Yep, we all came from primordial ooze, turned into amoebas, became worms, transformed into chimps, grew into apes, metamorphosized into cro-magnon, evolved into humans when cro-magnon picked up a foreign object and killed another cro-magnon, and became evil. (eyes rollin'). Good job, Padre
Where is all this "overwhelming" evidence that any species ever evolved into another species outside the laboratory? I'm reminded of the old Wendy's commercial: where's the beef?
The canis lupus evolved into the canis familiaris, through genetic mutation and human selection. By breeding for traits, we transformed the wolf into a chihuahua. This also happens with fruits and vegetables. Nature breeds for traits by being harsh and provoking death; this way, animals are naturally selected to have traits who help them to survive.
@@Xpegasu What you are referring to is known as micro evolution....it is variety within a species. Breeding different breeds of dogs. The result is always a dog. Macro evolution is the idea that a dog over millions of years can turn into some other animal e.g a rabbit. It is nonsense, an impossibility.
@@Xpegasu yeah, and it is all very one directional. a creature which is a generalist, becomes more and more specialist. we haven't actually observed the opposite *ever* happen. wolves become a great veriety of dogs, but those dogs are all way more specific and limited in their potential than any wolfd population. same with vegatibles, and all our domestic animals. the only way we have of making a breed more generalist, is to mix in genes from a more generalist population. so the question becomes, were do those generalist populations cvome from in the first place?
It'd have to have factors outside of a thing itself, which evolutionists themselves would admit to so as to not deny that the effect does and cannot exceed the cause.
This phenomenal priest no longer has his homilies and conferences on TH-cam…was he sidelined or silenced by his superiors or bishop? The evil one has lots of helpers in the hierarchy of the clergy.
A side note, I have no quarrel with philosophy in general. What I have a serious quarrel with is philosophers doing physics using their hokum terms, such as "substance".
There is nothing about evolution that precludes the existence of a god. And of course, evolution has nothing at all to do with whether or not a god exists, so it cannot by any means be "atheistic". When you know so little about a topic that you make these fundamental errors, it damages whatever little credibility you had to start with. And really you did not have much to spare.
If theistic macroevolution is true, if humans evolved from other species gradually over eons through gene mutation and natural selection because God chose to create the human race this way, how do you explain the bedrock Catholic doctrine that Adam and Eve are our first parents, or the bedrock Catholic doctrine that there was no suffering or death prior to Adam's sin (natural selection requires death and suffering)?
As the speaker in this video said, the macroevolution hypothesis is passionately believed by most scientists, not because any data supports the hypothesis, but because the hypothesis gives scientists an excuse not to believe in God.
This priest is utterly contemptible. He claims to have read Krauss' book on particle physics, "A universe from nothing" and having read it, he knows full well what the author is trying to explain when he says "nothing is something". He has read of the experimental evidence, the observations and the theoretical necessity for "nothing" to be an unstable state in the universe, constantly bubbling up with new energy and matter that appears out of nowhere. Hence how "nothing" can indeed produce something. This is an amazing concept to absorb and it sounds like science fiction but it is real, we have tested it and we can prove it in experiments. But rather than educate his audience on some truly remarkable and unexpected physics, he denies them any mention of the evidence that supports the authors statements and instead relies on the audiences ignorance of science to baffle them with false logic and faulty premises. He repeatedly makes misleading statements, putting false words in Krauss' mouth and then mocks those false words that he himself created, as if they were the work of the author. This utter fraud, this phony intellectual and philosopher, this deceiver of men, he dare not say these things to an educated audience as he knows full well his lies would be immediately noticed and jeered, he knows full well that educated people would laugh at his dishonesty and his feeble attempts to trick them. You will only ever see this fraud speaking before audiences that he believes are too ignorant to challenge him, and who will swallow up whatever pap they are fed, simply because this man calls himself a christian. Beware! He speaks lies to dull your mind and wipe away your questions. If it is now christian to lie and deceive and slander.. then he certainly is one. But christians with more traditional values of honesty and courage should confront this fraud, confront his lies and tell him that god does not require the snakes words for protection. God has no fear of the true nature of the universe and some ignorant fools attempt to mislead good christians is not work done in his name. Letting him go unchallenged is to partake in the deceit and to endorse it with your silence. Don't be afraid of the nature of the universe, for it is what it is, and if there is a god out there, he already knows the truth of it. What is to be gained by lying, by pretending that our knowledge is less than it is and that our great scientific minds are little more than children making shapes out of clouds. Enjoy the splendor of the natural world and revel in all its glory. This small, deceitful man is afraid that the universe is more wonderful than god, he is afraid that if you learn the truth you will lose your faith. That's what he thinks of his audience of christians, that they are simple minded, easily distracted fools. If he trusted in them and their faith, he would have no need to lie. Be better than this snake, keep you faith and learn about the universe too. One does not lessen the other.
Phil S Have you observed this "unstable state" in the universe that bubbles up energy? Which by the way would be that the energy came from something, that something being an unstable state in the universe (not to mention it would be taking place in the universe, which would be the universe is already created). For something to come from nothing is a statement that science can not explain. Science can only explain observable phenomenon (that is within the definition of science itself). The last time I checked "nothingness" cannot be observed because of its very nature of being nothing.
lichonski128 'Now, one might still ask why there is something rather than nothing, where nothing means nonbeing including the absence of God. Here at least we can provide a suggestion based on our knowledge of the quantum void. As Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek put it in a Scientific American article back in 1980, which Krauss quotes, “Nothing is unstable.” Nothing to Explain, Victor Stenger It's a flat universe, it's been measured. There is still nothing.
lichonski128 Yes, the experiments have been done that demonstrate that new matter pops into and out of existence. This is basic science to particle physicists.
Phil S "the experimental evidence, the observations and the theoretical necessity for "nothing" to be an unstable state in the universe, constantly bubbling up with new energy and matter that appears out of nowhere. Hence how "nothing" can indeed produce something. This is an amazing concept to absorb and it sounds like science fiction but it is real, we have tested it and we can prove it in experiments." Bullshit. You are viewing particles appearing from some unknown/unseen source (s); calling the unseen "nothing" does not make the unseen "nothing". Nothing--no thing, is nothing , and nothing is not equatable to an unseen something (or a temporarily realized post-potential of something, collapsed field or whatever)! Krauss was playing with words (perhaps merely playfully) and you are a fraud and a windbag. Piss off.
Refusing to educate yourself doesn't mean reality bends to your ignorance. Quantum fluctuations exist, whether or not morons like you know about it. Leave the science to scientists, you can keep talking to your sky daddy for answers.
![เปิดคำทำนาย นอสตราดามุส - บาบา วานก้า ปี 2025 คนทั่วโลกต้องเจออะไรบ้าง? | แฉ 11 ธ.ค. 67 [2/3] |GMM25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xmTIKWJUMPM/mqdefault.jpg)
Love how these so called intellectuals ask us to have faith in their absurdness
Yep, we all came from primordial ooze, turned into amoebas, became worms, transformed into chimps, grew into apes, metamorphosized into cro-magnon, evolved into humans when cro-magnon picked up a foreign object and killed another cro-magnon, and became evil. (eyes rollin'). Good job, Padre
@Mr. Giggles That's not the Catholic View of Creation. Strawman argument
One the greatest Pope in the Church,LeoXIII
That Pope Leo XIII quote was on the money!
If evolution is not real, God is real. If evolution is real, God is real. God is real no matter which way you lean
Wow. Just. Wow.
Where is all this "overwhelming" evidence that any species ever evolved into another species outside the laboratory? I'm reminded of the old Wendy's commercial: where's the beef?
The canis lupus evolved into the canis familiaris, through genetic mutation and human selection. By breeding for traits, we transformed the wolf into a chihuahua. This also happens with fruits and vegetables. Nature breeds for traits by being harsh and provoking death; this way, animals are naturally selected to have traits who help them to survive.
@@Xpegasu What you are referring to is known as micro evolution....it is variety within a species. Breeding different breeds of dogs. The result is always a dog.
Macro evolution is the idea that a dog over millions of years can turn into some other animal e.g a rabbit. It is nonsense, an impossibility.
@@Xpegasu yeah, and it is all very one directional. a creature which is a generalist, becomes more and more specialist.
we haven't actually observed the opposite *ever* happen. wolves become a great veriety of dogs, but those dogs are all way more specific and limited in their potential than any wolfd population. same with vegatibles, and all our domestic animals.
the only way we have of making a breed more generalist, is to mix in genes from a more generalist population. so the question becomes, were do those generalist populations cvome from in the first place?
It'd have to have factors outside of a thing itself, which evolutionists themselves would admit to so as to not deny that the effect does and cannot exceed the cause.
Thumbs up at 4:00 you get and AAAAA!
This phenomenal priest no longer has his homilies and conferences on TH-cam…was he sidelined or silenced by his superiors or bishop? The evil one has lots of helpers in the hierarchy of the clergy.
Whatever happened to this priest, God has a reason. No one really knows. Will continue to pray.
If nothing CAN be something,then atheism CAN BE THEISM. It means exactly what I want it to MEAN.🤓
Princess Luna! 8:14 Video Sancto is officially a brony and that's absolute truth lol.
N < C
A side note, I have no quarrel with philosophy in general. What I have a serious quarrel with is philosophers doing physics using their hokum terms, such as "substance".
There is nothing about evolution that precludes the existence of a god. And of course, evolution has nothing at all to do with whether or not a god exists, so it cannot by any means be "atheistic". When you know so little about a topic that you make these fundamental errors, it damages whatever little credibility you had to start with. And really you did not have much to spare.
If theistic macroevolution is true, if humans evolved from other species gradually over eons through gene mutation and natural selection because God chose to create the human race this way, how do you explain the bedrock Catholic doctrine that Adam and Eve are our first parents, or the bedrock Catholic doctrine that there was no suffering or death prior to Adam's sin (natural selection requires death and suffering)?
As the speaker in this video said, the macroevolution hypothesis is passionately believed by most scientists, not because any data supports the hypothesis, but because the hypothesis gives scientists an excuse not to believe in God.
This priest is utterly contemptible. He claims to have read Krauss' book on particle physics, "A universe from nothing" and having read it, he knows full well what the author is trying to explain when he says "nothing is something". He has read of the experimental evidence, the observations and the theoretical necessity for "nothing" to be an unstable state in the universe, constantly bubbling up with new energy and matter that appears out of nowhere. Hence how "nothing" can indeed produce something. This is an amazing concept to absorb and it sounds like science fiction but it is real, we have tested it and we can prove it in experiments.
But rather than educate his audience on some truly remarkable and unexpected physics, he denies them any mention of the evidence that supports the authors statements and instead relies on the audiences ignorance of science to baffle them with false logic and faulty premises. He repeatedly makes misleading statements, putting false words in Krauss' mouth and then mocks those false words that he himself created, as if they were the work of the author.
This utter fraud, this phony intellectual and philosopher, this deceiver of men, he dare not say these things to an educated audience as he knows full well his lies would be immediately noticed and jeered, he knows full well that educated people would laugh at his dishonesty and his feeble attempts to trick them. You will only ever see this fraud speaking before audiences that he believes are too ignorant to challenge him, and who will swallow up whatever pap they are fed, simply because this man calls himself a christian. Beware! He speaks lies to dull your mind and wipe away your questions.
If it is now christian to lie and deceive and slander.. then he certainly is one. But christians with more traditional values of honesty and courage should confront this fraud, confront his lies and tell him that god does not require the snakes words for protection. God has no fear of the true nature of the universe and some ignorant fools attempt to mislead good christians is not work done in his name. Letting him go unchallenged is to partake in the deceit and to endorse it with your silence.
Don't be afraid of the nature of the universe, for it is what it is, and if there is a god out there, he already knows the truth of it. What is to be gained by lying, by pretending that our knowledge is less than it is and that our great scientific minds are little more than children making shapes out of clouds. Enjoy the splendor of the natural world and revel in all its glory. This small, deceitful man is afraid that the universe is more wonderful than god, he is afraid that if you learn the truth you will lose your faith.
That's what he thinks of his audience of christians, that they are simple minded, easily distracted fools. If he trusted in them and their faith, he would have no need to lie. Be better than this snake, keep you faith and learn about the universe too. One does not lessen the other.
Phil S Have you observed this "unstable state" in the universe that bubbles up energy? Which by the way would be that the energy came from something, that something being an unstable state in the universe (not to mention it would be taking place in the universe, which would be the universe is already created). For something to come from nothing is a statement that science can not explain. Science can only explain observable phenomenon (that is within the definition of science itself). The last time I checked "nothingness" cannot be observed because of its very nature of being nothing.
lichonski128 'Now, one might still ask why there is something rather than nothing, where nothing means nonbeing including the absence of God. Here at least we can provide a suggestion based on our knowledge of the quantum void. As Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek put it in a Scientific American article back in 1980, which Krauss quotes, “Nothing is unstable.”
Nothing to Explain, Victor Stenger
It's a flat universe, it's been measured. There is still nothing.
lichonski128 Yes, the experiments have been done that demonstrate that new matter pops into and out of existence. This is basic science to particle physicists.
Phil S "the experimental evidence, the observations and the theoretical necessity for "nothing" to be an unstable state in the universe, constantly bubbling up with new energy and matter that appears out of nowhere. Hence how "nothing" can indeed produce something. This is an amazing concept to absorb and it sounds like science fiction but it is real, we have tested it and we can prove it in experiments."
Bullshit. You are viewing particles appearing from some unknown/unseen source (s); calling the unseen "nothing" does not make the unseen "nothing". Nothing--no thing, is nothing , and nothing is not equatable to an unseen something (or a temporarily realized post-potential of something, collapsed field or whatever)!
Krauss was playing with words (perhaps merely playfully) and you are a fraud and a windbag.
Piss off.
Refusing to educate yourself doesn't mean reality bends to your ignorance. Quantum fluctuations exist, whether or not morons like you know about it. Leave the science to scientists, you can keep talking to your sky daddy for answers.