peer reviewed journal and find reams of papers that fully support evolution and yet not one single peer reviewed paper has ever been published that supports the stupidity known as creationism. That means I have evidence and you don't.
I am Jesus. I am God. I am complete in Myself. I am present in your world and I am present in heaven. You see, I am omnipresent. Even if you wish to, you cannot remove yourself from My presence on earth. I created earth. You might say the earth belongs to Me. All on it are also My creation. You, dear beloved one, were created by Me. Do I say that you belong to Me? I say it in another way. I say, I ‘want’ you to belong to Me. I want to possess your heart. Why do I use the word heart when truly it is your soul that I seek? I use the word heart because people characterize the heart as the place where people hold the love they possess. If you have love, people say you have it in your heart. The heart is known as the source of love and the receptacle of love, so I, Jesus, tell you that I want to possess your heart. When it is all simplified, as it should be, I am saying that I want you to love Me. I love you. There is no problem there. I love you today and I will always love you. A difficulty we have is that you do not know Me. The only way for Me to teach you to love Me is for Me to reveal Myself to you, to allow you to know Me. For that reason I come to you today. I reveal Myself to you through these words and through the graces attached to them. If you read these words and sit in silence, you will begin to know Me. If you begin to know Me, truly, you will begin to love Me. Forget anything that tempts you to move away from these words and graces. Rest. Be with Me. Allow Me to teach you about Myself. December 21, 2006 Jesus to Anne, a lay apostle, Ireland Direction for our times
This is like a debate between one person's use of nuclear physics and another person's use of crayons!!
A 'creation scientist' is like a 'doctor' who uses crystals and magnets to heal the sick.
haha a couple of brainwashed morons comment on things they have no clue about
@@Eromasta6 Creationism has the scientific credibility and integrity of a chocolate kettle.
@@adriangeh6414 tell me you didn't watch the video without telling me you didn't watch the video
@@ozowen5961 tell me you didn't watch the video without telling me you didn't watch the video
Yeah Dr. Martin i did google it and i did find out, radiometric dating is a bad joke. They determine the age of the item based on the layer of earth it was found in, then they choose the dating method, then they make multiple readings untill they get the deired previously predetermined age, out of all the random and different readings. The biologists date the fossils by the layer, and the geologists date the layer by the fossils in it.
did you find this?: "Why is radiometric dating so accurate? The rate of isotope decay is very consistent, and is not effected by environmental changes like heat, temperature, and pressure. This makes radiometric dating quite reliable.3 Apr 2012" maybe you googled it in a creationist site like Answers in genesis, there they have to say that isotope decay was more accelerated in the past for all the radioactive elements, so they can squeeze billions of years in a few thousands. in that case in the past ALL radioactive elements had to be not twice or 3 times as fast as today but millions of times and that's a hell of a supposition!!
@@skidelrymar You just ask the same question twice. Already answered it once. I know you think time solves any problem and this is your only move, but trust me, you can ask me 13.9 billion times, and my answer will be the same. You can verify the information i gave you and rethink your position, or go back to sleep having reasured yourself that i am an imbecile who chose to side with the liars because of how comforting it is. Truth floats and lies sink, regardless of human intervention. Those that seek the truth find it in time, and those that lie to themselves find it too late.
@@oldscorp sorry, what was the question? it's very telling that you choose the number 13.9 billion. i couldn't ask the same question billions of times even if you and i were to live thousands of years. besides, i you are so sure that your answer will be the same always then you're not "seeking for the truth" as you put it. if you were you would have to be willing to be wrong or at least a little wrong. i know i am wrong about many things and i don't know about the others. but i can google them
@@leonadams235The assumptions are those of all science, that the world basically works in a uniform manner across space and time. Maybe all astronomy is bunk because the speed of light is different outside the solar system. We don’t posit that because there’s no evidence that it’s the case and because science would be impossible in a universe where natural laws arbitrarily changed all the time.
@@skidelrymar I disagree with the decaying rate being consistent. If you see animals on side of road dead pay attention to how they break down. I've seen deer decay in a couple weeks also seem them take months, a lot has to do with what ways on the decay also like buzzards and maggots, the more that eats the less time it takes so there are a lot of factors that play in to decaying process
Dr. Martin has said little or nothing this entire debate. And when he did try to say something he was lying through his teeth.
Yea, just pick your flavor of christian belief and then you can go multiply directions at the same time.
Seems the creationists always resort to character assassination. He resorted to it rather quickly.
@@leonadams235 fact: the creationist spends more time on his silly hair than on learning actual science.
@@adriangeh6414 yeah you
Sorry you kids have been brain washed😢
Two different perspectives, but only one with verifiable evidence. No debate necessary.
There is no verifiable evidence for Macro-evolution. Many falsely think there IS because they're conflating speciation with Macro-evolution. But Creationists agree speciation is real, only Macro-evolution is in contention. So when you say only one side of the debate relies on verifiable evidence, that's false. Both include a faith-based aspect. Evolutionists have faith in Macro-evolution, Creationists have faith in a creator who exists beyond the 3d material realm. The difference is, the scientific method is capable of observing evidence for Macro-evolution if it were real. The limitations of the scientific method make it clear it cannot answer the God question. So we should expect scientific evidence for Macro-evolution if it were real by now. For God, it's silly to expect scientific evidence for something that's beyond the power of the scientific method to study.
On the contrary all the more reason that a debate should occur.analogy.If the police know who killed someone but did not have enough evidence to prove it that does not mean the murderer is innocent.
"The survey also revealed that those who accepted Creationism were less likely to read books and had lower grade-point averages than the non-Creationists”. Science, Religion, Politics, Law, and Education by Tim Berra
There are no interesting books out there. All about evolution so why would we read them?
Right? Why be subservient to the lying slave masters? Fuck the education system. Fuck the matrix. Attain knowledge from the true reality.
so show us this survey and it's results? You know neo darwinists invented punctuated equilibrium because they have no fossil record backing up their flawed religion. SJGould is one of them and he said evolution had no evidence. And you guys are trying to mock creationists?
BS
@@cynthiachoate2536 who are y saying that to Cynthia
Where would new earth sediment come from ,? Space ?
They censored the creations slides
Biased *****
I like how the apologist says "I used to be an evolutionist until I studied further." BS. He's a fundamentalist Christian plain and simple. Show me an athiest academic who used to believe in evolution but now knocks it without God, and it would be worth listening to.
How do you know it's BS? He has a PHD from a secular university. You know how hard it is to make it through secular education with a creationist viewpoint intact? I didn't. I was convinced about ALL the things that they taught me in school. I'm slowly starting to migrate away. DNA is the most DATA rich encoding system known to us. Software programmers look at it and see code. It's funny how people are now accepting the idea of simulation theory, alien design, holographic universe... yet they have a hard time accepting the idea of an original artist who created all of this.
e w Presuming omniscience logical fallacy. I was never a fundamentalist Christian. Growing up I believed in evolution and so did virtually everyone I knew. I just left you a post, above, showing you the difference between real science and pseudo science. I was fooled. No more.
Well, here you are."There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Wald, George, "Innovation and Biology," Scientific American, Vol. 199, Sept. 1958, p. 100)
@Enjoy and Travel The World! : I would appear that you have trouble understanding what you read. That was a quote from a world famous biologist in an article in Scientific American magazine. I as a Christian have narrowed those two possibilities down to one. Only one possibility gives hope.
mommy, please tell me a disney fairy tale before i go to sleep; okay honey: 'once upon an ancient time, in a far far away middle east kingdom; lives most of the illiterate goat herders who hallucinates a book called the holy bible... ' . if the christian god is great, then why waste time with the debates?! . and check this one out...! kzhead.info/sun/e5x-XZmoanaaiJs/bejne.html&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR3hnH139Q33DV9A6-_1K8Z3Z63OUJLu9DAGkLT-vsvB_HIKdA2wK0d08jE
These are not debates .. anymore then debating if the earth is flat or not maybe a discussion about science facts and religious teachings
I can't think of any reason for the existence of mushrooms.
The scientist who sets out to “prove” evolution is not being scientific. The scientific method entails collecting data provided by meticulous observation supported by the application of the relevant physical sciences (chemistry, physics, biology etc), and then proposing a mechanism, or mechanisms, which can account for them. Such a hypothesis is only as good as its ability to account for every new fact which emerges. When it fails to do so, it is a failed hypothesis. And if this hypothesis cannot be refuted because it calls for supernatural interventions (by gods, demons, angels, fairies and so on), it ceases to be scientific and is instead a statement of belief or an opinion. The proper duty of a scientist is not to accept an hypothesis; it is to discover facts - supported by the application of the relevant physical sciences (chemistry, physics, biology etc) - which may or may not support it. It is for this reason that creationists, such as Dr Wile. are not practising the scientific method. As creationists, their task is not to seek out data which refutes the Genesis creation story; their religious obligation is to uphold the Genesis creation story, no matter what.
Yep, as a holder of a PhD (engineering) i could not have put it more eloquently.
Just like an evolutionist's secular obligation is not to acknowledge data that refutes evolutionism but to uphold the creation story of evolution, no matter what.
@@enigmavariations3809 What data refutes it?
A well-ordered debate! Even so, I found Dr. Martin's presentation to be based more on intimidation (the idea that one will be intellectually/academically/socially marginalized for not believing evolution) and the desire that the audience would simply take his word for it on a number of points. He dismissed some of Dr. Wiles arguments as being "smoke and mirrors," without demonstrating them to be so. In short, he failed to make his case. On the other hand, Dr. Wile was clear, forthright, and offered nothing but well-supported factual information, without resorting to logical fallacies of any kind. When one is on the side of truth, there is no need for such deceitful tactics.
Beg to differ
Dr. Wile, in my opinion, was a far better orator and debater than Martin (i wonder if this was done intentionally) but the jury is out on evolution. You can breed bacteria successfully over generations to achieve an end goal, I.e. evolution. Dogs are direct descendants of wolfs, artificially selected by humans over the course of tens of thousands of years. You can’t have dogs without human-forced evolution.
Gilbert Creationists don’t deny micro evolution, i.e. changes within a species over time, such as those you have mentioned. What we deny is that fish can evolve into reptiles, or reptiles into primates. Changes clearly occur within species, but there is no evidence that one kind of creature has ever evolved into being a completely different kind of creature.
Westminster Covenanter but you can’t deny macroevolution while accepting microevolution because they’re one and the same. That’s like denying calculus and accepting algebra. Ironically, calculus has very much to do with this type of thinking, and if you’ve ever taken a calculus course you’d understand the similarities. If we can agree that fish can micro evolve and develop appendage like mutations, then we can agree that they can eventually micro evolve to had hand/feet like appendages. If we can agree with that, we can agree that eventually some of those fish could attempt to walk onto land. Most fail, but an extremely small number of them are able to survive on land due to small mutations. Now you have fish on land. They further micro evolve to adapt to life on land, developing harder skin, better eyes for land, better hands/feet, etc. This just keeps going on and on. If you accept that things can micro evolve, then you have to accept that, given a long enough time frame, those changes become large enough for us two distinguish them as two or more different entities. As these divides grow, you get crazy amounts of variation like reptiles and birds, or mammals and fish.
Gilbert There are genetic and environmental limits to what is possible. There is also no record that the kind of changes you are theorizing have ever taken place.
Creationists zero evidence never have never will , belief and assumptions are not evidence
I don't know if it was the shark, the aliens or Bob Wiley, but he just isn't getting it.
Why the need to debates this? Everyone knows that only an invisible magical deity with super powers living 'up there' could have created everything. That's what it says in this book that has in it a talking snake, talking donkey and talking burning bush.
Using logic and a few scientific laws/principles, I can explain why I believe in God in with 4 key points using just 22 words. 1.Something can’t come from nothing. 2. The Earth is remarkably suitable for life. 3. Life only comes from existing life. 4. Design requires a designer. Admittedly, why I believe in the God of the Bible would take a few more points and several more words. However this is a good start and something to perhaps consider.
@@ronaldhendricks3876 yes yes, there's a great invisible deity somewhere 'up there' hanging out in his great invisible city, who has a weird obsession with foreskins and gets mad whenever 2 girls kiss... Thats just science.
"That's a direct prediction of the Creationist model" Has any one ever lolled harder or is it just me.
WOW. LOOK AT THIS TRUTH!!! kzhead.info/sun/iJSuY5FqenmFgIk/bejne.html
"If I do enough mental gymnastics, I can make established science kind-of sort-of fit with my old book. Therefore my old book has effectively predicted science!"
@@karlkalina3022 wow can tell that you do your own research 🙈
The debate can be re-labeled as Evolution vs Existence of God because people who believe in God believe also in evolution except the part that says life evolved from non-life.
No. I believe in the Almighty but I don't believe in the pseudo science of evolutionism, and I am very typical of creationists. It's not just about how life began, it's all their elitist propaganda which relies on theories that defy the facts being presented as gawd's truth science, and all about their constant use of logical fallacies. Do you know the logical fallacies? Most people are clueless on them. That's why they are easily confused and deceived. Please learn them, especially evolutionism's favorites of Presuming Omniscience, Correlation Does Not Imply Causation, Incomplete Comparison and Fallacy of the Single Cause. You're not a fish update. You were made in the mage and likeness of your Heavenly Father, Who loves you, not Lucy. Look outside the box. Compare and contrast. Learn to think for yourself. We live in a heavily indoctrinated society but the truth is out there for those who search for it and truly love the truth.
Why bother to even listen. Lies and assumption vs. Plain facts. It really makes my stomach turn. So glad I don’t live around these kind of people.
Which do you think is which
Wow, the rebuttal by Dr. Robert Martin around the 44 minute mark was almost hard to watch. He started out the debate fairly strong, but when he came to this point his explanations were exclusively based on "well, vestigial organs are still evolutionary facts because they have a new purpose" really? What was the "old" purpose then, from which to build this "new" argument? His entire case collapsed under the weight of his own failure to present real, scientifically observable facts. He fell back on evolutionary philosophy, and what if's and might have beens...sad. Jack
Dr. Jay Wile did great!!! Resounding evidence and logic that matches the record.
Lol what
@Leon Adams so smart
Adaptation is very prevalent in the natural world. It's built into the genetic code and not random, but a response to change in environment. Beneficial random mutation is a fallacy. The genome FIGHTS random mutation. It recognizes it as chaos. Random mutation from cancer causes tumors. You will NEVER get a beneficial tumor. Engineered adaptation due to environmental change happens quickly! This is how you get e.coli living on citrate. It's in the code. If you do this experiment over and over with new populations you will inevitably get the same results. Think of an organism as a house with a family living inside. Think of this house being built in an area that goes through many changes. The weather gets cold... the family adds on a fireplace. The snow starts to pile up - they increase the pitch of the roof. Maybe it goes back to being really warm - they install larger windows and a better ventilation system. This is the genome using what is at its disposal in response to the environment. The goal is to protect the organism. Random mutation is a tree falling over on the house, or an earthquake breaking some windows, or lighting hitting the house and starting a fire. In every instance the family scrambles to repair the damage. Genetic code is just that - code. It's organized information. Open a jpeg photo from your computer using notepad or textedit. It's fascinating. Now try and delete a few things or add in a few random letters or numbers and save as a new jpeg file. Try and open that new file in photoshop. Guess what - you can't. "JPEG marker invalid." You've just experimented with random mutation. If you're willing to accept that code is responsible for decreasing entropy (not just in biology but in our entire realm) then you have to ask where that code came from.
+DM584 Thanks for the reply. I would agree that the analogy isn't an exact correlation. Us designers still have a long way to go before our programming is able to navigate around corrupted code as amazingly as DNA is able to. As far as your example for random beneficial mutation - scientists don't know enough about the genome to state if the mutations are pre-programmed (innate) or truly random. Getting e-coli to live on citrate was highly touted as a beneficial random mutation. But if you are able to replicate those results in subsequent experiments then how random is that really? I think logic tells you that "learning" is written into DNA.
+DM584 Yes random mutation does happen. I don't think I ever said anything to the contrary. However the "rare" beneficial random mutation may not be so rare - and if it's not rare, then it's most likely not random. Many organisms and animals mutated exactly the same way over and over again... as if a path was already in place. One of these is the stickleback fish. An article in Nature succinctly states - "The study also shows that stickleback evolution is accelerated by the use of pre-existing genetic variation, instead of waiting for new, random mutations to arise" (Wray)
+DM584 It still seems safe to say it's not fully understood. I admire your pursuit of knowledge but disagree with your conclusions.
Terncote "What is your life? It is but a vapor, appearing for a little while and then vanishing" James 4:14 - Things like suffering and cancer are a result of the fall.. even still, they are but minute instances in the life of an eternal soul. Like a child who scrapes his knee and knows only the pain of that moment... all things shall pass - that pain will be but a distant memory.
I think power and greed are the main motivators of war. Kings & rulers have been clever enough throughout the ages to hide their motives in various religious and political ideals. Do you think the Iraq war was actually about fostering democracy? Or was it an oil and land grab in disguise? So should we blame democracy? For it was in this name that blood was shed. Scripture commands us to be good stewards of the land and animals. We will be judged on our actions. Again I think you'll find the biggest destroyers of land and life are those with no moral obligations, who are motivated by Power and Wealth - large corporate interests, rulers, etc. I didn't care to engage any further on the evolution ideas with you.. your refutations consisted of 3 word negations containing profanity. Not really much to do with replies like those. However I can see you are passionate about it - to the point of anger. I pray you find answers and peace.
EVOLUTION v/s CRATIONISM - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS (Please, read entire report before comment it, do not make conclusions just by reading first paragraph. I’m going to post it in many places so you may see it many times also) As professional biologist and molecular biologist I was watching many disputes of creationists and evolutionists. In addition I have background in almost every science. I have good background also in History overall and in origins of Christianity also. After long time watching and debating on the topic I came to following CONCLUSIONS: CONCLUSION 1: Doesn’t matter how much proven is the evolution and how many tons and tons of evidence we scientist got for evolution, the creationist will not accept it. I have never seen creationist to accept evolution or vice versa evolutionist to become creationist (yes I know some exceptions, but not because of dispute). Basically, we are agreeing to disagree and all arguments hit a wall. Just to summarize all arguments of the creationism in both directions: denying the accuracy of the science and second seeking problems in not well understood area in science, some gaps for which science does not have answer yet. All of my efforts to receive real scientific proven arguments against evolution failed. CONCLUSION 2: Because the evolution is so well proven I concluded that the problem is NOT IN THE EVIDENCE FOR OR AGAINST THE EVOLUTION, BUT IN SOMETHING ELSE. I’M SURE: THE CREATIONISTS SIMPLY DON’T WANT THE EVOLUTION TO BE A FACT, BECAUSE CONTRADICTS ITS BELIEF. As main psychological law: the people have tendency to believe in something that they would like to believe. We scientist are trying to avoid that phenomena as much as possible. CONCLUSION 3: The CREATIONISTS are Fundamental Christians Evangelists which accept the Bible literally (alphabetically), which gives me good tool to understand the root of the problem. Most of the scientist does not bother to do any investigation, but I did it. CONCLUSION 4: Why most of Christians Evangelists do not accept the evolution? From the perspective of literally (alphabetically) reading of Bible the evolution doesn’t have logic to be a fact. Why? 1) If the evolution is a fact: so the GOD is somehow not involved into the creation. There are only laws of selection not the GODs will. 2) If the evolution is a fact: where is the moral and how you will define what is good and what is bad? Usually, that is very weak point considering all the religious war justified by Bible or Religion in the past. 3) These two above are only part of the problem with the evolution, but there is more, more important reason the evolution to be rejected. If the evolution is a fact: ADAM and EVE will not be the first humans as the Bible described, therefore the origin of SIN will not be the fact as the Bible described. But that mean that Jesus the redeemer of all SIN suffered and scarified on the CROSS was useless? The cycle ADAM-SIN-Jesus-redeem of SIN is broken. This is not acceptable if we understand literally (alphabetically) the Bible and if the evolution is a fact. 4) Opinion of the Pastors, community with Christian friends, Influence of close circle and network of organization: All factors are against to freely doubt creationism, It is a part of HUGE industrial self propelling organization. 5) One more to consider: At the moment the fundamentalist Christians are huge number. I have no Idea exactly how many, but let me say ~ 0.5 million people (for sure is a lot). Can you imagine the entire flow of philanthropic money (some of the money are from politicians and businessmens with big influence) going in organizations, churches, events, donations, travel activities, pastor’s salary, and institutions like Discovery Institute and so on…. It is A HUGE established network of organizations and people and money. The entire structure is built on EXACTLY “the literal understanding of the Bible”. There is no way someone from inside of the network to say: “or never mind we were wrong, the evolution is a fact and we have to deal with that somehow” Anyone that rebels, is out of this network of influence. LET’S DISCUSS: Can we try to avoid this confrontation? This is USELESS DISCUSSIONS. It is contra-productive and in addition the REAL SCIENCE EDUCATION may suffer from non-scientific influence. The education could be in trouble, because the people that are creationists (poorly educated) and take important administrative posts may decide wrongly a good science to be funded. Personally I don’t mind if someone believes in the Bible or God in any form. After all is his/her own business, AS LONG AS DO NOT DENY REAL SCIENTIFIC ACHIEVEMENTS LIKE THE EVOLUTIONARY THEORY. For this people that find the Bible meaningful I can say: Please find a way to reconsider some chapters of the Bible in symbolic way. Think about: If The Bible is correct (TRUE) should not contradict the reality as it is. The evolution is a fact proven thousands of times NO QUESTION ABOUT. Therefore, the Bible and the science should be in agreement IF BOTH ARE ACCURATE. Also, if from your point of view the God created the Universe did God described how he created it in the Bible? Do you think that Bible has as objectives to teach you in science or something else? Is it necessary to look in the Bible as scientific journal or a wise book for relation between you and God? For you useful link could be: biologos.org/ or biologos.org/common-questions/christianity-and-science/christian-response-to-darwin For atheist I would say: Yes, I agree there is no God and for sure the Bible is just a historically human written book with no value in the science at all. However, spiritualism can exist, happiness as part of our own nature and understanding can exist. The creationist believes in what they believe, because they are feeling happy that way. For them, if evolution exists entire believe system will fall down. Their believe is irrational, but needs some understanding of the situation. Find a way to explain them how to feel happy considering the fact of evolution. It is too optimistic to consider that the personal believe system is easy to change.
You say you're a "professional biologist and molecular biologist" Just curious what is your degree and where did you receive it from.
I'm PhD in molecular biology, currently I'm working in real laboratory experiments and publishing and reviewing papers for cancer research. In addition I'm profound or it is easy to enter in any other biological discipline. Overall as scientist and curious person I have background in all other science fields. I've received my PhD in East Europe ~20 years ago. I'm working in molecular biology lab in USA from 16 years. I hope that is sufficient. I would be happy to answer any honestly asking question for biology and evolution. For example on this video Dr. Jay L. Wile which is debating for Creationism, constantly miss-lead auditorium with semi- or complete falls statements for the genome, fossil records and many other.
I agree with what you say. My experience is the same as yours. People believe in creationism for reasons other than truthful scientific investigation. They believe in it (or claim to believe in it) because is suits their world view. Any concession to evolutionary theory and the entire edifice of their mental picture of the world would collapse, leaving them exposed and vulnerable to nature with no cosmic supervisor to look after, nurture and comfort them. It is sad, but that is exactly what I have concluded.
Thanks, and also appreciate seeing my post.
@52:00 "It's not that when I don't know how it could have evolved I assume there was a creator, it's when I recognize design, I know there is a designer". Faith makes people dishonest. These two sentences mean exactly the same, he's just hoping that his audience is too stupid to pick up on it. What he says the first time is that not knowing who created it means you must assume god did it. His second statement says that if it looks like god did it, then god did it. How do you know something was designed by an intelligence? By comparing it to something of which you are certain that it was created by an intelligence. It's the watchmaker argument; when you see a watch you don't recognize design, you recognize a watch. The only reason why you assume there must have been a watchmaker is because you have seen watchmakers make watches. More importantly, you have no examples of watches growing on trees. But when you see a mouse, you have nothing to compare it to. You have no examples of man-made mice, you only know of mice occurring naturally. You do not know how that mouse came into being, so you revert to the catch-all explanation of "god did it". You can call it "recognizing design", but you are just arguing from ignorance. You still invoke god because you don't know what else could have done it.
Your post had been up for 3 years and no one has tried to disagree with you. That is certainly progress of a kind. Refreshing, in its way.
@@InformationIsTheEdge exactly
Um, I think the reason no one "tried" to disagree with him, is because it is painfully obvious how willfully ignorant of a statement it is. If I say, "Hm? I have a flat tire. I guess someone stabbed my tire with a knife and flattened it." That is one thing. But if I say, "Hm? I have a flat tire with a knife sticking out of it, and a note on it that says "I stabbed your tire!", I guess someone stabbed my tire with a knife and flattened it." That is a completely different statement because it is one of logical deduction and not of ignorant irrational assertion. He's not trying to "invoke" god to explain away things that he doesn't yet understand, that is something evolutionist do, but worse, they invoke evolution to support their own world view, and more often than not as an attempt to reject the glory of God as Creator. What he is saying is that the evidence points to God, and your attempts to warp what he is saying to fit your narrative shows exactly how you yourself are, "just hoping that (your) audience is too stupid to pick up on it." As Westminster Covenanter put it, "When one is on the side of truth, there is no need for such deceitful tactics. " Atheists and Evolutionists, let me ask you, if you really believe that you are right and Creationists are wrong, then why is it that you have to lie to yourselves and to other people in order to make yourselves seem convincing? You don't just state the facts and walk away, you give your interpretations of the facts by cobbling them all together in a specific pattern that you invented, and then you claim that you just found the pattern that way. Again, seems like willful ignorance masquerading as logical deduction to me. Deceitful indeed.
@@jaydee1993 False premise. Your flat tire analogy fails, again, on the evidence factor. If you carefully examined the flat tire and found a hole in it that was obviously not a puncture from road debris, was not made by running over glass because it is a slash in the sidewall, and it just happens to be exactly 2.25 cm wide, the same size as a very popular knife blade, you could correctly guess that someone stabbed your tire without a note or a knife. Not an irrational or ignorant assertion but a conclusion based in evidence and on careful investigation.
@@InformationIsTheEdge : Actually your comment is a false premise. You're assuming I am refuting Evolution with this analogy, but what I'm doing is giving an analogous statement to show that vinny142 was intentionally misrepresenting what Dr. Jay Wile said. Vinny was making a straw man and attacking it, just like you're trying to do by misrepresenting my comment. BTW, did you get the last reply I posted in our discussion where I called you a smart arse for suggesting I didn't know the difference between proof and evidence? Because if not I have it saved. They seem to have deleted our entire discussion. Probably because I fully typed out the word BS. Oops And by the way, you could also incorrectly guess what happened to the tire, but you don't want to talk about that do ya? What Dr. Jay Wile is doing is showing how evolutionist are ignoring the note, and assuming that there is no one to leave a note, and then asserting their guesses as facts in order to cover up the evidence that shows that what they are assuming is wrong.
"Peer-reviewed creationist journal"? Is that when creationists just make sure their fellows quote scripture correctly and don't make grammatical mistakes?
No, it means evaluation of scientific, academic merits by other scholars.
Creation journals represent the most qualified scientists in the world. They are the "cream of the top" scientists who have published much also in secular journals. They are not held back by ancient pagan beliefs of evolutionism but accept all honest science.
@@danminer5343 unlike religion, no belief is required for science. For evolution for example we have a large number of observations and a theory that explains them and can predict future observations. There is no element of 'belief' involved.
@@eniszita7353 - You have been lied to. After atheistic professors have spent billions of tax-payers dollars searching for evidence or trying to form a theory on how evolution could occur, 100% of everything found was totally against the STORY of "Evolution". Never has any science been found that would fav or a belief in the story of evolution, and never will any be found because evolutionism only a fiction story. My challenge to you is to prove me wrong by showing me a scientific fact that favors the story of 'evolution' and is not just the result of imagination. Creation science, however is supported by thousands of scientific observable fact. This is why scientists today are discarding that unscientific story of evolutionism garbage.
@@danminer5343 I hate to break it to you but there is no such thing creation science. It is a made up label to try to take advantage of science. It is not science.
It is really weird to avoid questions in a debate... :)
I wonder if they do that because they have no answers for them. Take the debate between Kent Hovind defending Creation against 3 Professors of Evolution for example. At the beginning of it, he said he'd like one of them to answer the question, "if evolution is true, why are we moral?" And by the end of it all, it still wasn't answered by the opposing side. The only thing I can figure is that they didn't answer the question because they had no answer for it from the evolutionist viewpoint, and since they had no answer, they therefore just ignored it.
@@ReligiousG Hovind is a simpleton and a conman that has a sub-toddlers’ understanding of evolution. It’s one gullible fool that falls for his con.
Well the questions they "dodged" had long boring answers that were hardly based on the overall topic. "Explain how a flagella motor works".. I mean that sounds like the kid was asking questions on his homework.. That answer would dive deep into the chemistry/biology of an organism and wouldn't validate nor deny creation/evolution.
@@ReligiousG Yeah that debate was a mess for the evolutionists. I noticed almost every question he asked was left unanswered. They completely avoided the actual questions and talked about other nonsense instead. Simple questions have simple answers, it's just that the simple answer is not liked by certain people because they have a preconceived idea of how they want to world to be. They've essentially created their own God because they don't like the real one.
@@TrevoltIV which is also what Hovind says in a different way. "Atheists can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer." Also, the part in that debate where he said, "if I were to ask you how computers came to be, but you cannot use man as your answer... the answer must rely within the computer." Then one of them answered saying "it came from science. It was put together by people who understood..." Hovind said they couldn't use man as their answer, yet that's exactly what the guy did. I kinda wish he would've called them out for that.
Is it me or does or does Dr. Martin look like Richard Dreyfuss
This is refreshing because as a college student, I need to research evolution vs creationism myself. I'm even going to a christian university and they won't even acknowledge the opposing view. I assume management doesn't care because a lot of people like me continue research outside of class.
Research Creation Ministries International ... Creation.com Proteins exist. You cannot deny that proteins exist and are required for life. There are protein enzymes, protein machines, structural proteins, millions of different kinds of proteins. Proteins cannot form unless the cell exists as an integral whole. Darwinists can write as many deceptive books jam packed with formulae, produce as many false fossils as they like, make as many demagogic assaults on the scientific evidence for Creation as the choose or stick posters up full of fantastical illustrations and present these as exhibitions of evolution all over the place, but none of this will never change the fact of their fundamental defeat. Because the worst nightmare for Darwinists is the very beginning of life. Darwinists have not been able to produce a single explanation of how just one protein came into being. This has TOTALLY DEMOLISHED DARWINISM!
VERY IMPORTANT ... Watch all of the "Is Genesis History" you tube videos online. Also all videos on you tube by "Dr. James Tour". Those are very very important to watch and learn.(also those by Michael Oard)
i’ll just leave you with this 3 evolutionists vs creationist kzhead.info/sun/gsuhp86Je4efdoU/bejne.html
@@danminer5343 Pure LIES and GARBAGE!!
@@danminer5343 James Tour is a creationist charlatan! He has been debunked extensively by respected scientists!!
Dr Wile writes textbooks... Are we scared yet?
Only in america...
23:08 - "The universe and earth is young and created by a deity" - Well, the Vedic scriptures indicate that the universe is not young, but presently already trillions of years old (in fact, an exact number can be calculated from the texts). And it was also created. So, the need for taking into account not only biblical texts but other ancient scriptures is essential for an open minded discussion. According to the Veda's time is actually cyclical and there are repeated periods of creation and destruction. The present universe we are residing in will last some 311, 40 trillion earth years. There are also multiple universes described of varying sizes and durations.
Tragic that you do still get creationists. They insist they know science better than the scientists, but they run for the hills when they're challenged for evidence. They're victims of the creationists that taught them, and sadly pass it on without questioning it.
I never saw an evolution evidence. Sorry!
@@shirleycristomoura2673 That's sad to hear.
I don't see the point in debating the fact of evolution with creationists/theists any more than I see the point in debating flat earthers and conspiracy theorists in general. They're all wilfully ignorant and apparently proud to be so. I read in a book some time ago (as I was ripping pages out to light the fire) that there's none so blind as those who will not see. As I recall, it was that book that convinced me that there is no abrahamic god. Maybe some of these creationists should read it for themselves and see what rubbish is in it. Then perhaps we could spend our time debating important issues like man-induced climate change before - it's too late.
You wanna debate important issues? If yall would listen to us you could clearly see global warming was predicted in the bible! Debate important issues? If youd listen you could see this world is coming to an end and we've been trying to warn yall forever!
@@phoenixstormjr.1018 You could probably interpret 1000 verses in the bible to say they predicted global warming, just like you could interpret the same 1000 to say pretty much what you wanted them to say. If they were predicting global warming why didn't they just predict global warming and give us a date and the causes and give us a break from all this interpreting and re-interpreting nonsense? I do know why actually, but you've got your head in the sand as far as your bible is concerned, it's because the bible is full of BS.
@@Ozone280 revelation 16 8-9 "And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire. 9 And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory." Buddy if that ain't global warming what Is it?
@@phoenixstormjr.1018 It's a load of drivel just like you find everywhere in the bible. What sort of perverted god want to be worshiped anyway? Would you? I wouldn't. The abrahamic god is so obviously mad made I really don't understand whay people believe this tripe anymore. Since when was global warming a plague ffs?
@@Ozone280 I've known about this for the longest time. Also could you be a little more.... precise? "What sort of perverted god want to be worshiped anyway?" dude I dont even know what you asked. Too bad of english. Are you saying God is a pervert? If so where are the scriptures for this? All I've seen is one that says get circumcised which basically means cut off the top of the thing so it doesn't get infected.
I found it comical how Dr. Martin kept refuting Dr. Wile's assertions that carbon dating is an unreliable dating method by simply stating "it IS reliable" without providing anything else to confirm his belief. Regardless, I would take the work of a nuclear scientist like Dr. Wile who is certified to know exactly what he is talking about in that field over a man that simply believes that his method is the truth simply because it is by far the most popular dating method in the secular scientific community. Anyone else find this intriguing?
Reply - It is impossible for anything consisting of carbon to have in it C14 unless it was LIVING within only thousands of years because is much less than one million years all of the Carbon 14 would have already reverted back to nitrogen. The proven scientific fact proves that the fossil record in only a few thousand years old. The evolutionists do not want you to know this.
My internal debate now is: Should we waste our time explaining creationists how reality really works or should we, on the other hand, just let them go and use that wasted time to create some new science?
Creationists don't create new science they create many types of fallacies and BS. I think that we should just let them keep believing in their fairytales because no matter how many facts you show them they will never admit that they are wrong.
@@taylorshelton3267 yeah I start to think that that's the best option as well, there's always gonna be creationists anyhow, it's impossible to convince everyone
That sharks have better smell than we do is not an argument for God . Don`t you agree?
The Creationist's repeated misuse of the word "prediction" in his opening statement is so blatant that I suspect he is intentionally misleading the audience.
Virgin birth I can believe .. but three wise men? Cmon
You believe ((not)) but you still believe!!!
Joke?
Please share with other people my two brief videos. Thank you!
Hello to you all i am seeking to do a debate with atheist friendly atheists if you are up to it you can message me and we can record the debate and upload it Blessed day
Methodological naturalism of science requires any attempts to explain the data supernaturally to be rejected. So God is ruled out from the get go as a possible explanation. Given the many convincing philosophical arguments for the existence of God, it seems to me that methodological naturalism, when explaining the origins of species and the beginning of life, likely falls apart and needs to be taken with a grain of salt
please tell me how we investigate the supernatural ?
@@SNORKYMEDIA By allowing the data to lead wherever it leads.
Dr. Jay Wile helped teach my children via email, he was great! My youngest son loves science and because of Dr. Wile's help and textbooks my son scored in the top 1% in the nation on his ACT. If creationist are stupid does that mean the 99% that scored below my son's score are excessively dumb?
@Kasper K. All evolutionists are inferior to Creationists in both science and in living.
@Kasper K. Where did they say they were female? Men don't have kids?
Creationists ARE stupid. They just avoid looking stupid when people are looking.
@@danminer5343 Religious DELUSION!!
The man is a complete idiot!
Volcanic sediments can be deposited quickly, therefore all sediments can be deposited and turned into rock quickly, duh.
And thats not what is observed.
You are crazy
How difficult is it to date a rock? That is the question at which science stops and unprovable assumptions start. Uniformitarianism is an unprovable theory. Don’t assume conditions in the present are the same as conditions in the past.
Rick Knight So that means we have to accept everything is 6000 years old ?
We don’t. We calibrate those assumptions using other means. For example, carbon dating was calibrated right down to the year using dendochronology. So if you think radio dating is unproven you also think dendochronology is unproven yet you can prove this yourself and every primary school child understands it. Grow up.
I guess you're just stupid and have never read anything related to the crap you spew!!
The supporter of evolution says he can show that the bones of whales were vestigial. But, he doesn't provide the pictures.
But it has been shown that what were said by the evolutionists to supposedly be remnants of legs, to be anchor for the what the whales use to procreate. And of course not one evolutionist has shown any evidence of a whale or a supposed ancestor walking on land. In fact, if they can find fossilized whales with remnants of small looking legs, then why aren't they finding any evidence with legs when they were bigger?
If worship is wrong, why do humans worship all over the world? If humans are animals, why don't animals worship? If evolution is science, why does it take faith to believe it? If we are not created, then we are not bound to morals, so why do all humans have a conscious, which animals don't have? If life has no other meaning than to survive, how did it begin from non- living matter? The truth is, the fool says in his heart, there is no God, but the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. God Bless you all! May you know Him, before you die.
The video isn’t about worship. Humans worship, humans are animals by definition, therefore some animals (humans) worship. We do some things non-human species do, non-human species do some things we don’t do. All species are different.
Robert Martin basically told us that due to PEER PRESSURE in the Science field that people are bullied into accepting and following the "status quo" of Evolution being true....or...you just might find yourself out of work, unpublished, and discredited.
Peer pressure. In the scientific field. This being told by a creationist (which I'm assuming you are, as you're arguing against evolution, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). A creationist. Claiming that scientists apply peer pressure for ideas to be accepted. Sheev Palpatine: *Ironic.*
@@wd3185 I don't understand your argument. How is my being a Creationist (which I am) explaining anything about how Evolutionists within the field of Science are allowed to get away with teaching evolution as fact rather than a theory? Are you in the scientific field and/or able to provide evidence that those who oppose Evolution are able to publish peer reviewed articles as easily and frequently as those who support it?
Tip Of the Day the point is that people ONLY believe creationism because they belong to a cult that impress that belief on its members.
@@peteconrad2077 _Right_ because having a Creator is so much more far-fetched than evolving from a rock...
Tip Of the Day it is. We have explained through research most of the process of life coming from organic chemistry. Science continues work to explain the remaking gaps which keep getting smaller. Your explanation is “it was done with magic”, no further attempt at explaining the process is made. It makes your theory a joke.
How did the universe come into existence in the first place? Who wrote the scientific laws and quantum equations that govern that universe?
1 Corinthians 1:18-31
WE DONT KNOW. just because we dont know something doesn't mean god did it
Nobody. They come from the nature of space-time. Pretending is it some magic guy is stupid.
And the meek shall inherit the earth... Bugs, microorganisms, ameba, etc
Majority opinion is not proof for or against any argument.
My grand piano, you wrote, "Majority opinion is not proof for or against any argument." In the fields of science, consensus tends to hinder the advancement of science. But don't tell that to Martin. He arrogantly projects that the majority is right, even when they have to fabricate evidence to prop up the failed theory of evolution. Dan
Scientific Consensus is not the same as the opinion of the majority. Further, it does not hinder anything. The current Scientific Consensus is the result of a method to separate fact from fiction based on evidence, reason, logic and observation. The religious, in contrast relay on wishful thinking and, as you showed in your comment, lies.
Rob Davis, you wrote, "Scientific Consensus is not the same as the opinion of the majority." Of course it is. ========= Rob Davis, you wrote, "Further, it does not hinder anything. The current Scientific Consensus is the result of a method to separate fact from fiction based on evidence, reason, logic and observation." You have not thought this through, Rob. Scientific consensus is one of the most powerful detriments to the advancement of science. It was that way in the days of Galileo, when the orthodoxy demanded adherence to the pagan philosophies of Aristotle and Ptolemy, and it is the same today where the orthodoxy demands every scientist and educator kiss the rings of Charlie Darwin and Charlie Lyell. Modern so-called "scientific" consensus (Darwinian in this case) has led to millions of unnecessary appendectomies and tonsillectomies, a significant delay in the understanding of Genetics, Plate Tectonics, and other ignored scientific theories and inventions, and has even contributed to massive fraud within the evolutionary fields, not to mention the enormous pile of taxpayer dollars wasted trying to prop-up Darwinism and Lyellism. Consensus is not science, Rob. A consensus "scientist" would say something like, "Nearly all scientists believe in evolution". But, in reality, "consensus" is the refuge of scoundrels, according to this fellow: _"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period." [Crichton, Michael, "Aliens Cause Global Warming." Wall Street Journal, [Updated 2008], 2003]_ Michael Crichton had a Harvard M.D.. This next fellow won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965 and the Albert Einstein Award in 1954: _"Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. When someone says science teaches such and such, he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn't teach it; experience teaches it. If they say to you science has shown such and such, you might ask,"How does science show it-how did the scientists find out-how, what, where?" Not science has shown, but this experiment, this effect, has shown. And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments (but we must listen to all the evidence), to judge whether a reusable conclusion has been arrived at." [Feynman, Richard, "The Pleasure Of Finding Things Out: The Best Short Works Of Richard Feynman." 1999, 187]_ This fellow is a famous science writer: _"science does not respect consensus. There was once widespread agreement about phlogiston (a nonexistent element said to be a crucial part of combustion), eugenics, the impossibility of continental drift, the idea that genes were made of protein (not DNA) and stomach ulcers were caused by stress, and so forth-all of which proved false. Science, Richard Feyman once said, is 'the belief in the ignorance of experts.'" [Matt Ridley, "Science Is About Evidence, Not Consensus." Wall Street Journal, 2013]_ www.mattridley.co.uk/biography/ ========= Rob Davis, you wrote, "The religious, in contrast relay on wishful thinking and, as you showed in your comment" Please don't clump all religions together, Rob. It makes you look stupid. Christians believe God created the universe with an order that can be scientifically tested and observed. Some of the greatest discoveries in history have been made by devout Christians, such as Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, and Faraday. Some of the greatest scientists in modern times are Christians. Frankly, Rob, it is the bitter clingers in the scientific establishment -- the thugs that demand "consensus" -- that hold back the advancement of science, as Max Planck explained: _"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." [Max Planck, "Scientific Autobiography And Other Papers." Williams and Norgate, 1968, pp.33-34]_ Ironically, the thugs that hold back science the most -- those that force scientists and educators to choose between a herd-like consensus mentality, or their careers -- are the ones with the most scientific sounding names, such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Center for Science Education, and so forth. The greedy, covetous, corporate establishment called "Peer-Review" is a part of the forced-consensus thuggery. Dan
Well, Dan, I’d strongly recommend that you actually read a comment next time before you go on a copy and paste rampage or at least look up some words. Crichton, Feynman and Ridley are proofing my point here. I was talking about “Scientific Consensus” just as words like “theory”, it has a very different meaning when a scientist uses it, the word consensus takes on a very different weight when we speak of scientific consensus. A Scientific Consensus is reached my doubting and debating, the days of Galileo are long gone. What’s vital to realize about this is not that the consensus is immune to challenge; quite to the contrary, it’s important for these challenges to occur. It’s necessary for the progression of science that we dare our most cherished assumptions and conclusions to live up to the inquisitions posed to it by new data, methods, observations and tests. The cracks we find in our theories and ideas are what lead to scientific progress. And quite often, the people probing at the cracks are the very ones who oppose the consensus position. This is, if evidence based a welcome and necessary part of the separation of fact from fiction. Experts and not the Majority of people do it. Therefore, it is not the same as a Majority opinion. Unless you are a scientist working in the particular field in question, you are probably not even capable of discerning between a conclusion that’s scientifically valid and viable and one that isn’t. Even if you’re a scientist in a somewhat related field! Why? This is mostly due to the fact that a non-expert cannot tell the difference between a robust scientific idea and a caricature of that idea. Let’s take you for example. You obviously don’t quite know what “Scientific Consensus” means, jet you blast out what, might in your Bible group, pass as an opinion. However, in the real world your opinion means jackshit when it comes to formulating any Scientific Consensus. You also seem to have problems with the term scientific. The statement “Godcreated the universe with an order that can be scientifically tested and observed” is beyond ridiculous. It presumes a deity. To presume is not scientific way and the question “is there a got” goes straight against the principle of falsifiability and is therefore scientifically irrelevant. Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, and Faraday were all Christians yes, so was anybody else at their time. It’s a fallacy to conclude that their endeavours are due to their believes. Not one of the papers written by this great man does postulate any form of deity. Quite the contrary.
Rob Davis, you wrote, "Well, Dan, I’d strongly recommend that you actually read a comment next time before you go on a copy and paste rampage or at least look up some words. Crichton, Feynman and Ridley are proofing my point here. I was talking about “Scientific Consensus” just as words like “theory”, it has a very different meaning when a scientist uses it, the word consensus takes on a very different weight when we speak of scientific consensus." Baloney. There is not a shred of evidence for Darwinism, and it is undoubtedly "scientific consensus", and, as in the days of Galileo, is coerced. You will not last long as an educator or researcher if you refuse to kiss the rings of Darwin and Lyell. ========== Rob Davis, you wrote, "A Scientific Consensus is reached my doubting and debating, the days of Galileo are long gone. What’s vital to realize about this is not that the consensus is immune to challenge; quite to the contrary, it’s important for these challenges to occur. It’s necessary for the progression of science that we dare our most cherished assumptions and conclusions to live up to the inquisitions posed to it by new data, methods, observations and tests. The cracks we find in our theories and ideas are what lead to scientific progress. And quite often, the people probing at the cracks are the very ones who oppose the consensus position. This is, if evidence based a welcome and necessary part of the separation of fact from fiction. Experts and not the Majority of people do it." You would have done well to read my post, Rob, and the included references, instead of going off on this belligerent, scientifically-challenged rant. Anyone who has been paying attention knows that "scientific" consensus is a stumbling block to invention, which is exactly the point Crichton, Feynman, Ridley and Planck were trying get across. The scientific orthodoxy always protects it turf: by the Inquisition in the days of Galileo, and by a corrupt federal judiciary, in modern times, using the power of the federal sword, which is tyranny. ========== Rob Davis, you wrote, "Therefore, it is not the same as a Majority opinion. Unless you are a scientist working in the particular field in question, you are probably not even capable of discerning between a conclusion that’s scientifically valid and viable and one that isn’t. Even if you’re a scientist in a somewhat related field! Why? This is mostly due to the fact that a non-expert cannot tell the difference between a robust scientific idea and a caricature of that idea." Were you taught to be a condescending jack-ass, or did it come naturally? ========== Rob Davis, you wrote, "Let’s take you for example. You obviously don’t quite know what “Scientific Consensus” means, jet you blast out what, might in your Bible group, pass as an opinion. However, in the real world your opinion means jackshit when it comes to formulating any Scientific Consensus. You also seem to have problems with the term scientific." You are undoubtedly arrogant, Rob, but clueless. I'll bet you believe Darwinism and Lyellism are examples of real science. Am I correct? ========== Rob Davis, you wrote, "The statement “God created the universe with an order that can be scientifically tested and observed” is beyond ridiculous. It presumes a deity. To presume is not scientific way and the question “is there a got” goes straight against the principle of falsifiability and is therefore scientifically irrelevant. Galileo, Newton, Maxwell, and Faraday were all Christians yes, so was anybody else at their time. It’s a fallacy to conclude that their endeavours are due to their believes. Not one of the papers written by this great man does postulate any form of deity. Quite the contrary." More philosophical baloney. Atheists made up the silly rule that supernatural theories must be discarded, and only so-called "natural" theories can be considered. Scientifically-challenged atheists are the same ones who believe this universe, of a size beyond our imagination, magically appeared from nothing. And even now, when they realize that the cell is not a mere blob of protoplasm, but a vast factory of unimaginably complex molecular machines, programmed by an unimaginably complex coding system, they still believe life magically appeared from non-living "soup" or from the seas. The same people who falsely claim the Bible is a bunch of fairy tales, somehow believe frogs can turn into princes using the magic of "time". The last time I checked, magic is supernatural. What a bunch of hypocrites! The afore-named scientists were great scientists because they believed in a divine order -- a purposeful creation. It never crossed their minds that the universe was "steady-state", or, alternately, one that magically appeared from nothing. Many modern scientists also believe in a divinely ordered universe, despite being brainwashed their entire lives by loony atheist dogma. It is hard to ignore the fine-tuning of the universe, not to mention individual puzzles such as quantized red-shifts (for which the discoverer was shunned), Hubble's observed "center of the universe" (which that clown rejected on philosophical, ideological reasons), and so forth. This is Hubble explaining why he rejected his own observations: _"The assumption of uniformity has much to be said in its favour. If the distribution were not uniform, it would either increase with distance, or decrease. But we would not expect to find a distribution in which the density increases with distance, symmetrically in all directions. Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance." [Hubble, Edwin, Possible Worlds: The Law of Nebular Distribution when Red-Shifts are not interpreted as Velocity-Shifts, "The Observational Approach to Cosmology." Oxford At The Clarendon Press, 1937, Chap. III, p.40]_ While no reasonable astrophysicist would claim the earth is the center of the universe, it is certainly not unreasonable to claim our solar system is at the center, which is both biblical and scientific, according to Hubble's own observations. Dan
It's sad that so many people, on both ends of the spectrum, that out of hand dismiss what they don't want to agree with.
Evolutionists don’t dismiss creationism out of hand. They dismiss it with evidence.
@@peteconrad2077 No.
@Andrew Webb No.
Jacob Fongemie and you prove my point by denying it with a flat ‘no’ unsupported by evidence. Well done. Proof of my point as concise as i could wish for.
@@peteconrad2077 your former statement contains 0 evidence no counter evidences are needed to refute you, saying you're wrong is very enough!
it is funny to watch this sort of debates 10 years later ... Whatever evolutionists said, later on, it always turned out to be wrong ...
I'm still waiting for creationist to explain to us exactly who got the insider info on Genesis 1 and 2, when the got the info, how they got the info and from whom the got the info
It's no surprise to me that the scientist in favor of evolution has a biology background, and the creationist has a chemistry background.
Proteins exist. You cannot deny that proteins exist and are required for life. There are protein enzymes, protein machines, structural proteins, millions of different kinds of proteins. Proteins cannot form unless the cell exists as an integral whole. Darwinists can write as many deceptive books jam packed with formulae, produce as many false fossils as they like, make as many demagogic assaults on the scientific evidence for Creation as the choose or stick posters up full of fantastical illustrations and present these as exhibitions of evolution all over the place, but none of this will never change the fact of their fundamental defeat. Because the worst nightmare for Darwinists is the very beginning of life. Darwinists have not been able to produce a single explanation of how just one protein came into being. This has TOTALLY DEMOLISHED DARWINISM!
@@danminer5343 cool story.
@@utkuutku5203 - and very true.
@@danminer5343 you are trying to discredit evolution in youtube comments. it's not true, it's pathetic.
@@utkuutku5203 - Are you saying that 'evolution' is not true and is pathetic? I am not sure what you are saying.
Evolution always wins 100% of the time, evolution v creation isn't a debate Fact vs fiction
@Creationism R maybe in your delusional mind, but In reality it's something you can't get away from ;) Have any scientific evidence that may support your bogus claim?
@Creationism R Bible is bronze age mythology why would I want that?
@Creationism R creationism is a position for the delusional and scientifically illiterate
@Creationism R If there is an iota of truth in creationism. If there was then it would have applications that are distinct as a result. It doesn't. Creationism has no coherent model that can account for all, most or even a significant proportion of the evidence.
@Creationism R So you have no actual response? Got it.
I hear evolutionists talk, there's always one thing that sticks out. Time! It appears to be the evolutionist best friend and, yet it's worst enemy. Add to that, they use words like "possiblity" , "" "may" , "could have" and "we think". There is nothing definitive. They'll say "somewhere between 60 to 150 million years" , or "300 million to 648 million years". As if that's no big deal! How can someone believe in that?
More info on this video kzhead.info/sun/pLGOYdeniaSqfaM/bejne.html
Please non-evolutionists .......................................................................explain anti-biotic resistant bacteria
They are still bacteria
@@aaronfield7899 You missed the point entirely.
@@rstevewarmorycom What was the point? It just proves that bacteria can adapt to become resistant to antibiotics. It doesn't prove that it can evolve into a eukaryitoc cell
@@aaronfield7899 Of course it does, you idiot! ANY mutations that can be selected because they improve survival PROVE that given billions of years, and quintillions of tons of sea water, extreme species transformation results!! Mutations and their positively selected results accumulate down millions of years, and it can easily become millions of very different plants and animals!! There is NO limit or barrier to the possible accumulation of positive mutations that benefit survival!! Just because YOU don't get to see much change in your paltry lifetime is irrelevant! We have the evidence in DNA! EVEN Francis Collins, a geneticist and evangelical believer, says that DNA TOTALLY PROVES Evolution by Mutation and Natural Selection with Common Descent and Ancestry, even if there were NO fossils at ALL!!
They are losing information to survive, it might be 'beneficial' for the moment but it's gonna be weaker than their cousins later.
It's good to see creation/materialistic debates more and more. I'm glad to see creationism becoming more accepted.
Idiot.
Adiel Stephenson your the idiot for believing in evolution
Enjoy and Travel The World! DNA does not support evolution. DNA only shows how complex life is.
Enjoy and Travel The World! DNA is powerful egvidence for intelligent design. There’s no evidence for the evolution myth
@@chucklesdarwinwaswrongevol9264 DNA has comfirmed common ancestry, sorry bub Evolution is an actual process.
Have you ever considered the fact that creationism is simply man asserting that he knows more about the universe and what "really happened" based on stories, theories and myths created by other men rather than trusting in the true creation that God is responsible for all around them and ignoring the evidence that is so readily apparent......i ask who are the true blasphemers who deny creation? Would God truly have to tinker with his creation constantly to keep it working or would it rather be perfect at the moment of its conception.....so perfect in fact that it creates life out of seemingly nothing over vast timescales that are impossible to truly comprehend....and also to the people who agree that there was a creation and even know when it happened 14 billion years ago but deny where it came from because they hold themselves so high that they believe they should know the unknowable or else refuse to believe it......its time to listen and be humble when nature gives you answers instead of denying Gods great creation in favor of your own fathers myths and beliefs....this is a general response to both sides of this argument....BOTH sides are so incredibly arrogant as to think they can know what Gods plan is and how things REALLY are....... why do you hold yourselves so high as to know better than what Gods nature tells you everday? Do you think you can understand the universe? Maybe you should first try to memorize the locations of all the atoms inside one cell in your own body and then predict the motions of those atoms over one microsecond......then maybe you will start to see how things truly are and you can place yourself a little closer to God
Proof that evolution is real...I want some
Absolutely species change over time, due to changing environments and stuff like that. However while I believe that species change within the species, no species can become another...there isn't much can proof I've seen that would support that.
Depends on how feasible it is to replicate in a natural environment, but yes that would help its case and at least cause me to do some additional research.
Ok I will look into these links and do research and get back to you on my findings and if there is any validity in these experiments
Matt Richardson science does not and cannot do proof. What we have is evidence not proof. The evidence is allele frequency change in populations which is what evolution is.
god believers, please explain this: Timothy 2:12 i do not permit a women to exercise authority over a man; rather she is to remain quiet.
Scott Farmer Why aren’t they allowed to be preachers? Seems kinda sexist
ImWholeWheat Rules written by and followed by, idiots.
It's also sexist to say that women and children should be first into the lifeboats off a sinking ship. It's also sexist for a man to lead a woman in a waltz. It's also sexist for a man to open a car door for a woman on a date. It's also sexist for a husband to take a bullet for his wife when an intruder comes into the house. It's also sexist for a woman to take her husband's surname in marriage. Not all sexism is bad. And keep in mind that in the resurrection we will be spirits, so neither male nor female. The roles of males and females on earth are simply given to emulate the roles of Christ and the church. The husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. So the wife should obey her husband in all things. And the husband should put his wife before himself in all things. That's the good deal, and that's how it works well. So Christians are to obey Christ, and Christ puts us before HImself, which is why He gave His life for us at Calvary. There is nothing more noble, nothing more beautiful, than a relationship in which the wife submits to her husband because she know just how much he loves her. Any man who declares his wife equal with himself with regard to authority, is a coward. Any man who abuses his authority over his wife, is a pig.
Why is the word "Debate" in the title? With zero evidence, there IS no debate.
Evolution is established REALITY. And you can also believe in both. God would have given life the ability to evolve. Best way to keep the bloodline going and give life all it needs to survive as long as possible.
You are out of your mind
@@jim6834 he is correct
@@ozowen5961 you're the same guy that posts hundreds if not thousands of comments all over this platform, we clearly live in your head rent-free. Anytime we can schedule a debate both of you, show us how smart you are.
@@jim6834 I am having those discussions now, as you pointed out. Debates are a particular rhetorical skill set. Time constrained and with rules that can be played. I do this because I learn (unlike most creationists, I look up references). I am further uninterested in even trying to set up a convenient time etc. I do not live in the USA. Your day is night time here. So, no. Too much effort, not a useful process and no worthy outcome.
@@jim6834 Now to the OP. You claim the writer is out of his mind. Yet the fact is that most major Christian denominations accept evolution. The majority of Christians accept it and I understand that the majority of folks who accept evolution are Christian. So why you think he is out of his mind is confusing. The USA is not a great example, it is a standout at the moment for its science denial.
Creationism is not science even though some of its proponents try to pass it off as such. Science involves putting forward an idea (called a hypothesis) which postulates a cause with an effect. It then amasses evidence and objectively assesses that evidence to see whether it supports the hypothesis or not. If it does, the hypothesis is used to make a prediction which can be further tested. If not, the hypothesis is either rejected or amended for further testing. The key word in all of this is objective. Creationism involves beliefs which are subjective. What is worse, it bowdlerises the scientific method by only looking for evidence that supports its beliefs and ignoring or supressing that which does not. In addition, its supporters continually point to facts for which science (as yet) has no answers as 'proof' of the validity of their ideas. Science does not pretend to have answers for everything. It is an evolving, learning and adaptable way of looking at the universe. That is why it has been so successful over the last three hundred years. The old saying, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' is true up to a point but absence of evidence is not proof of presence.
Creationism isint science your right, we just use science to disprove your ideas. We use science to stump your so called "evidence" of evolution.
Antonio Dean Since the vast preponderance of scientific evidence across multiple scientific fields of study supports evolution and there is no evidence whatsoever in support of creationism I will treat your fantasist nonsense with the contempt it deserves.
Mad Geordie Yet none of the scientist or you can explain what this creationist is saying and how it points to a creator. How it disproves evolution yet you're too ignorant to even glimpse at his studies. And you obviously diddnt watch a second of the video if you dont think theres evidence of creationism.
Antonio Dean 'The creationist model predicts amazing design in nature - which could well be argued for organisms evolving to exploit to the fullest their evolutionary niches. The same argument could be used to explain mutualism showing how evolution allows every aspect of an ecology to be exploited. It is well known that ecosystems have evolved subject to the influence of many factors and changing any one of these factors can have unexpected effects, this is not proof of deistic input. The creationist proponent stated that vestigial organs are very rare even though 83 were quoted as existing in the human body alone! The appendix ' fulfils a vital function regarding the intestinal flora', - so how come many millions of people who have had theirs removed thrive without any problems? 'The human body was designed not evolved'. Speak with any woman who has undergone childbirth and I am sure that she would have a few pungent comments on the matter, as would any sufferer from an inherited illness or condition. If God is the designer and the human body was made in his image then he must be an absolutely crap bioengineer. Junk DNA exists despite the first speaker denying it, as was pointed out by the second speaker and its energy wasteful transcription does not redound to the skill of some mythical master engineer. Mutation has been shown to increase the complexity of organisms over time, which was also pointed out, despite the vehement rejection of this fact by nearly all creationists because it does not fit in with their beliefs. The fossil record is, by and large, not discontinuous showing clear progression through millions of years with transitional fossils existing in their thousands, despite what religious naysayers may claim. Some discontinuities do exist due to the action of global catastrophes such as mass volcanic action or planetary meteor strike - again, not proof of divine input. Irreducible complexity is not an argument, nor is arguing from ignorance which was clearly shown by the evolutionary proponent but that does not stop these and other equally mendacious and duplicitous tactics being used by the ever increasingly desperate creationist camp. The only ignorance being shown here is by you of basic science. If that were not the case, you would not need to have all of the inconsistencies and downright lies of the creationist arguments pointed out. Try reading a book that is not a four thousand year old collection of myths, fables and stories, you may be surprised at what you may learn, - if you are capable.
I think creationism is a viable scientific view. What is science? it's observation, leading to a hypothesis, and then possibly a theory. basically science watches and tells us the temperature at which water boils. Is there absolute empirical evidence that there are no elements in nature that could suggest an intelligent design to nature? his use of the word "predicted" simply means that according to creation theory some data had to appear and has. evolution is very far from a complete theory without holes. Bottom line of both theories: a big bang started the universe rolling, or some extreme intelligence had power to kickstart and fashion life. how can one say that one idea is more outrageous than another. existence of life itself is outrageous. please don't fling mud because you don't agree with a viable opinion.
There is no "debate". May as well have a flat earther "debate" an astronaut or an astrologist "debate" an astronomer.
This comment deserves way more likes
@@neilbeaton9498 no it doesn't
@@wesleyriddell6936 the genesis creation myth is no more scientific or credible than any of the other thousands of religious creation myths. When you take off your God glasses and just examine the evidence, it all points to evolution
Neil Beaton ah. So you didn’t actually come into the debate willing to change your mind. If that quenches your thirst for Truth, then so be it.
@@insanedrummer1572 That's true. I'm not willing to change my mind because I've seen the so-called "evidence" for creation. Just out of curiosity, what is your evidence for creation?
So funny how he brought up quantum mechanics and said "it works" maybe he should read Lawrence Krauss's "A universe from nothing" because he shows how it is possible from strictly quantum processes that you CAN get a universe FROM NOTHING! As he always says "wirhout supernatural shenanigans!
Nothing plus nothing equals nothing. Soft dinosaur tissue debunks evolution
@@ada2step997 Go read Krauss. Go read Mary Schweitzer's paper on dino tussue. Both will contradict you. AND here is the best part, with facts, evidence and testable data.
@@InformationIsTheEdge I suggest that you look up Mark Armitage. someone was going to pay Mary schweitzer's boss $10,000 to do carbon dating on the soft dinosaur tissue and on a phone call he said he wouldn't because it wouldn't help them
@@InformationIsTheEdge kzhead.info/sun/mJWupN5sbnVpl6c/bejne.html
@@ada2step997 Did you read Mary Schweitzer's academic paper? No, of course you didn't. Did you read Krauss' A Universe From Nothing? No, of course you didn't. Now the really big question, why not? I know why you haven't read any of the pertinent data. Do you?
This has got to be the most idiotic debate format. U can't rebut the rebuttal??????!!!!! ASININE!!!!
Debating physical science against Bronze Age myths in the 21st century. Why is this even a debate? Oh yeah! Because there's people out there that can't distinguish fact from fiction!
There's also people that can't distinguish between debating AGAINST science and debating what IS CONSIDERED science.
You're absolutely right. I don't understand why this is even a debate.
"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." (Wald, George, "Innovation and Biology," Scientific American, Vol. 199, Sept. 1958, p. 100)
shinobi1kenobi75 did you really use something from 120yrs ago for your argument. And a quote from 1958? That's forever in science. Smh.
Let's see how pseudo science is being used to convince you that you are nothing but a fish update who sprang from some antiscientific primal pond type scenario, and who certainly doesn't have a Heavenly Father Who...loves...you. Then let's look at some real science, a bit outside the box. . We have been told that life came from inorganic matter. Now, science must have observable data to be valid and must not ignore the actual data. The actual data, per the LAW of Biogenesis? Life always comes only from life and life of the same kind. Theories are fine if they don't defy the actual evidence. Even in labs, with intelligent design and high tech equipment, life has never been created. The best they can do is take a cell and alter it with genetic engineering, or get some of the components of the cell, not all of them at all. . The needed proteins and other components of a cell are not only not all there, they are not arranged as they need to be arranged - in statistically impossible ways if random chance had put them together. No one has even gotten close to creating life. It should be easy. Just take a simple cell or any life form that has died. There you have all the components of life. So why can't anyone do a Dr. Frankenstein on any of them? (And kindly don't say that evolution doesn't "do" abiogenesis. Look. It's in evolution writings and documentaries, and all over the net and YT.) . We have also been told as gawd's truth scientific fact that a 3 foot high ape type creature, an Australopithecus, Lucy, was your great, great etc. granny. Based on? Some minor similarities, namely "similar homology" namely the Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy. The fact that she was pretty much like any other ol' Australopithecus was irrelevant to them. Incomplete Comparison logical fallacy. . Since evolutionists are always disagreeing with one another on everything, now some of them say, No, it wasn't Lucy but some other such creature. Some creature with no evidence it existed. Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy. . Now how do they know Lucy et al even had a single descendant, much less one significantly different from it, much less one that could cross the impossible genus barrier and turn into you? Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy. . Guess for how long any "transitions" are missing between you and Lucy or some other transition du jour? Oh, for just 2 to 5 million Darwin years! The rocks say no transitions exist. The evo spin, their Presuming Omniscience logical fallacy, tells you, again as gawd's truth scientific fact, that they are just "missing." . We've also been told that we came via a fish, Tiktaalik. The story goes that this...fish...was found in just the right place for a "transition". Problem is, it's 100% nothing but a...fish. See Wiki describing it as "an extinct species of lobe finned fish." Google the fossil of Tiktaalik, which is mostly missing. Do those tiny fin fragments look like they could be said to be turning into legs - without the presuming omniscience logical fallacy? Yet we see all sorts of fanciful art work of Tik with long, muscular "evolving" legs, bending as the fish transits, supposedly, to land. The real evidence? . In countless billions of fossils and in living examples, all we ever see are 100% fish and 100% tetrapods/four legged animals. (No, mud skippers and "walking" catfish are not transitions. They are using their 100% fins in an unusual way, similar to a flying fish which is no way turning into a bird.) . Evolutionists are constantly picking up fossils like Tiktaalik from the ground and telling you, for up to over a 100 million Darwin years, what happened to their invisible and evidenceless countless billions of "descendants." Never ask them how to tell a missing link from a non existent link. And then they accuse Christians of being into "magical thinking." . You are not a fish update. You are infinitely more than that. Here is some actual, observable and documented evidence, to help you see that: Now in the Bible we are told of a Man Who believed in Adam and Eve and Noah as being actual, historical figures. The Bible says He did miracles and told others to do things like raise the dead and heal the sick. It also describes His death and burial. Is there any actual scientific data to support those stories? . See secular news reports about Val Thomas, dead for 17 hours but now alive and normal after prayers from her family and her Church. kzhead.info/sun/prSBqcergJZ4ZJE/bejne.html . . See Medical Marvel Beyond Chance, from a secular source, with a pediatrician giving his report. this one attesting to a dying child's healing which cannot be explained by modern medicine, and came after a relative laid hands on her and prayed for her. kzhead.info/sun/i92kn5FtbYB5hq8/bejne.html The DNA in every cell in her body was changed. . See CBN's short vid with Dean Braxton. You'll hear his critical care doctor, rated the best patient care doctor in Washington state, saying "It is a miracle...a miracle..." that Braxton is alive, has no brain damage and is normal in every way. Why? He had no heart beat and no respiration for 1 3/4 hours! His family believed in divine healing and they and others were praying for him. kzhead.info/sun/lpeTmthwqV-egXk/bejne.html . Also see CBN Dr. Chauncey Crandall Raises A Man From The Dead. kzhead.info/sun/ppFwis-knH6rZK8/bejne.html Part 1. This video is a bit faded but has the most complete information on this story. . Get Dr. Richard Casdorph's book The Miracles. There he gives medical documentation for miracles, mostly, but not all, from Kathryn Kuhlman's healing services. Casdorph came to Kuhlman's meetings to debunk her but turned into a supporter, as did other doctors. You can see him and other doctors in some of her healing services on YT. (She is now deceased.) Delores Winder is one of the cases documented in his book. You can watch her amazing story on YT with Sid Roth. kzhead.info/sun/fcxynr18hWlshok/bejne.html Skip to 1:31 to miss the book ad. The book The Audacity of Prayer by Don Nordin lists medically documented miracles. . On Andrew Wommack's vids you can see doctors talking about "miracles" too. Check out the YT vid with the ophthalmologist who says Yes, Ronald Coyne could see out of an empty eye socket after a faith healer prayed for him. You can see him doing demos. At the end of the book Don't Limit God you see a medical statement by a doctor saying that his patient used to have M.S. and diabetes but is now cured. Do you think that Someone Who can raise the dead and heal people of deadly "incurable" diseases, Someone Who created time, space, matter, energy and you - needed "evolution" to make life forms? No, He created them fully formed and fully functional in 6 days just as Genesis, a Book He always supported, tells you. . Then there is the Shroud of Turin. If you don't know, the Shroud is a linen burial shroud with the faint image of a crucified man on it. If you have heard that the Shroud was proven to be a Medieval fake based on carbon 14 testing, in the documentary Jesus And The Shroud of Turin you can see the very inventor of carbon 14 testing saying that the sample was invalid due to contamination. . kzhead.info/sun/i7itdMyuopGXqmw/bejne.html . The vid demonstrates many miraculous features such as pollen from Jerusalem and faint images of flowers that are found only in the Jerusalem area during the spring, as at Passover when Messiah was crucified. With modern technology we also see that the Shroud has an x ray quality which even reveals the bones and dentition of the Man on the Shroud. . In the 70s a NASA scientist noticed the Shroud's photographs had inexplicable, unique in the world, qualities. He got up a team of scientists, called STURP, to examine it in person in Italy. (No, the Shroud is not "just a Catholic thing" as the Vatican only came into possession of it fairly recently in history.) They used NASA, and other, high tech equipment with 100s of thousands of hours of research. Their findings are seen all over the net and were published in respected science journals. . The team was composed of 3 Jews, at least one agnostic and one atheist, and people of various faiths. They all agreed on these things: The Shroud image was not painted on, and they have no clue how it got there. It exactly matches, down to blood stains where a crown of thorns would be, the description of Messiah's death and burial as given in the Bible. The image could not be duplicated with modern technology. . About the Shroud I say "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, maybe it's a duck." . Maybe that Man on the Shroud is your very Best Friend and Savior. I pray you will find that out. You're going to need a miracle some day friend. They are out there in abundance for those who humbly seek them from their Creator, the One Who made all that DNA out there, and Who said, "Whoever comes to Me I will no way cast out."
I am actually quite surprised at how well the creationist did.
All he did was cite specific examples on which a hypothesis on how a species evolved happened to be wrong(for example the whales). There are still hundreds of other examples of evolution and some have even been observed in real time. For example, many bacteria have been observed to evolve a resistance to antibiotics through the process of natural selection. So why have we seen these organisms evolve and not humans? That’s because they reproduce thousands or even hundreds of thousands of times faster meaning that their DNA has many more opportunities to mutate.
@@andrewfowlkes3838 That's not even substantial. It takes faith to believe that.
You'll be even more surprised with you learn Creationism is the correct theory.
wdym surprised? this debate will surprise you even more if you thought this was surprising 3 evolutionists vs creationist kzhead.info/sun/gsuhp86Je4efdoU/bejne.html
but the bacteria is still producing bacteria. And that's all it ever will. Hardly proof of the evolutionary model which proposes bacteria evolved into all living things