Darwin DEBUNKED: Using Modern Science (12 Minutes of Density!)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ก.ย. 2023
- In this video, a Biochemist, a Mathematician, and a Geophysicist (Michael Behe, John Lennox & Stephen Meyer) explain why the advances in our knowledge about the cell over the past hundred years now make Darwin's original theory untenable.
Link to the FULL conversation here: • By Design: Behe, Lenno...
Watch my hour long documentary “Mining For God” for FREE: www.dailydoseofwisdom.co/regi...
![ทัศนศึกษาโรงงานผลิตโค้ก [THAI/ENG SUB]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/M9y-TJBNem0/mqdefault.jpg)
It's the doctrine of "Time of the Gaps". It says, in essence, that if you throw enough Scrabble pieces enough times (if they included upper and lower case letters and all the punctuation marks), you'll eventually end up with the entire library of perfect Shakespearean plays, with every title, every word, every capital letter, every punctuation mark, and so on, all in the right place. And likewise if you shook up a bag of musical notes and threw them onto enough sheets of staff paper, enough times, you'd inevitably end up with the full collection of Beethoven symphonies. (But then, where did you get the Scrabble pieces, and from where came the inexhaustible supply of staff paper and the musical notes?) And the musical instruments and the conductor would likewise be made in the same ways, and the book paper and the binding and so on. If you ran enough wood through enough blenders you could end up with a Stradivarius violin. All that's required is a few billion years.
And this, we are asked to believe, is "science" even though no one ever has, and no one can, observe it or duplicate it.
The numbers show that even a few billion years is not enough.
Typical uneducated response. The difference in cell formation vs scrabble pieces is that cell formation is driven by natural processes that involve parts that work together, self replicate and assemble themselves. Scrabble pieces don't do that, nor do music notes or blended wood. And yes, we do observe it and very well understand it from a scientific point of view. Laboratory experiments have created the building blocks of life using representative conditions of early earth.
Similar to the idea that a slow moving tornado going through a Ferrari wrecking yard will never produce a functioning Ferrari. But they still insist that it's possible.
@@nudsh Your response raises the question: where did the natural processes come from? Where did the parts that work together come from? Where did self replication come from? Have laboratory conditions created natural processes from building blocks? Not a single laboratory experiment I'm aware of has been able to produce the leap from building blocks of life to life. Which is the point the comment you're condescending to is making.
@nudsh and you miss the point entirely. Evolutionists posit that given enough time for the iterations of chemical mixing to take place, you get what we see today. From non living things to living things that organize complex structures to generate or aquire energy, expend it to run whatever process it needs, and then replicate copies. The basic observation that things with more energy and complexity tend to move to lower complexity and lower energy states should give a clue to the likelihood that even the most basic of organism spontaneously came into existence long ago. Even making a protein from molecules requires a ridiculously complex set of instructions. But it just happened, one day, billions of years ago? Ok.
My faith in a Creator was cemented when I studied muscle cells during A&P class at university. The requirements for a single cell to function properly are mind blowing. No way it is random or time-dependent. It is brilliant engineering design.
Same here I attempted to become atheist under the guise of “searching for options” because I thought myself to be so smart. Then I found out that the politicians are all corrupt “devil worshippers”
Yes, I too studied the ratcheting of striated muscle tissue, and it is utterly fantastic how the proteins actin and myosin interact with ATP.
Why not? @@cthulhucrews6602
@@cthulhucrews6602 H.P. Lovecraft’s Deities are real.
🙄
So, in other words - people are clinging onto outdated Science because they don’t like fact that everything has been beautifully & wonderfully created by God?
and yet they call us believers outdated
They lost😂.
You said it
No. Darwin is the "father of evolution" only to religious people. He just realized the basics and is in no means an authority. Theists just like to poke holes where it´s the easiest. Would be totally different convo if they´d go against modern science.
They love their sin and don’t want to face the fact that God is real and the Bible might actually be true
I started learning about these complexities in cells back in 10th grade biology in 1968-69. Mitochondria, Krebs cycle, glycolosis, and all the other things we had to learn, much of which was new information at the time.
Since you were at school there has been a lot of changes to biology
That was what I learned in 5th grade lol
Maybe not Keene cycle 🤷♂️💀
I appreciate you post link to video in description , subscribed.
Dr. Joshua Swamidass is a physician, scientist, and founder of Peaceful Science. He is an associate professor at Washington University in Saint Louis where he runs a computational biology group using artificial intelligence to explore science at the intersection of biology, chemistry, and medicine.
In a recent debate with an evolutionist, Swamidass said “You’re promoting Darwinism, that’s been disproven for 100 years!”
A little later, he said “You’re promoting Neodarwinism, that’s been disproven for 50 years!”
I predict it will be _several_ decades more before the general public catches up to what cutting-edge scientists have known for the _last_ several decades:
Darwin was wrong.
link to the debate please
So Swamidass was wrong twice.
The issue is that Darwin is not synonymous of Evolutionary Biology. Biology has "evolved" from those ideas a bit. Only theist keep bringing Darwin as a strawman.
@@MarkRichardson-wu6oq OK, let me present a better argument assuming your assertion is correct (it's not but I'll run with it).
Dr. James Tour is currently in the middle of a 60 day challenge issued to the top Origin of Life chemists in the world to hypothetically or otherwise, describe the steps involved in the formation of the basic building blocks of life such as polysaccharides, polypeptides, and the cell. What makes this challenge incredibly hard is that (some of challenges) given the half-life of the polypeptides, polysaccharides is on a scale of 4 HOURS, there need to be sufficient quantities, sufficiently close by, with the right ambient conditions, to then take those compounds to form a cell through a mechanism that no one knows. If I could bet, I'd bet Dr Tour will be hearing crickets for the 60 days.
Now Dr Tour is approaching this from the bottom up and now we have the top down claim that the cell is irreducibly complex.
I'm waiting for someone who can give us ANY solution to this situation that doesn't involve God.
Edit: its in these moments that scientism as a religious belief system reveals itself.
It seems that this dr Joshua Swamidass accept evolution as far as I heard him.
"How can I possibly tell you of heavenly things when you don't understand earthly ones "
"That the things which can be seen are created from that which is not seen.". These statements come from the Bible. I'm so taken back over and over at all the marvelous things I've come to know from searching the scriptures.
John 3:12
I used this vers a lot before the 2016 election with my floridian brothers, but they are still in lalaland🥴🤪🤦😢
Hugs and prayers from germany 🙏 😇 🤗 🥰
Aren't all things possible through God? So couldn't God will your understanding assuming he wanted to?
@@RangeMaster1050 Assuming He wanted to. He wants us to have freedom to decide matters on our own; it's the way He is, He doesn't want automatons.
@@RangeMaster1050 God has given us free choice, and that's the reason some people suffer because of the choices some people make. God wants us to love Him, not to be robots
Citing the bible to prove the power of the god of the bible is as stupid as citing "Lord of the Rings to prove the supreme power of Gandalf.
The bible can't even make its mind up when the principal boy in its fantasy was supposedly born. Matthew's myth claims that Jesus was a "young child" before the death of Herod in 4BC, while Luke's legend asserts that the same sprog was still preborn more than ten years later when Herod's successor Archelaus had been deposed by Augustus Caesar and Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was carrying out the census of Judaea, Samaria, and Idumaea, but *NOT* Galilee because Archelaus had never been king of Galilee
When they introduced language and the complexity of words the first thing that came to mind was, "In the beginning was the Word".
Maybe you should actually go and learn about languages then. Rather than deciding something you remember from the Bible must explain everything.
@@franktheexpertstrenchclub9025 That is a complex verse that only someone who has knowledge of scripture knows, and understands.
And the word was with God, and the word was God 🙏☦️
@@noself7889 I have a degree in history and focused on comparative religion. I've read the Bible twice, once as a believer and once when I wasn't. I've taken multiple classes on Biblical interpretation and criticism, exegesis and hermeneutics, the Bible as literature, studied rabbinical interpretations of the Septuagint, Biblical criticism, biblical history and historicity, ancient near east (ANE) history and tribal history and history of slavery, etc. etc.
Don't talk to me about how you *sniff* simply understand the verse in a more sophisticated way, because of how complex it is, due to your hyper-advanced knowledge of scripture. I'm pretty confident that I'm as knowledgable about scripture as you are, Nose. Lol At least, homie.
@@noself7889 Lol Stop. IDK if my last comment was removed or something, but I would be a lot of money that my knowledge and understanding of scripture and the Bible and its history and historicity and interpretations, etc. is equal to yours, and then some. If you think the doofy hermeneutics about "the Word" in Genesis is a complex and sophisticated understanding of scripture... you really don't have all that much knowledge of or informed insight into scripture, homes. That's like Sunday school apologetics.
As a recently retired physician, I am more and more amazed at how sophisticated our body is on the most minute levels. We try to duplicate and repair things that are not functioning well due to modern day toxicities, and are unable to replicate the sophistication that is innate in the body. We are at the infancy of understanding the complexity of the bodily systems.
good to see a scientist displaying humility for a change. The body and how it functions is still a total mystery in many ways.
@@Mike-mm4mx i saw a few research studies I am trained in psychology, and thanks to my university i had to take a climate science course so also in eutrophication, i saw some research that said globally about 30 percent of scientists are atheist, ad i worked for DOW for a number of years which i worked with a number of scientists, and we had to have every denomination and religion avialiable in that town for the Scientists, since they where from all over, plus of course we had what i like to refer to as church for atheists the Unitarians, but we had them all. however in that same study only scientists who work for university are over 90 percent atheist.
@@Mike-mm4mx Scientists are indeed humble, but that does not mean that they’re not familiar with evolution and most of our body’s functions.
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 Evolutionism is just atheism in a lab coat.
The James Webb telescope has counted over 700 billion galaxies and they're the ones we can see, maybe the universe is infinite and these religious humans know that in a infinite
universe over maybe "an infinite time" no cell could ever happen so it must be a
magic man in the sky, where did that come from?
I too fell into atheism after first getting into the sciences but as I looked closer it became obvious that the vast majority of the evidence given to support their world view is based on unverifiable information and assumptions.
It actually takes more faith in the unseen to be an atheist.
I think John 20:28-29 gives us some insight
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
imo the history of earth is faith based and requires belief as stated in this passage. Evolution looks like satans alternative to the creation story?? This being a belief and completely unverifiable. God is good
Yea....you didn't dig much. Evolution is a change in allele frequency over subsequent generations. The pepper moth you learned about in 9th grade is an example of this. Or we can look at the speciation event of genetically isolated mosquitoes in the London subway.
@@johnferguson8794
Your first mistake is making assumptions about the education of people you don't know....
Evolution teaches that all life evolved from a common source....(AKA abiogensis).For that to be a fact, then that first life must have diverged from one Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species, to another Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species.
In order for all forms of life to have come from just one common ancestor would require that this one source of life diverge, crossing all classification lines. Even the big ones.
We have observed and recorded life adapting to changing environmental conditions producing slight variations on the Species level. Some even refusing to or incapable of interbreeding again. But never has anybody ever recorded a change at the Family or Genus level. To say that it is a fact and that this has actually happened is disingenuous...It is nothing but a speculation.... an unknown....not an observable scientific fact. It is an assumption required to support the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor and nothing more.
It is clear that there are vast evolutionary variations within Family or Genus (AKA like...Canines, Felines, Bovines, Malacostraca, Cephalopods... ) and there is ample evidences for this very limited part of the evolutionary theory. But the only thing connecting these vastly different groups to each other is the assumptions made ..... There is no observed descendancy between these groups, no DNA to test in the case of extinct examples, just a bias assumption required to support their narrative that all life diverged from a common ancestor.
The branches of the "Tree Of Life" and the names that have been given presented by academia indicating the ancestors of one organism transforming into another are unseen speculations invented by man to help organize and classify individual life forms and nothing more. The transitions presented within the "Tree Of Life" charts are speculations, not observed facts.
POINTING TO THE REMAINS OF AN ORGANISM BURIED UNDER LAYERS OF SEDIMENTARY STRATA AND PROCLAIMING THAT IT IS THE PROGENY OF ANOTHER DIFFERENT ORGANISM BERRIED FARTHER DOWN IN ANOTHER LAYER OF STRATA IS CALLED AN ASSUMPTION. NOT A FACT.
One cannot use the assumption that one organism is the descendant of another organism as evidence to support that very assumption. This is called a fallacy ( Circular reasoning ).
AKA..... While on an excavation you find the fossilized remains of animal "A" in layer "a".....Then farther down in the strata you find the fossilized remains of another animal, Animal "E" in layer "e". Both the fossilized remains and the layers are demonstrable facts, they can be proven and observed. The relation (heredity) of animal "A" to animal "E" on the other hand is a speculation, not a demonstrable fact. It is taken on faith despite the fact that often animal "A " and "E" are clearly not of the same species or even family...... Then this "Speculation" of heredity is used as the very basis of an entire theoretical construct called Evolution. God haters eat this S##T up like candy. Never noticing or even questioning the obvious circular reasoning fallacy.
Let me make this perfectly clear. "IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR ONE TO REFUTE A POSITION THAT HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED TO BE TRUE TO BEGIN WITH."
I Have never encountered anyone with more faith in the unseen then an atheist/evolutionist .
@@johnferguson8794 Creationist don't have any issue with the peppered moth changing from light coloured to dark or vice versa if required. Those examples are observable. It is still a moth. Where creationist differ is the common ancestor of the moth [I read some 250 mill years ago there was a common ancester] This is unverifiable. Maybe true, but requires you to believe what the scientist say. That takes faith, blind faith. You can't verify any of the scientist work they did.
Same with the genetically isolated mosquitoes in the London subway, it is still a mosquito. Speciation however did occur. Perfectly accepted with in the creationist pov
The question is do you think it [mosquito and moth] will continue to genetically mutate and become something other than a recognizable mosquito or moth over millions of years. Creationist simply believe there is a ceiling as to how far an animal can change within its kind. So the mosquito and the moth will still be a mosquito and a moth respectively doing what they normally do today with very little change.. Problem is no-one can verify that this will or will not happen. it is all belief.
Right, but you've told us nothing. How does allele frequency change produce enough reproductive advantage quickly enough to avoid its obliteration and create enough impetus to dominate a population to the degree that it will outlast any ecological culling (the underlying mechanism of 'natural' selection)? @@johnferguson8794
This is what we need intelligent people having honest conversations and asking questions and searching for answers!
Irreducible complexity isn’t a thing, there is clear evidence of incremental changes creating complex function. Don’t get sucked in by this utter nonsense.
No, they are NOT honest questions, and they are NOT searching for answers, they're manipulating data to fit an answer that they've already decided upon.
What worries me with religious people is they seem to think _"If Darwin was wrong then I must be right"_
@@TonyEnglandUK
Why would that worry you?
Do you realize how that sounds?
If people that have a different set of beliefs 'worry you', it begs the question, what would you, ultimately, want to do to those people that ;'worry you'?
How about just getting on with your own life and letting other people do what they want.
@@SaintKimbo LOL. Please tell me you didn't type that seriously? It was painfully petty. _"What worries me about..."_ is just a saying, man - it doesn't mean I'm *_literally_* worried about it lol.
I've known about "irreducible complexity" for years, but I never knew that it was Behe who coined the term. It was worth watching the video just for that!
Why? Behe hasn't managed to identify a singe irreducibly complex structure in biology. He was calling for an experiment to be done where the genes for the flagellum were knocked out- to show that it wouldn't evolve......His ignorance of the literature is such that he wasn't aware the experiment had already been done and the results published in "Science"...only the most prestigious top tier journal in all of academia.
The population of the bacteria Pseudomonas fluorescens underwent two identified mutations in the nitrogen uptake genes and they regained flagella in 4 DAYS.
What a tool.....
Some years ago I first heard of Michael Behe when I came across his book, Darwin’s Black Box in which he explains the concept of irreducible complexity. Well worth the read!
@@ethanlamoureux5306 except that it’s utter nonsense.
There is not a single identified irreducibly complex structure yet identified in biology.
Certainly not the flagellum- which was observed to re-evolve in FOUR DAYS.
Also worth watching "Judgement Day: intelligent design on trial" - specifically the part where Behe confirms - under oath - that his work on intelligent design is no more scientific than astrology.
It's interesting because I remember in middle school first learning about the cell the reason WHY a cell was so incredibly complex and perfect. Even now as a biology major, it still amazes me the more I learn.
Maybe you should pay more attention in class.
Biology also lead me to God.
@@timhallas4275 the more science is advanced the less the religion of evolution can afford to pay attention to science.
@@denvan3143 Look how ridiculous and uninformed your post is. Haha.
Science is about creating a PRODUCT we can use, from knowledge.
Can you think of ONE single thing we use in science that resulted from creationist ideology?
@@degaussingatmosphericcharg575 uh huh... the belief that some original "simple" single-celled life form, however it got there, evolved into every giraffe, brontosaurus, elephant, whale and of course you, through random mutations and the blind elimination of "weaker" forms is an ideology lacking physical evidence not only in the rocks, but in explanatory requirements of the necessary new info to build structures of new forms. Calling it science as if that helps doesn't mean much. It's getting ruined all the more moving forward, like it or not
I was never an atheist but just figured I could wait until I was older to “come to God.” I ended up having a brain tumor when I was 19 and a brain injury as a result from the surgery to biopsy the tumor. Long story short: I came to faith in Christ as a result.
Peace....
Are you in remission now? Is everything going ok?
God bless you.
Not going to say it...
Literally became religious because of brain damage.
@@cowsareperfectcowlover6420 he literally said he planned on coming to god when he was older
Brandon, I think you have a "TYPO" in your video title, is Density supposed to be "Destiny"? I'm trying to give you some traction over on LinkedIn what has to happen to get that typo fixed?
what code do these proteins follow to organize in specific structures like the parts of a cell; ie: the Cell Wall, Ribosome, DNA etc; what form of propulsion do proteins employ to navigate 3D space to organize into more complex structures?
what Code, what Propulsion, how do proteins navigate the environment? and move into precise order?
The discussion about the bacterial flagellar motor and the T3SS is fascinating to me, especially how it connects to theism. For those who might not know, the T3SS is like a tiny molecular syringe that some bacteria use and it's made up of proteins that are similar to those in the flagellar motor.
Dr. Michael Behe has done some groundbreaking work on this. He's suggesting that the flagellar motor, with all its parts, is so complex that it couldn't have just evolved step by step (as is shown in the original video). Imagine trying to assemble a watch in the dark without instructions, and you only have 10 seconds to do it.
Now, there's another perspective from another scientist Kenneth Miller. He thinks the flagellar motor might have evolved from the T3SS, which fits the modern concept of Neo-Darwinian evolution. And so, the million-dollar question is, which came first? The current research suggests the motor being the OG and not the other way around, and even (non-theist) microbiologist Milton H. Saier Jr. thinks along those lines. This is concordant with my understanding of design and theism.
All in all, the deeper I go into these molecular intricacies, the more I feel there's a design behind it. It's like staring at a masterpiece painting and just knowing there's an artist with a grand vision behind it.
JOSHUA THIS IS REMARKABLE!!!
@Joshua2707, I was watching the evolution/creation debate online about 10 years ago, when the topic of the flagellum surfaced. There was even a courtroom trial, "the dover trial" I believe, which was about teaching evolution and not intelligent design in schools. Anyway two main witnesses were Behe and Miller. Keneth Miller was presenting against ID, suggesting that the mousetrap could have had a different use with parts missing, eg as a tie clip ! The evolutionists won the day, I believe Behe's legal team were lacking,they should really have laughed Miller out of court. It could also be said that the judge clearly had his bias, his closing speech was a replica of some evolutionists text, taken directly from a previous magazine article.
Doesn't change the fact that the arguments being made are just the watchmaker fallacy and a god of the gaps fallacy.
“Just knowing” = human tendency to anthropomorphise everything. Your intuition is not a reliable indicator of truth.
@@danieladeyinka3829 no it isn't he's just looking at science and saying, LOOK, GAWD DONE DID IT! GOLLY GEE GOSH UUHHU AINT THAT JUST THE GREATESTS THING EVER!?! He's retarded
I have been calling myself an atheist for 5 decades(since being a child), and eventually thinking more logically, I realized that doing so was arrogant, so I adopted the agnostic principle. Lately I am more inclined toward the idea of a creator. The analogy with the 2 halves of the glass where God is waiting for you in the second half fits perfectly.
Feeling the need to "title" yourself is where you made your first mistake.....
Which god though. That's a problem you are still making.
The cells that make you up are your Gods.
@@les_crow Silly loaded question. If there is a creator, then there is just one. The same one for all creation.
Just because we have a creator, doesn't mean it(he/she) is good or intentional. For all we know creating life was done as a last resort from a dying species or experiments on one of the billions of potential earth like planets.
Stephen Meyer's book "Signature in the Cell" was brilliant.
Simply amazing. Exactly what I was looking for in a recent discussion I've been having, but simply never managed to put into words. Thank you so much for these videos!
Why not listen to working scientists rather than lying religious activists?
If anyone doesn't know what the protein Laminin is, I highly suggest they look it up. It's the vital protein cell that holds all skin and muscle tissue in our bodies together. The image of what it looks like says it all. Check it out!
My profile picture in my other account is a laminin protein lol, if someone else is reading this and you havent seen what laminin looks like then please go do it
I just checked it out. The shape gave me goosebumps! The lamb of God that was slain from the foundations of the Earth. Jesus Christ our Lord 🙏🏽
Pareidolia is a psychological phenomenon that causes people to see patterns in a random stimulus. This often leads to people assigning human characteristics to objects.
@@clew5687there goes the word again “random” boy atheists sure do love that one huh? It really takes the responsibility out of believing the truth don’t it
You could just as readily say it looks like Excalibur as it looks like a crucifix, thereby proving the existence of Merlin.
People laugh when someone says Mozart's 9th symphony is by random chance or Shakespeare's Hamlet is by randomness and selection. But the same people praise themselves for saying the mind that made Mozart's 9th symphony or Shakespeare's Hamlet rose by randomness. Crazy!
Who are these "same people" who say this?
Michaelangelo’s David and other works.❤
@@DRayL_ it's an analogy, dude
evolution is not a random process. its something a creationist wants you to believe evolution tells us. its a lie
Did god rise by random chance?
Good as far as it goes, but there's more. We can extend the concept of 'irreducible complexity' to the interactions of complex systems required to achieve many functional outcomes for organisms. These systems all have tightly coupled interfaces, means of inter system signalling and feedback and are orchestrated often non-deterministically. That is one system is required by the function, but that system doesn't require the function.
For example, the famous eye, which is given a fatuous history by Dawkins (a typical darwinian gross morphology fairy tale completely failing to explain the systemic interactions actually required, and the operation of elements of each system, themselves of astonishing complexity). To work, they eye needs specific links to the musculoskeletal system at many points and for many uses, the endocrine system, to be coupled to relevant brain centres with the 'software' to process the visual data, to coordinate inputs and feedback from body position and motion, and so on. All are required to make vision work. Dawkins doesn't go anywhere near touching the micro-biological implications of this vast orchestration. Just so stories, just don't' do it! Thus 'fairy stories'.
Dawkins research, of which I'd bet my house you've not read a solitary syllable, was not on the evolution of the eye. If you are interested read Nilsson and Pelger. I doubt you're the slightest bit interested.
The eye has evolved multiple times independently- what do you mean by "the eye".....I suspect: nothing.
Behe has yet to actually exhibit a single "irreducibly complex" structure. His poster child- the bacterial flagellum- wont do it.
He called for an experiment to be done where the genes for the flagellum would be knocked out to show that it would not re-evolve.
His ignorance of the literature is such that he didn't know that the experiment had already been done, written up, submitted for review and published.
It re-evolved in 96 hours.
I don't suppose opening a damn book on biology has ever occurred to you?
And religion is the biggest fairytale of them all !
ID debunks itself
It has zero explanatory power and can make zero testable predictions
It’s creationism in a cheap lab coat
Well, you're just wrong. The concept of "irreducible complexity" (IC) has been hilariously debunked, dozens or hundreds of times over with extremely specific examples.
The fact that Michael Behe himself was forced to admit, under oath, that IC was no more scientific than astrology sure didn't help. Lol
Also, what is it with you people and being embarrassingly infatuated with debunked creationist memes?
The evolution of the eye is unbelievably well-documented. If someone like you were ever even the tiniest bit interested in intellectual honesty, you could follow the evolution of the eye in detail. You could follow it from the earliest organisms utilizing photosensitive cells to face the sun for energy, to the incremental co-evolution of eyes, muscles, skulls, the endocrine system, brains, and everything else necessary for sight, over billions of years.
Weird that you don't know that. It's also weird that you're either ignorant of or incredibly dishonest about modern evolutionary biologists like Dawkins not only touching but describing that evolutionary process step-by-step.
I'm officially subscribed. I love the way these are put together. Great job. These pieces are great ammo for the quiver. May The Most High Bless you and yours. ty
Another huge problem, is they never talk about the life span of this cell that has to mutate. Once it’s dead there is no passing of information to try again to build that machine.
Precisely. A necessary component for any evolution to occur is a self-replicating system. Self-replication is one heck of a complex system. If you thought the molecular motors were complicated, you haven't seen a cell's self-replication system yet! If an individual protein were to have this property of self-replication and mutation, it itself would count as being alive, however no such standalone living protein has been demonstrated to exist. It takes a whole lot more than that to make a working system.
Mutations in individual cells are irrelevant to the evolution of species unless they happen to be egg or sperm cells. If a mutation happens in one of those, then *every* cell in the organism that grows will have the mutation in it, so all those cells are different to the original. If the mutation makes the cells function worse than the original, then the mutant organism is more likely to die than the original is; if the mutation makes the cells function better than the original, then the mutant organism is more likely to live.
@@mattermat1925 i think I understand what your saying. But I’m not sure where you stand on intelligence design. I’m on the side of intelligence design. My statement was more about how they never account for the million on years for evaluation. To me they are saying from the very start of life whichever science thinks it is RNA or virus cells, my point is things have life spans. And it means that evolution had to get every change correct, or as I pointed out dead things don’t pass on information and the earth’s atmosphere had to always be safe for this life to progress. I find it highly unlikely we started life like that. And cellular science is proving intelligent design is correct. IMHO.
@@mattermat1925I wouldn't say irrelevant to the theory. The issue I have is that millions of years of evolutionary "animal" time can be viewed in a test tube in a lab in a matter of days - the whole timeline of mammalian evolution can be seen in a lab. Yet we have not seen microorganism change types. Does not bode well for evolution.
@@JohnBoysGold What matters most in evolution is which organisms survive and reproduce and which don't. The only cells this applies to are single-celled organisms like bacteria or yeasts - and even then a generation is measured in minutes or hours, so you can't 'do' enough evolution in a test tube in a few days to expect to see much change.
An individual cell in an animal like a rabbit is irrelevant to the overall lifespan and success of that rabbit in reproducing. You may have to wait years for any new advantage from a mutation to pay off in greater numbers of offspring compared to the unmutated rabbits.
The events of the past few years have made a lot of people question their world view and mortality. Thankfully, there is content like this that can either reinforce their belief, or bring someone into the fold.
And that is the only thing that these videos do is Reinforce belief. There are no facts, evidence or truth in this discussion. Just talking points to make Christians blindly believe more.
Riiight, how about all of the people who have noticed something about the best places to live on Earth? They noticed that the most successful, the most peaceful, the places with the least crime and best education, where people are happiest and healthiest - basically, the places with the best quality of life on Earth - they are also the least religious places on the planet?
How would you tell the people in all of those places that they should... brought into the fold? So they can be like the places with the most religion and the most crime, and the least education, and the most murder, and the worst health care, etc.?
The fold? The gullible, easily amazed by theistic bullSh!ttery perhaps.
Just "discovered" your channel TWO days ago! Already, you're in my top 3 or 4 channels out of the HUNDREDS. I've seen. THANK YOU!!!
Big fan of dishonest science denial? Cool, sweet find then.
very fun conversation. thanks for sharing.
I love how respectful everyone is in these discussions--the videos and comment sections alike. After all, we're all just humans trying to figure out where we came from and why we're here. Whether or not you believe in God, these discussions are a great thing for us as both individuals and humanity collectively.
It is not surprising when they are all agreeing with each other and patting themselves on the back.
@cynic150 In this video, yes. But in other videos, there are some great respectful conversations between atheists and Christians.
They are respectful toward each other because they uniformly reject actual current science, and they're all anti-evolution theists. Please.
@@cynic150this comment section is very full of "I am religious and very smart" vibes. While I'm open to discussion and other train of thoughts this comment section isn't really thinking just jumping into something that validates their feelings.
They couldn’t have picked a better moderator than Peter R. He is by far the best host/moderator in the academic interview space. Great discussion!
Except that he is obviously Christian, and biased in his supposed science. I mean, if you believe the Bible, the lord created the heavens, the earth and every living thing, and then rested on the 7th day. In other words you will believe anything.
@@markharris2912
Some people will even insist that everything sprang from nothing, for no reason and under no guiding influence - and then actually trust that the conclusions of their own brain are reliable! Think that through!
@@markharris2912 If you believe life created itself form non-life matter and emerged from a primordial soup, you will believe anything.
can you please share the name of your background (chime) music?
i really loved this conversation, the full video is great and very enlightening.
I feel like I just listened to a conversation amongst intellectual giants and I actually understood what they said. So refreshing!
GOD ALMIGHTY IS INTELLIGENCE so be not surprised to understand HIM, while truly looking for answers.
The problem is that none of them are biologist and it seems that they resist understanding the basics of biology. I wonder why.
@@raulhernannavarro1903
... what is a "biologist"? ... and more importantly for a men with a hammer everything becomes a nail... and finally using LOGOS was never a strength of INDOCTRINATED HUMAN MINDS ... to be continued!
Because they aren't.
@@raulhernannavarro1903 , can you give a specific example, I ‘m trying to understand your point.
This is the guy that invented the phrase irreducible complexity? I need to learn more
You won’t learn anything listening to these people.
@@BhukyaAnil-781 I can digest it just fine. If you know anything about these topics, though, unlike you apparently, it’s just pathetic.
I’m a biology grad and pharmacist with extensive physiology knowledge as part of my training. There has never been even 1 successful experiment where a protein was created by randomness, much less an organism (single celled of course as this would be “easiest”). Before returning to faith, this was extremely perplexing to me. I now see that there are inexplicable issues with the Darwinian model. Very fascinating. Any and all scientific sources to help my understandings are welcome!
Everything in Darwin's theory is inexplicable, everything!
You’re witnessing the randomness of 14.5 billion years.
Not one night in a lab.
@@Tennethums1 yeah problem is that doesn’t work statistically. You assume the large numbers account for the improbable outcome but, in fact, it would take closer to hundreds of billions of years or even trillions to achieve even the smallest level of simple functioning proteins given the vast aray of protein sequences required to form the chain and to fold it appropriately. Funny enough, the folding is the rate limiting step as opposed to the simple building blocks
Well, self-replicating molecules and structures would have, by definition, been selected for, huh. Since they are the ones that would propagate.
This is seriously your argument? "this stuff perplexes me, therefore science doesn't stand up and a god must have done it all."
Have you ever heard of the "argument from incredulity logical fallacy? And the fact that you even refer to the "Darwinian model" demonstrates that you're not a person in a position to be determining whether there are unresolvable "issues" with evolution or not.
Because evolution isn't "the Darwinian model." As brilliant as Darwin was and as right as he was about so many things, including the basics of evolution... he published like 170ish years ago, homey. Our understanding of evolution has advanced a bit since then.
@@cristovieneya8997 Stop talking about stuff you don't understand, champ. You have no idea what "Darwin's theory" is and no idea how explicable it is or isn't. Why are you people SO comfortable ly1ng when you're supposed to be these super moral Christians?
years ago I saw a video about mythocondrias, were they explained they must be constructed before the cell.. implying the cell has been also constructed from "parts"
I believe a civil discussion like this would be absolutely amazing if you could add some quality articulate evolutionary scientists and advocates like Gad Saad, Brett and Heather Weinstein and even Jordan Peterson. It’s one thing to have experts like these high three quality ID advocates discussing this topic but we don’t know what we don’t know and to have experts from the other side pushing back against the conversation in a respectful and patient manner I think would be enlightening and highly valuable !! Not to mention a lot of fun !
PS maybe throw James Tour into the mix as well !
I would love to make that happen! We’ll see what’s possible.. baby steps 🙏
How does one argue with 2+2=4?
It wouldn't be an argument. It would be what it has always been; a denial of reality and open hate for the fact that there is a God......to Whom we will all give an account.
That's a great idea! I suggest to also involve people who are expert on machine/deep learning. I know it may sound unrelated, but it actually is. It shows you a glimpse of the ability of a stochastic process with very simple basic "rules" results in extremely complex behaviors. And that's with a "simulation" in a computer that has basically tiny power compared to actually running it all in parallel using the atoms of the world as the "computer".
The complexity of a biological system is by no means any "proof of god" -both because this "gap" is just the lack of understanding of people of what a long stochastic process can achieve, and also because it's a very bad "solution" to say that a complex system can't emerge and therefore a more complex system created it, because now your duty is to explain how an even more complex system ("god") emerged.
I think that religion can always say that god created the universe, and since the physics rules, and the presence of atoms is required, it doesn't matter for religion if life evolved or not.
There are aspects that will always be relevant for religion - soul, life meaning, creation of the universe to name a few.
You don’t know what you’re talking about. You don’t have to have a discussion with the person who failed at a math question to know when you have the right answer.
Sadly you only have to look at the responses from the OOL scientists to James Tour to see it is very difficult for them to admit they have nothing to show for their years of effort. How much more for evolutionists to admit macro evolution is childish nonsense.
During Covid, the trucking company I work for told us we were Essential Workers. That term takes on new meaning when I think of that tiny trucker in the cell. God loves Truckers!
Display the evidence that proves your claim to be true.
@@TonyEnglandUK Nah, I’m good. Stay just as you are.
@@gregdiprinzio9280 Well, that was easy. Enjoy TH-cam.
There are viruses, basically just encapsulated RNA, something complex (but much simpler than a cell) sitting there and doing nothing until a possible opportunity arises to get injected into a cell. So that is an indication that the gentlemen here might be wrong in assuming that the creation of a cell cannot happen in parts.
Parabens por divulgar a teoria do desing inteligente. Muitos estudiiisos serios e competentes foram perseguidos por isso
The cell works like a hive mind. It's many moving parts are synchronous to specific frequencies, and the whole system resembles a symphony, with each instrumental part standing by to play their part on que. Whom might the conductor be?
there is no conductor, that just your human fallacy looking for patterns and explanations that you’re capable of comprehending
it exists, and therefore it is. What works, works. What reproduces, reproduces, and what doesn’t, doesnt. And pure happenstance is what causes this to occur.
that’s the basis for evolution and what simple minded people can’t grasp, since they lack the ability to conceive the enormous timespan covering this process and the idea that something complex doesn’t require intelligent design
just many small changes over millions of years
That's a fallacy called "begging the question."
No one might the conductor be. Maybe you should look up some really basic science about the evolution of the cell. What if you tried that? Tried actually learning the tiniest bit about the thing you're trying to talk about before pretending you can talk about it.
@@babyjiren9676 What about the man in the video talking about irreducibly complex components to the cell?
@@csar07. The man is simply just wrong. Irreducible complexity has been thoroughly debunked.
Live your use of musical analogy.
It just BEAUTIFUL to hear 4 honest and wise men...
Lol When you find a video like that, let me know. It's certainly not this one. These creationist grifters are literally the opposite of honest and wise. They knowingly lie for a living and remain purposefully ignorant of so, so many answers we already have.
@@franktheexpertstrenchclub9025 Not sure they knowingly lie. I'll concede that they are honestly wrong.
@@franktheexpertstrenchclub9025 ok Einstein prove exactly where and how you think they were lying. And show us the proof that your alternative scientific opinions are true.
@@donaldclifford5763 Well, I'll go ahead and concede that for you, because there are endless, ENDLESS examples of all of these people making claims about something, being shown clear evidence to the contrary, and then lying about it. Or claiming that specific research doesn't exist, being shown studies on that specific research, and then lying about it.
Even if that weren't the case, and it is, you honestly think that these people whose entire careers are based around denying modern science have somehow just never encountered what any of the modern science says?? Of course they're lying. It's their job.
@@matthewpaul1111 Hahahaha Where to begin. Let's see, there's Meyer lying about how information theorists use the term "specified complexity." And when asked who these theorists, plural, are beyond creationist William Dembski, he has no answer. But then keeps lying about how multiple scientists use the term "specified complexity."
There's him lying about how evolution is random, despite being told hundreds of times over that a natural SELECTION process is not random, and admitting this in other places, before lying about it again.
He lies about the "Artifact Hypothesis" regarding the fossil record, while ignoring the obvious answers given to him many times over.
He keeps demanding transitional fossils in the fossil record, and then people provide him with THOUSANDS of examples, and he ignores them. He doesn't refute them or argue against them, he ignores them and keeps telling the lie, never acknowledging the endless evidence he's been offered.
He hilariously lied about how the first animals abruptly showed up during the Cambrian explosion, which is just unbelievably dishonest.
Do you want me to keep going, Einstein? The guy's job is literally lying for creationists who will NEVER do the super easy checking up by just googling his lies.
I'm starting to really love this channel. Thank you so much.
It's *_confirmation bias_* running riot. _"Darwin was wrong therefore my belief system must be right."_ is a dreadful argument. One could "prove" all the many thousands of gods using this manipulative and baseless formula.
This is an amazing line up. These are some of my favorite minds to learn from. Thanks for the video.
I’ve been hearing this debate for over 20 years and participating in it also. I have kept an open ear to the atheists claims, the materialist, etc and as you said I’ve found a massive lack of intellectual honesty to the point that I don’t engage much anymore because sadly there is NOTHING new presented but the same old tired claims that all it takes is a quick moment to research and some quick thinking to see their theories crumble down under the microscope. GOD of the gaps I’ve heard along with multiple insults through the years and over this time our position continues to grow stronger and theirs weaker. So at this point with what we know, what makes a man reject the mere idea of GOD as they mock and laugh it off? It’s not evidence, the bottom line is pride, and the sins that it’s rooted in keep them as blind today as they were all those years ago when they walked away from the idea of GOD. I get it, sin is enjoyable for a season, but it’s end is death so we continue to preach but we must know when not to toss pearls because intellectual dishonesty waste all our time.
You are so right I have been watching the debates for at least 30 years and see the same. Just as the Pharisees - the students of the law - WOULD NOT (refused) believe in Jesus, these atheists PURPOSE not to see the evidence.
@@bobdalton2062 it’s heartbreaking you know, this isn’t me just ripping them, here is LIFE….here is LOVE, redemption, EVERYTHING we ever could want and life eternal at our finger tips and these people push away GOD’s hand, choose death like a drug addict killing themselves inch by inch and no amount of reason can help them see the light. It’s heart breaking, we need to continue to shine the light, to be the salt and pray for the lost because tomorrow is never promised.
Even our Yahuah ( Hebrew name of our Creator) says He will harden hearts and let them believe their nonsense. (Paraphrasing). Then Yahusha ( Our Savior) said to His disciples, if folks don't listen, then leave and brush off the dirt from your sandals. (Paraphrasing again). So the point is, even though we try to tell people about our Elohim and His Son, they may just have hardened heart. Sad, but this is our Father's plan.
Ever wonder why behee has to post in creation journals while the rest of the scientific community doesn't even think about him? It's your comment, right there. Forcing data to fit your pre-made conclusion is the exact opposite of science.
You are right, there is nothing new in this video. It is the same old rubbish. None of these men can prove anything, it is all inference and what they want to believe.
0:29: 🔬 The complexity of the cell and the existence of molecular machines challenge Darwin's understanding of biology.
2:37: 🔍 Darwin didn't have the tools to understand the complexity of the cell, similar to how Ptolemy didn't realize Earth wasn't the center of the solar system.
5:15: 🐭 The video discusses the concept of irreducible complexity and its implications for Darwin's theory of evolution.
7:55: 🧬 The video discusses the challenges of building molecular machines and the need for genetic information.
10:48: 🔍 The speaker criticizes the use of 'Darwin of the gaps' fallacy and argues for the recognition of intelligence embedded within cells.
Recap by Tammy AI
The biggest problem in Evolution is not even the chemical transmutation into a biological one, with several dozen amino acids combining perfectly and simultaneously to form a protein, and also the junction and simultaneity of RNA or DNA, with the function of storing, processing, transmuting the information that would manage the entire cellular structure. These are enormous problems that are still unresolved today. BUT the most deficient point in this story, in my opinion, is how, or where did this whole new database come from, strictly related to the various functionalities of a primordial, non-existent functional biological structure, without any derivation?? It would be like chance being able to randomly assemble a chemical computer, based strictly on the conditions already established naturally, which shaped the entire Universe, with the stars, planets, etc. Chemistry itself has its primordial and limited mechanisms that, through combinations and fusions, generated gases, energy, matter. But where did the configurative information of a cell come from? How did mere chemical combinations that were primarily governed by simplistic natural chemical metrics begin to create complex metabolic information, cytoplasmic protection, stabilization and ordering, nutrition, excretion, duplication???
You do realize that evolution does not deal with abiogenesis, although knowledge about it would of course be a welcome addition.
The original life on earth had no DNA or RNA as it's only needed for complex structures
@@engineergaming3830 So bacteria or even primitive viruses are already complex for you?
I remember my bio teacher in college arguing with me over this. It was so intuitive to me.
The Cell is the ultimate programmable engineering tool.
No, it's not.
DNA is turing complete, isn't it?
If you liked this conversation, read Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution." It goes into much more detail, and addresses many possible refutations.
Lol Yes, if you like bullsh*t religious propaganda masquerading as pseudoscientific lies, lies that have been ENDLESSLY debunked hundreds of times over, including Behe being humiliated in court, under oath, read his embarrassing book.
I'm not super educated or smart but I don't think it would be hard to make refutations considering the nature of everything. Lol.
Old ass books from trailblazers being picked apart for discrepancies that modern intelligence and logic can negate. We could be here for a long time.
A major point behind Darwin's Black box is that macro-evolution cannot occur with many very small steps (random mutation) because of irreducible complexity (example: a mouse trap isn't a mouse trap if any of its pieces are missing). This means that many components must be in place at the same time or else the system doesn't work. Natural selection follows the logic of many mutations over a long period of time because bad mutations don't help survival (often causing death), therefore being refuted by every system with irreducible complexity. Darwin himself said that if evolution by many small steps over long periods of time were shown to not work then his theory would fail, but of course everyone still clings to it because they don't have an alternate without confronting the obvious. Just one of many reasons why I don't have enough faith to be an atheist. @@Michael_X313
Michael Behe is a proponent of pseudoscience, which is probably very profitable.
And then read the devasting debunking and rebuttals by scientists who are actually working in the field.
9:40 wouldn't it be the canopy plant? The lifeform with the longest genome we know of? or am i missing some conception of what lennox means by word
“Darwin of the Gaps” fallacy - excellent point.
It's a rotten point forwarded by presuppositionalists.
There are so many holes in the theory of Darwinist evolution it's surprising there are still scientists taking it seriously.
Like what?
@@johnferguson8794 The fossil record directly contradicts Darwinism, for one. The sudden appearance of complex life (Cambrian Explosion), no transitional organismal forms, stasis.
Not to mention the whole origin of life problem itself.
@@chrispark2698 you know we've found life prior to the Cambrian period right? And a simple Google search would fix you on transitional species.
Abiogenesis isn't evolution in any way shape or form. But you can always dig into the research.
@@johnferguson8794 "you know we've found life prior to the Cambrian period right?"
I do know that - I didn't say the first fossils appear in the Cambrian Explosion. I said there was a sudden massive explosion of complex life at the Cambrian - with no evidence of any antecedent forms. Going off memory, I believe there have been only 4 phyla found pre-Cambrian, and over 20 phyla at the Cambrian, with no transitions found between them. This directly contradicts Darwinism. But how do you explain that on Darwinism?
"a simple Google search would fix you on transitional species."
There are no undisputed transitional species. Pretty much every fossilized organism that may have been *theorized* to be a transitional form has been highly disputed, most outright proven wrong. Please, you are clearly more informed than I am - can you name any undisputed transitional fossil forms?
You ignored stasis.
"Abiogenesis isn't evolution in any way shape or form."
Evolution doesn't happen without abiogenesis. If life can't begin, it can't evolve. The chemistry needed to start life can't happen by natural cause; it needs intelligence to guide it.
Evolution is a fact and the vast majority of scientists don't even think it's worth debating. You just watched a YT video with people that represent like 0.00000000001% of scientists and you're surprised that scientists are "taking it seriously?"
Evolution is a solid fact that is not disputed by anyone except religious people who have alterior motives and bias.
Do yourself a favor and go read papers by Christian scientists who love Jesus and believe in evolution, they'll set you straight.
What is surprising is that you'll believe this idea that it's got so many holes that it's unbelieveable, but you don't even know anything about it other than what some religious leaders have told you.
Aren't you curious to learn for yourself? Why not read and study and be able to steelman evolution before arguing against it?
If you haven't even read The Selfish Gene then you're like a guy who was raised by Hindus and never once heard the name of Jesus saying, "Jesus can't exist, there's too many holes in the theory."
I mean, the Hindu might be right, but he wouldn't be arguing from a position of critical thinking. Just like you're doing with evolution. You don't believe in something you don't even have the slightest clue about.
Had this same personal revelation years ago when I was in university studying science. Became very difficult for me to not see God in all things as I went through towards the completion of my degrees.
It’s funny that it seems to be the humanities that discourage God most; yet they are the least qualified to assess His nature and nature itself…
@@caryg4638 And as a certain scripture in Romans proves, "professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."
so your logic argued with your personal incredulity....
and the personal incredulity won 🙄
that should be applied to these three fools...@@Mannwhich
@@nc1906 Apply it to yourself before pointing your dirty finger at others.
Someone or something wrote the “Code.” End of story. Recommend the book “Signature in the Cell.” Random cellular “evolution” is 10^-40 probable, which is a number greater than the number of atoms in the universe.
That's a terrible argument from ignorance. All you're doing is fulfilling the laws of confirmation bias, massaging available data until you can mould it into the shape you need it to be.
_"Someone or something wrote the 'Code'"_ you say? Prove that claim with evidence. Clear, direct evidence.
This is a profound yet clear discussion by great scientific minds. Thank you for sharing this with us.
Lol, no it isn't. They are not great scientific minds at all. Irreducible complexity has been thoroughly debunked.
Seeing a cell under a microscope rightly ought to fill our faith with greater strength, and a wonder at our Lord's Science.
Are you referring to the same lord that said sprinkling bird's blood will cleanse your house? The same lord that said slugs melt when they walk? Yeah, the "Lord's Science" would make a great fairy tale. Oh, wait...it already did.
HIV, SARS-CoV2, influenza, smallpox, etc. are all complex, microscopic entities. What's this tell you about your Lord?
Highly recommend reading a book called "Theistic evolution" by JP Moreland which Dr Meyer took part in writing. Specifically Dr Meyer's chapters on genetics were MIND BLOWING to me. There's no way to randomly develop such mechanisms that we see in DNA/genetics. The whole book is great.
It’s not entirely random though. It’s random mutations with entirely non-random selection. We have computer algorithms that find solutions to difficult problems in exactly the same way and they work beautifully.
And the computer came from where? There was at least one smart person writing a program.
@@cthulhucrews6602 How did we jump to “magical”? Can we stick with programmer?
@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdom
He just mentioned computer algorithms to illustrate a similar process to ask where the computer came from is a non sequitur.
@@Domesticated_Apewhere does the “selection” come from? How does it know what to select and what not to? Sounds random to me…. Not satisfied with this sorry….
Mind blown yet again! Keep them coming!
This is great, thank you. Also, Darwin could never account for any missing links....which have yet to be found.
The less we knew, the more "plausible" a God-less-creation could seem - but even 35 years ago when I was a child in school, it seemed a stretch that this whole fabulous, beautiful, intricate world was just "here by random, unguided chance". The more I've read, watched, learned since? I've always believed there was a God. Since I was 15 I've always KNOWN him. Not as well as I'd have liked - but that was and is my own fault and laziness, not His - but even when I've been faithless, He's remained faithful. All I have is His mercy... and this life that He so graciously gave us all.
I myself am Christian but can also understand that alot of our knowledge of God is confusing and most Christians have a difficult time explaining topics like this one to non believers. This channel is a tremendous asset.
Nope. You have no knowledge of god. God is not real and you have nothing but mythology.
@walkergarya Fair enough. Maybe your right.
As a non believer myself, a god based explanation isn't an explanation because I don't believe in any gods as there isn't enough evidence to suggest that any exist. There is overwhelming evidence in support of evolution so the question for non believers is how could evolution have produced eyes. That question has been answered many times over by evolutionary biologists. That's why discussions like the ones in the video look a bit silly to those that have an evidence based approach to understanding the world we live in rather than a theologically based approach.
@@walkergarya I agree. I am actually still open to a possibility that some kind of higher being or beings exist - maybe a creator or designer. I'm open-minded, reasonable, logical, etc. and I seek answers. I look to math and physics for answers. One thing I know, though, is that 99.9% of Christians I've talked with (and I've talked at length with 1000s) are clueless. Many claim to believe the Bible but don't even know what books are in it and have never read it. They go to churches and don't even know what the churches teach (because most churches don't teach). They know little or nothing of real science. Everybody I work with and almost everybody I know claim to be Christian. Their cluelessness infuriates me.
@@billsmith7673 I've said earlier in this series of replies that I don't personally believe in a creator/god/etc. It is good that you are seeking answers etc. One thing I would ask you to think about, if you reach a different conclusion to the scientific community and conclude that there actually is a designer......can you identify any evidence at all that the designer is still alive. That is, I have some sympathy (though I still disagree) with the argument that there might have been a designer that brought the universe into being, but there is nothing to suggest that such a designer survived that process. Concluding that there is a designer doesn't mean that it's rational to believe in the god of the bible (or the gods of any other religion for that matter).
Where is the quote of Darwin you mentioned of irreducible complexity?
Time of the Gaps: given enough time, non-living things will perfectly arrange themselves into living things by chance, and given enough time, those simple living things will transform into an organism that is capable of interpreting and explaining what has occurred.
Evolution does not work "by chance"
In case anyone didn't know. That deally in the thumbnail, its the mitochondria. Its the powerhouse of the cell.
Im a muslim with a background in the rehabilitation of the spine and I love listening to these guys absolutely great stuff, I have been following them for year, just love it, it totally destroys the darwinistic/atheistic argument(s).
Hi, watch a video by Apostate Prophet called ‘Jesus was a Muslim- Debunked ‘
I hope you’d at least be willing to see the arguments made in that video.
God bless :)
And another video from the same source that comes to mind for me is: The Quran, the Bible, and the Islamic Dilemma (David Wood) Your thoughts?
God Bless you, don't stop seeking the truth for it will set you free.
Hahahaha FFS If you understood the most basic things about biology and weren't so easily manipulated by lying grifters, you'd recognize how embarrassing your comment here is.
Islam is false, turn to Christ.
@Sirrus-Adam Note: this is a copy of my response from a >500 comment thread. See that thread for context.
1. (and a sprinkle of 3 and 6) Again with the definitions. For me, abiogenesis is just a headline, a synonym for the ill-defined step between some organic compounds and our hierarchy of life. It's the question, not an answer. "RNA world" is a possible answer, "goddidit" another one.
However, that's just my personal definition. Feel free to come up with an alternative.
2. Evolution is also dependent on stellar nucleosynthesis (SNS), yet these two topics are very rarely brought up together. The situation is the same: If we find conclusive evidence that a god created heavy elements/the first very simple forms of life, the ToE would not change a bit.
Why _do_ people bring it up then? To confuse the audience. "Origin of life" and "diversity of life" seem to be similar enough to make the comparison viable, when trying to do the same with SNS and the ToE would just cause puzzled looks.
It boils down to this: If the topic is the ToE and someone brings up abiogenesis, you can be sure he's confused or lying.
I have no idea who Philip Ball is.
3. Specific sources please. I want to see what Valkai is talking about. As for that Primer thing, never heard about it, not sure why it'd be relevant.
4. You still have not given us a definition, and "I know it when I see it" isn't one. My understandig about current hypothesises about OoL is that "life" is very much *not* an ingredient or distinct mechanism you have to account for. It's just a label you put on things once they reached a vague (!!) threshold.
Not sure what an "evolutionist" is, are you in the habit of calling physicists "gravitationists"?. In any case, I don't think I've ever met a biologist who has any problems about non-terrestial life, so please provide sources for your wild claim.
5. "Adaptation" is used in the ToE, just not in the way you use the term. Define your terms and let's move on, or drop it. The choice is yours.
6. See above, any mention of OoL in the context of ToE is dishonest or ignorant.
Excellent interviewing.....some of my favorite
Very good! I love John Lenox, I've listed to everything i find from him, he is able to explain things very well that a dummies like me can understand it. And Stephen Myers is a little harder to understand but interesting and does very well. Thanks for sharing this. Love this channel just found it recently and i will subscribe.
This is what TH-cam is good for! This is my favorite video ever! I argued along these lines in college in 1973 and it cost me dearly. This neither proves or disproves the origin of life and evolution. But we have to follow the truth! Thank you for this video.
Science really not a tool for validating history since it’s not replicable, but I’m convinced that evolution is statistically impossible to account for life origins and speciation
Because you're too busy to look at the fossil record?@@goyablackolivesmatter179
@@goyablackolivesmatter179 In a purely mathematical study, random unguided evolution is impossible. The DNA double helix contains 3 billion base pairs (letters). The British Encyclopedia contains 277,2 million letters i.e. only 11% of the human DNA base pairs.
In a random construction of DNA, accumulating mistakes quickly degrade the structural and thermodynamic stability of protein folds. The stable tertiary structure of DNA is lost long before the trial and error could generate a functioning novel protein fold. The whole job must be done quickly which in practice means "No mistakes allowed".
Time is the enemy of random process as every error in the process creates new errors. No more than 3-15 trials and errors are enough to crumble the stability of DNA section, while different possibilities for error are counted in millions. After each failure the random process must start again - from beginning! - in an everlasting vicious circle. Billions of years don't help since the Almighty Happenstance isn't allowed to build mistakes on any successful partial structure. You make a mistake and you start the WHOLE process from beginning. Earlier successes don't mean anything.
What is even more crushing to the idea of random DNA evolution is the fact, that even if a random DNA indeed did appear against mathematical possibility, it could not be functional. Why? Because somebody must give DNA the needed structure in advance. DNA has no brains to do the planning or set the goal to itself. Unfortunately for evolutionists, the Almighty Happenstance doesn't have brains either.
I will never forget my sophomore year of college. Fall semester I had human biology and I got to learn about the complexity of the human body, over Christmas Break there was a Sunday School lesson and Romans 8:16 seemed to jump out at me. Then in Spring Semester I had Drawing and Human Anatomy where we studied the skeletal and muscular system and how it all works together.
I had grown up being taught and had never doubted that we are children of God, but that year and seeing how everything works together really cemented the belief into my heart that we are all children of God, made in His image.
thats just something youre going to have to deal with
At a very basic level, if life is by accident-where would the instinct to stay alive and reproduce ever enter into the equation? That new life would have no instinct, or concept of death or self preservation that we know exists in every organism to the cellular level.
You do a wonderful job with these videos, providing your commentary along with the video discussion. Keep up the great work!
You, sir are a witless fool.
Thank you….. I found this video by chance and it has really opened my eyes and I realise I need to understand more….! This 12 minutes has taken apart everything I thought I knew and never questioned before….! Thank You!
That’s the right attitude. Rare and precious. Dig in and tell us what comes out!
My eyes were opened to the depths of dishonesty that these "philosophers" will sink to rather than consult actual reputable scientists.
If you haven't seen it, I recommend Curiosity episode Battlefield Cell. It shows the complexity of a human skin cell like you may never have seen it. Crazy
I am a bit older than many of the folks that have commented. By the way, very impressed with all the comments as you are digging into trying to understand something that is way above ALL our pay grades. Think about each individual that has commented. Think about each of the men in this video clip. Then, think of the complexity of each of our own minds. I am not into science as I was when young but there was one egg in your mother's womb and billions of sperm trying to make contact with that egg. Random? I think not. God orchestrated that ONE sperm to fertilize that egg to create each of us. What an amazing Creator. If you study the Bible of Christianity and are truly seeking Him first in your life, you will get this statement. Daily my eyes have their sight unveiled by Holy Spirit as I am a child of God. Blessings on all who follow this channel.
Great work on presenting all this information and the work and time out of your schedule to put this together. Keep up the Good Work!
“Time” is always the hero of the plot.
- Dr Steven Meyer
? The life time of the LTEE is 50 years and aids has existed in humans for 100....that's a human lifespan. Both of which refute irreducible complexity.
That's why they rigged the meassurment tools to come up with millions and billions of years.
This is really elegant and straightforward. I study science almost daily, and I am constantly amazed by how complex our body and universe is. If the painting is this amazing, what does that say about the artist? Maybe there is more to learn?
What if what you think is a painting actually isn't a painting. What would that say about whether or not there is even an artist at all?
@@davegaskell7680post modern jibberish. I used to be like you. One day maybe you'll look back and cringe at yourself, too.
@@jakebaldwin7172 Right back atchya
Lol Yeah, what do ERVs and wisdom teeth and appendixes exploding and stuff say about "the artist"? That it sucks at what it does? This "artist" sure went out of its way to make life look in every possible way as though it's the product of evolution and common ancestry with no supernatural guidance or influence.
@@jakebaldwin7172 Lol Wait.... you used to not be a science-denying creationist, but now you look back and cringe at the days when you considered logic, rationality, empirical evidence, and facts more convincing than Bronze and Iron Age fairy tales?
And I suspect Dave Gaskell is making a point about how stupid and intellectually dishonest the watchmaker fallacy is. "Well, a painting had to have an artist, so nature, something that's nothing like a painting and which literally all evidence tells us emerged as a result of natural processes... must have had a creator too!"
Nothing cringe-worthy about pointing out how laughable that kind of limp, dusty, endlessly-refuted toddler-level apologetics is.
I have always believed that there is no way life just starts from nothing
Thank you for your insightful comment.
When I was in elementary school 50 + years ago, one of our science projects was to make a model of a cell using jello, and a marble for the nucleus, in a ziplock bag! It was so beautiful to be exposed to actual biology at university. What a magnificent wonder the cell is! Glory to God!
Every time I hear someone mention Darwin, I remember a story I heard about how he didn't mean to ever have his theory published. It was just some notes he left in a journal that he discussed with his clergy friend who published it after he died. I always took that to mean that he never believed in the theory. He was just musing over it, and some zealot pulled a con he never would've if Darwin hadn't died when he did.
Later, it became the pistol's fire of the human race for world dominance... but the bullets were duds. There was no gold ribbon at the finish line. No trophy, no medals. In fact, the only thing the humans were truly racing against was time, and there is no way to beat it.
The anti-christ, the usurper, has the beasts fighting for superiority in the field... but they were all made in the same image and likeness.
"There is none good but one. That is the Father who is in heaven."
Everything evolves in time, but not in the scales imagined. What truly binds our DNA and complicates it is the fact that we all come from the same source: earth, the beautiful and terrible, magnificent earth... and what sparked, what set it in motion? It was God.
May he forever be praised.
What a folly do we make of it all.
In vanity.
Quick Google search and Origin of species was published 23 years before Darwin died, so that story is incorrect. Also his daughter was quoted as saying "my father never recanted any of his scientific views", which would make no sense with that story.
As a Christian, I agree with the rest of your comment.
This is incorrect. First Darwin rushed his book into publication fearing that AR Wallace would publish a similar theory first. Darwin wrote multiple editions of his book with edits based on feedback from the scientific world. Darwin also wrote "Descent of Man" with allusions to his more famous book. Darwin was enormously famous in his lifetime for his book, although not always in a good way.
BS though
Not exactly, if he didn't mean to publish his book, then scientists at the time wouldn't have even dared look into his finding due to the fact that they were also religious. Eventually he set out to find what was proven years later, and what everyone else had already suspected: natural selection, the process by which where individuals of a species have the beneficial genes to pass onto the next generation, specialising the previously existing forefathers, and eventually having individuals of their own with different specialised traits. Of course, other people did suspect that it happened based on sight alone.
What we are talking about here is that which is obvious at first glance and comparing it to scriptures of fairytales which haven't been proven true. This obviously should remind you of the thunder, where the was a point in time where people used to believe that it came from the command of the gods, especially in nordic mythology. Now we know how it happens, and it has nothing to do with the gods. Likewise people also used to believe that the earth was flat until basic mathematics were done and eventually when we were able to go to space ourselves. We have enough empirical data to prove that Adam and eve were not real people, first of all that human like apes would've existed with them but the bible makes no mention of that, the other being the regulations against incest, and all the dating methods that we have.
It is your fairytale against someone else's fairytale, all making the same or similar unverified claims and not backing them up with empirical evidence. Where 1 group of people eventually asked themselves, "we're killing other people in the name of our gods, but the gods never bring themselves in our name?" And stopped thinking that a god commanded the thunder to happen, for the tides to become violent, for it to rain, and for any natural disaster imaginable. Which depiction of the antichrist is it by the way?
@@tykemorris I've heard the same thing. Darwin sat on his manuscript for years and only published when he realized he was about to be scooped by Wallace.
Wonderful. I think back to the debates I had with professors who were sold out to Darwinism. It was years ago. I wonder what they think now.
that you were another deluded theist?
Probably nothing since the Lennox is a goofball with no knowledge of biology whatsoever
They probably think they were correct, although it is called evolution not darwinism and the alternative is a magic invisible pixie who created everything, in the wrong order, in 6 days.
What biologists have yet to figure out, is that their theory of all the building blocks necessary for a cell all coming together, as described in the Astrobiology Primer, just because they all came together in just the right way, does not automatically imply that they would suddenly come alive, (as tho Pinocchio's Fairy Godmother waved her magic wand and turned it into a real boy). They would just be a non-living clump of organic material. In order for it to become animated (alive), 'mind' has to be added to it in order for it to function. Since 'mind' is not a property of matter, that means the source of mind, would have to intentionally add it to that theoretical accidental cell.
The idea that life happened by accident, is just the atheistic biologists pipe dream that enables them to deny the irreducible element of mind.
You're simply fulfilling the "God of the Gaps" argument. You're taking available information and massaging it into the shape of your religion. But you're proving nothing - there's not a shred of evidence in what you typed that proves your god created the universe. Nothing.
Mind had to be ADDED to it? That is so backwards. Not understanding the depth of time and what takes place over immense spans of time, your personal incredulity, is hardly an excuse for the claims you make.
@@Spiritof_76 - I notice you didn't address the key issue: how did that supposed first global common ancestor become alive? Just that you didn't like my read on it. If it had mind, where did it get it?
I'm saying the mind predates the brain in large part due to Philip Ball and Michael Levin asserting that "life has cognition all the way down to the individual cell." I'm merely inferring that the cause of that cognition involves an element of mind. Do you disagree with these two noted biologists? If so, why?
@@Sirrus-Adam Noted biologists who are theists buck the trend of NOT pre-supposing an all-powerful deity. Honest people admit not knowing all of the answers, religion claims to provide all of the answers because accepting the supernatural is part of the explanation. There is zero evidence for any gods or supernatural events, but that never stops theists from going off on an imaginary journey of trying to explain reality by accepting them as true.
I remember, from long ago, a quote attributed to Charlie Darwin, (paraphrased) "If any case of two or more species have a dependence on the other for its existence, my theory falls apart.."
At the time, an example of Reindeer and another form of life was presented as an example of interdependency. We now know that virtually every lifeform shares an interdependence with multiple different lifeforms.
Yet, I don't hear or see this quote in modern conversations.
🤔 Why is that?
I'm not sure why you're even asking, you answered your own question. It doesn't appear because it isn't what Darwin said or wrote.
No, not a quote.
Love these discussions. Wish I had Darwin of the Gaps in my vocabulary a decade ago when talking with some friends.
Thanks bro!
You'd do yourself a greater service watching a free bio course on TH-cam
So why did god create viruses, flesh eating bacteria, parasites etc?
People are paying this Duffer for feeding them nonsense from long exposed frauds ?!. The world we live in
So the god of the gaps is fraud, but the time of the gaps and the Darwin of the gaps is science and valid?
There is no ‘Theory of Intelligent Design’. If there was, there would be published papers in reputable journals, there would be scientists citing the work for their ongoing research, there would be predictions that the theory makes, but there isn’t. That’s because ID is just warmed over creationism. It operates in much the same way as the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which is just like the old cosmological arguments, but leaves off the 'therefore God' bit at the end.
All the relevant scientific fields move along with no reference to the sideshow that is ID. Funny that.
About the time the creationists find proof that our universe was created the creators will be shutting down the model.
I just read Greg Egan's Permutation City for the second time a couple of days ago. He's got this crazy situation whereas the humans who've made an artifical universe (and sped up the time scale so billions of years have passed) decide they need to let the sentient beings inside this artifical universe know they were created. So they show up and the beings reject the idea, they developed a theory that works describing how they arrived naturalistically. They couldn't accept the idea of a creator, that was too crazy for them.
A weird irony.
I will say that after listening to some of these Quantum Mechanics lectures and such, I'm pretty convinced the Christians are partially right, we didn't get this universe entirely without help. Something made it. We live in a construct, I think...but, heck, it's just a thought, not a belief, and it doesn't change the course of my life.
But I find it weird, having once been a YEC, that now, as a naturalist, I'm confronted with the idea that QM is so freaking weird that maybe someone else made AI before use (we're not the base universe).
Reading through these comments, it's facinating how many people argue against evolution without the slightest idea of what the process even entails. If one were non-biased and reasonable, at best it would make sense to say, "I believe in a deity who started this show, but obviously natural selection is a fact."
Well, in another Everett Universe, I'm still going to write in this comment, but in this universe, I'm off to bed.
The answer is circular reasoning...
"ID isn't science so it can't be allowed in scientific periodicals...
We know it isn't science because ID is never published in scientific literature."
Pure gatekeeping for dogmatic reasons.
You are allowed to publish in the periodicals if you want to ATTACK intelligent design, it has been done to Michael Behe. However, they same publishers won't allow Michael Behe's reply to his critics be published in the same magazine that critiques him.
Doug Axe and Steven Meyer had the similar discrimination happen to them.
DOUBLE STANDARD.
Life Carriers, who initiated life on our planet, designed their first global common ancestors to not just live, but to evolve. They do, however, take issue with one of Darwin's ideas, that life evolved slowly. They tell us that evolution happened suddenly, in one generation. And they confirm that the goal of life, was to evolve will creatures such as ourselves.
There is a glaring flaw with their cell argument. They are looking at the cell as a finished state without any idea if it had an original state.
There is already a theory that, at least, the mitochondria was a separate organism that was either ingested yet not consumed or or invaded another organism and became part of it. Additionally, if you assume even the process and tool for the digestion of other organisms was also bound by evolution, it could be possible that a consumed organism's DNA could be left free floating the consumer's body. These DNAs could become intertwined. Point is there are many reasonable explanations that need not point to "an agent." Like I have said in other posts. They need to update their knowledge of evolutionary biology if they are still talking about Darwin and Darwinian evolution.
Kudos to the Daily Dose host! You presented this wonderful clip, made smart & succinct comments & let these 3 bright & wise guests do most of the talking! ❤ Thank you!
exactly. most yt reactors make non sense commenting/interruption
The amazing thing to me is seeing the deeper science delves into life it just becomes more and more complex. unfortunately science seems to be following evidence less and less and ideology more and more.
Actually, it's not science that's failing to see evidence, it's scientists that are failing to see evidence. Science itself points to God. The religion of atheism closes people's eyes and prevents sight.
Unfortunately, you're being conned by these "philosophers" who claim to understand real science. They don't bother to consult reputable scientists or to keep up with the current level of knowledge and understanding. They rely on tired tropes rather than face current science.
Perfectly phrased and you are 100% correct,
Science is what made it possible to understand that complexity, you're debunking yourself.
@@mickadams1905 you’re not very intelligent are you?
Very educational and an excellent summary. Thank you.
Have you tried listening to sceintists rather than lying religious activists for your education on science?
The only kind of macro evolution that makes sense to me is the possible non-gradual evolution that is generated by the massive energy surges that would have been around during massive Velikovskian-like catastrophes. These massive and unusual energies could perhaps have caused massive shifts in the morphic fields (as proposed by Reupert Sheldrake) which would cause full blown shifts in the designs of the creatures so exposed to the energies while they were at certain stages of development or bearing offspring. This might explain why we see massive changes in the nature of the life-forms after what appear to be massively catastrophic events. After which, we appear to see virtually no new species developing. All the macro evolutionary changes occurred all at once. Some of these new permutations survived as ongoing species, but some did not, for various reasons (some of which may be explained by the same reasons that endangered species don't survive). But they might have created instances in the fossil records, even though they weren't really a valid species. This could partially explain such things as the ultra-massive sauropods and other dinosaurs that appear to be far too large to survive earth's gravity.
I’ve watched the whole original discussion, and I love it.
I really like YOUR:
1- Choice of clip to share
2- Insertions throughout
3- Discussion at the end! Very good points!
Could you please share the name or the link to the entire original discussion? Thank you in advance? This is fascinating!
@@jasatx2024I agree :) as a future physician and a big fan of science in general, plus a Christian- it's so great to see other Christian scientists and intellectuals in general :) others that I like are Dr. Frank Turek, Dr. Hugh Ross, Dr. William Lane Craig, J Warner Wallace, Lee Strobel, check them out when you can :) God bless!
@jacaro2012 He left a link to the entire discussion in the description box under this video.
I don’t expect the school textbooks to be including those detailed cell diagrams anytime soon!
Google search then select images. For example bacteria flagellum. (see my post I made)
thank god 🤭
It’s amazing that Sumerians had drawing of our solar system 3800BC and the Sun was the center
I like your mustache by the way. It reminds me of my dad’s mustache. It looks good on you. Try and keep it as long as you can.
John Lennox sitting over there smiling is priceless
It has a price. It costs us plenty in un-collected taxes on churches and the dumbing down of the flock. I consider those to be very high costs.
Maybe he assumes it makes up for his piss-poor arguments.
When I had my first year of college I was excited to get some answers on the origin of life and evolution and the Big Bang. My atheism ended when they couldn’t answer the most basic and fundamental questions.
1, where did the cell come from? And why do the atoms that make up these cells work so perfectly together to create this cell?
2. What is the origin of the energy from the Big Bang and the space that it happened in?
The answer wasn’t only they didn’t know. It was met with basically anger and I suddenly realized that these theories weren’t science. They were a religion of atheism and I was blaspheming for simply asking the most important yet unanswerable questions.
Not only is the cell not random, or the ability of cells to work together to make complex organisms not random. The very fact that these atoms fit together perfectly and create this life points to it having to have a complex architecture.
The Big Bang isn’t only not a good explanation for the origin of the universe. It doesn’t even explain the origin of the universe. It explains the origin of atoms, energy and our planets and galaxies.
The Big Bang doesn’t even attempt to explain where the empty space came from. It doesn’t even attempt to describe where the energy came from and how it could have gotten there.
The saying the Big Bang theory explains the origin universe is like saying a road map explains how the road was built. It doesn’t even touch the subject of how it was built. Just because you have a great theory on how it happened doesn’t mean there is no god. In fact it points to only some type of insanely powerful entity could have created this environment for this to happen. And that evolution and the complexity of the cell and the perfect way they are in balance points to it having an advanced architecture and creator.
Just to try and make the most simplistic version of this in a computer program would take such an enormous amount of resources and time that it demands there must have been a creator.
Here's the thing: all you've arrived at is a reasonable speculation that "magic man done it". Basic deism. Which is, again, just the gut-level speculation that you would expect from an evolved ape creature that has so many gaps of knowledge and understanding.
You're nowhere even close to theism, or any evidence of your fantasies. The only thing that has gotten us anywhere in terms of understanding the real world is observation, experimentation, and dedicated study and accumulation of knowledge. The navel-gazing hoodoo voodoo of god-beliefs does not reveal anything, but it does soothe and comfort (some) people as they deal with the burden of the evolved mammalian brain.
That being said, it actually IS very important for us humans to have inspiration and motivation, and it fills our lives with magical good fuzzy feelings to believe in such things. From a functional standpoint, I totally understand the appeal of it and why humans have dreamt up many imaginary things; but from a standpoint of honesty and empiricism, I have to discard it.
Live well broski, hollerback if you like.
You have not said anything with all of those words
@@ManDuderGuy the problem is you think its a magic man. its not. god is not like its creation. its not just a gut level speculation. if left chemical some where it will be there if some other force dont move it. it cannot do anything itself. thats basic logic. but why are we suppose to believe against that observation. that life sprung out of chemicals just existing. not mention the complexity and fragile nature of it. atheism story is more magic than the creation story. which do you think is more absurd. TV having a maker vs a tv make it self. i know you will say but we observe a maker for tv. Yes thats the point. we use that logic of a tv not being able to create itself philosophically to nature too. we didnt see it happen so the closest rational answer is creation. based on reality. do you know what happens to a fish when i take it out of the water. it dies. it doesnt have the athesim version of god of the gaps to live. billion of years mean nothing if it dies to an environment it cannot survive. how will it pass it genes. its dying. how do you gradually change when you die to something you are not capable of surviving. thats like me going 6k meters under water and you skip that story to millions of years later my dependents having gills. skipping the details on what happened to me. reality is i would be dead and cannot pass genes dead.
Usually in science when ever a question cannot be answered by someone you yourself go on the pursuit of finding the answer instead of going back to stone age explanation.
Where did god come from? You just kicked the philosophical can down the road.
The potential energy has to be set for the mouse trap to work. What natural explanation could account fot that?
Interesting channel. Much prefered to the Prof Dave mocking of what is certainly an issue at the cutting edge that he does not seem to understand.