Do Complex Systems Defy Evolution? | The Creation Podcast: Episode 34
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 ต.ค. 2022
- Which came first, the protein or the cell? They were intentionally created at the same time along with every essential component of the all-or-nothing systems of life on earth. However, the theory of evolution claims that all forms of life arose by chance over long periods of time - is that possible?
Join host Trey Bowling and ICR paleobiochemist Dr. Brian Thomas as they define irreducible complexity, describe systems that qualify as all-or-nothing, and discuss how these biological necessities prove to be incompatible with evolutionary theory.
Related resource: Creation Basics & Beyond, 2nd Ed. | Get the book here: store.icr.org/creation-basics...
#Science #Podcast #Evolution #Creation #TheCell #Biology #Genesis #Bible #TheCreationPodcast #ICR #AllorNothing #IrreducibleComplexity
---
Do you have questions about science or Scripture? Post them in the comments and we might answer them in future episodes.
Tune in every other Tuesday here on TH-cam for new episodes. You can also find the audio version on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, and Google Podcasts.
Don't forget to subscribe to our channel to get notified about all of our upcoming episodes!
Hope to see you next time on The Creation Podcast!
---
Learn more about the Institute for Creation Research: www.icr.org/
Shop our store: www.icr.org/
Support our ministry: www.icr.org/donate
Plan your visit to our Dallas creation museum and planetarium: discoverycenter.icr.org/ - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Sad to me this doesn’t have millions of views. Thank you!
I know, it's hilariously bad.
Does it stop being the truth? If it causes doubt in your mind then you need to ask yourself basic questions like what came first, in a cell for example, nothing can be removed and the cell survives, it will die.
Craig ventor proved this when he removed the dna from an ecoli bacteria and copied it using a dna copier, he then put the copy into the cell and claimed he created a synthentic cell, the cell died btw.
I gotta go back and start at one. Thank you Dr. Thomas and ICR!!! LOVE your stuff!
Great job as always ICR! 🙂🙏 Thanks for these videos!
Very clear explanation and examples. They're eye opening.
Loved how our Lord Jesus Christ was exalted and given praise at the closing of the interview.
Many thanks for this.
Came across this while doing my own research on the question of what came first, DNA or proteins? Now I have some answers that make sense scientifically and Biblically. I truly don't see the conflict. Thank you for this enlightening session.
It may come late but the currently accepted answer is RNA; what they present is a false dilemma.
RNA has the same capacity as DNA to "store" information, can self-replicate (so it doesn't require proteins) and it also explains why DNA is first transcripted in RNA then translated into proteins (rather then directly translating DNA into proteins). You may want to look at the RNA world hypothesis.
Man says see and then believe. Believe first, then the truth comes to you and you'll see.
@@chessknight_
So which came first? The proteins or the rna?
@@chessknight_ RNA is extremely unstable. under the harsh early conditions it would have been degraded faster than it does now within a few minutes at the most. not a good storage. thats why it is called a hypothesis. thus since it does not have any proof, it is not "accepted"
thank you for trying
Yeah theres no biblacal evidence at all? Bro u need to follow the bible for guidance, not truth, sciemce doesnt care for your feelings and is trying to grasp truth, not make it special, u can do both but u cant sacrifice the truth of science for the excitement of god
I wish to thank you for sharing this awesome informational ( The Creation Podcast # 34 ) with me .
Thank you for producing these podcasts. I find them very interesting and informative. It seems to me that the ultimate example of irreducible complexity is the heterosexual reproductive system we see widely represented throughout creation.
Another excellent interview. :)
Lovely!
01:10 me too!
Create needs to be in a lot more languages. Maybe get a hold of Christian Prince or build a replica Ark in Mexico 🇲🇽 or maybe in Japan and elsewhere. People, I believe, need touristy Creationism stuff.
But every organism starts as a single cell. It then grows its organs. So it's not true that everything has to exist all at once.
it's easier to study body parts with an inherent purpose in mind. It's like being a mechanic or an automotive engineer towards a car.
Why are we avoiding the term intelligent design. They making such an effort to avoid it, it is painful to watch. Sigh. God bless.
DNA itself is a network of proteins built up on a sugar lattice, so the question could easily added, where did the DNA molecule originate? Either way you crunch it, evolution just can't be true anywhere other than in the vivid imaginations of those who thought it up, and those who adhere to it.
Agree completely with you, those who continue to adhere to evolution/abiogenesis theories don't want God in their lives and instead want everyone to conform to their ideaology of which there are many denominations of evolution theory.
Because things evolve with birth gentic variations, the soecies before say a fish did not need gills ect, because it isnt a fish as we know today, it developed that way to survive better, we do not have all the answers but to than think it’s biblical as if science hasnt disproven it every time weve been able to do as to what is real, its really only when people have fact in their face can they accept it
Short answer: Duh. Yes.
Why did he say they grew fast to avoid being eaten? They were all vegetarian
Genesis 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;and man became a living soul.
I believe, it waa brought to my attention that God spoke everything into existence except man, man he formed by his hands. This is not to say man was too hard to speak into existence as Jesus stated - "God can form children of Abraham from these stones" but more likely such was our importance to God he formed man in a more personal way and like a potter forms a vase, God formed man.
19:00. "Ex Nihilo" isn't any where in The Bible. The Hebrew word translated "create" means to create out of existing matter.
He didn't say it was.
@@ITPalGame He said "ex nihilo". He believes The Bible is all God has given us. He is a Biblical creationist. He meant it is in The Bible.
@@Hamann9631
I meant he didn't say that the literal words, "ex nihilo", are in the Bible.
"Out/from nothing" concept is Biblical.
Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary says:
"bara‘ (בָּרָא, 1254), “to create, make.” This verb is of profound theological significance, since it has only God as its subject. Only God can “create” in the sense implied by bara‘. The verb expresses creation out of nothing, an idea seen clearly in passages having to do with creation on a cosmic scale: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:1; cf. Gen. 2:3; Isa. 40:26; 42:5). All other verbs for “creating” allow a much broader range of meaning; they have both divine and human subjects, and are used in contexts where bringing something or someone into existence is not the issue. Bara‘ is frequently found in parallel to these other verbs, such as ‘asah,“to make” (Isa. 41:20; 43:7; 45:7, 12; Amos 4:13), yatsar, “to form” (Isa. 43:1, 7; 45:7; Amos 4:13), and kun, “to establish.” A verse that illustrates all of these words together is Isa. 45:18: “For thus saith the Lord that created [bara‘] the heavens; God himself that formed [yatsar] the earth and made [‘asah] it; he hath established [kun] it, he created [bara‘] it not in vain, he formed [yatar] it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else.” The technical meaning of bara‘ (to “create out of nothing”) may not hold in these passages; perhaps the verb was popularized in these instances for the sake of providing a poetic synonym. Objects of the verb include the heavens and earth (Gen. 1:1; Isa. 40:26; 42:5; 45:18; 65:17)man (Gen. 1:27; 5:2; 6:7; Deut. 4:32; Ps. 89:47; Isa. 43:7; 45:12); Israel (Isa. 43:1; Mal. 2:10); a new thing (Jer. 31:22); cloud and smoke (Isa. 4:5); north and south (Ps. 89:12); salvation and righteousness (Isa. 45:8); speech (Isa. 57:19); darkness (Isa. 45:7); wind (Amos 4:13); and a new heart (Ps. 51:10). A careful study of the passages where bara‘ occurs shows that in the few nonpoetic uses (primarily in Genesis), the writer uses scientifically precise language to demonstrate that God brought the object or concept into being from previously nonexistent material. Especially striking is the use of bara‘ in Isaiah 40-65. Out of 49 occurrences of the verb in the Old Testament, 20 are in these chapters. Because Isaiah writes prophetically to the Jews in Exile, he speaks words of comfort based upon God’s past benefits and blessings to His people. Isaiah especially wants to show that, since Yahweh is the Creator, He is able to deliver His people from captivity. The God of Israel has created all things: “I have made [‘asah] the earth, and created [bara‘] man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded” (Isa. 45:12). The gods of Babylon are impotent nonentities (Isa. 44:12-20; 46:1-7), and so Israel can expect God to triumph by effecting a new creation (43:16-21; 65:17-25). Though a precisely correct technical term to suggest cosmic, material creation from nothing, bara‘ is a rich theological vehicle for communicating the sovereign power of God, who originates and regulates all things to His glory."
Love the content, but you guys have to stop advertising your content over a week before it comes out. You end up promoting content that's not available 10x more often than your content that actually exists
Just be glad when you see that new content is coming out, it is such high quality it is always worth waiting for. You sound ungrateful! Jake
how people believe, in evolution, is a mystery, to me....
You have to have many sins you just dont want to turn loose of to
Really
Really
Really
Think not admit GOD IS THE CREATOR
But that dont change it
I changed to different kinds 5 different times. 😄
Take away one body organ and you can kiss your carcass byebye
Fantastic evutionists believe in their own lies
HAHAHAHA, you couldn't even find a guest who even knows what irreducible complexity is supposed to be? ROFL.
He told us what irreducible complexity is, you should post your idea if what it is so we can compare the 2 versions.
You sounded more like a "you are stupid because you don't believe as I do" child trying to get a "gotcha" moment.
This is just a rebrand old the Irreducible Complexity claim. It has no basis in fact.
Organelles have been pared back genetically and they are still functioning. They do NOT have to have current functions to survive.
Do they function as well though?
Still no answer
@@ITPalGame Thank you. This did not come up on my feed.
@@technicianbis5250
Not sure what you mean. The genes were stripped back. In doing so they became a different organelle. That shows a viable evolutionary pathway. It would be odd to require them to work as well. That doesn't make sense.
Perhaps there is something missing in this discussion, why would you want them to work as well?
@@ozowen5961
If you fool with dna, the organism tends to die. Craig venter found this out when he replaced an ecoli dna strand with an identical copy from a dna printer but the bacteria died 2 hrs later while the sample it cam from continued living.
No such thing as irreducible complexity. So just change the name and act like it is something new. No science here. So sad you promote such post-hoc issues. Starting with the conclusion is not science.
Starting with a conclusion is called a hypothesis. It's one of the first steps of forming a scientific theory. It's literally part of the official scientific process...
@@jennifertrussell5711
It has been tested so far on the IR claims like the flagellum and the eye.
The hypothesis failed.
So you are saying a cell can survive if we remove the membrane? No it won't.