Very much so!

Slowly but surely, they are falling. I think it will take two more generations though before we see a respectable amount of academia subscribing to the design inference. Or before they can freely express it.

Totally agree, let's hope more scientists develop the courage to deny Darwinism, the same way Galileo and other brave scientists stood up against the outdated theories of their day. Dr Stephen Meyer (Darwins doubt/the complexities of the simple cell and proteins), James Tour (impossible abiogenesis) are great resources. Professor Gunter Bechly also has some very scientific videos on here, many of them showing the impossibility of not only the Cambrian explosion, but also the other 9 inexplicable spontaneous explosions of life, where fully formed biologically advanced species 'magically' appear at different levels in the fossil record, without any signs of evolution or intermediary species. Fortunately, advancing technology is on our side, as it is allowing scientists to see how 'advanced' the so called 'simple' cell/individual protein 'machines' really are, and that DNA, without which cells cannot replicate or create any biological substances, is the ultimate chicken and the egg problem. Intelligent design is already staring them in the face, but those such as Dawkins are so bigoted they ignore the obvious and try to over simplify incredibly complex biological processes in an attempt too make abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution possible, which obviously, without a designer and already fully formed creatures, they are not. As our ability to see the complexities of cells and organisms such as mitochondria advances, it will get to a point where even the most stubborn Darwinist, will no longer be able to deny intelligent design.

you're right. it must be a magical being that deeply cares about you specifically.

@@shioq. How silly of you. Surely you have something more substantive to add than “magic.” It shows your lack of intellect to make such a silly statement. As an aside, name a creator who doesn’t care about their creation. The painter, the musician, the beautician, the home builder, etc. each care about, and care for, their creation.

it's not coincidence. it's very small changes every generation over the course of a near infinite amount of generations. like how dogs were bred from wolves into the many, many breeds we have today.

​@@shioq.But we don't see any new species came from dogs after breeding dozens of variations

Life has come from Eternity. Our temporary existence cannot see that far. We should listen to Philosophy . " where Reason cannot go, ..Faith is not Irrational."

@@paulgarduno9756 I'm not religious, but I love the quote. I've often expressed the same idea myself to others.

@@paulgarduno9756 What an outstanding expression that was. Those committed to strict materialism err to make the a priori declaration that all things can or must flow, from natural causes. Says who? Says those who can only be 'comfortable' if entertaining that philosophy.

Why does not becteria evolve ??

@@goodthoughts9734 i see you're a second language person. One would write, ' why doe bacteria evole?', english is a bit backward from most languages. Being a lowly nurse its incredible how all these functions maintain.

How could they not consider the possibility that it was not natural?

Agreed.

Yup.... I was once agnostic, now I'm a theist. I understand that there is always much more to learn, and I used to think science revolved around that idea, but the fact that they refuse to take a second look at darwins theory or refuse to abandon string theory with all of its flaws only shows me that true science is struggling because of the scientific communities inability to push against the status quo.

@@ronaldmorgan7632 The core thought process of the atheistic mind is similar on various levels to a scene from the movie,Tombstone. Wyatt Earp asks Doc Holiday, "what makes a man like Johnny Ringo do the things he does?" Doc answers with the word, "revenge". Wyatt asks, "revenge for what?" Doc answers, "for being born". Atheists refuse to contend with the concept of being created. Answering to the Creator. It is much simpler, and easier (whether they recognize they are doing it or not) to follow the single commandment found in the satanic bible..."do as thou wilt is the whole of the law". Actress Betty White once said that "Growing old isn't for everyone". Extending this observation, we see that living forever isn't either. The hour is late for our wobbly world. As foretold, the signs are here in accurate abundance. See - "Huge media blackout regarding supermoons" on the net See - "Pole shift of Noah's day about to happen again?" on the net Good Journeys All

1esl Azá

The so called "beneficial mutations " had ONLY happened on complete fully operating organisms. Like the mutation that allows us to drink milk, after we have grown older enough, and is not needed for our survival.

The flagellum cannot precede the bacteria, because its parts must get built by the bacteria. It is another, Chicken & the egg problem.

Eller hur? Visst är det spännande!

Mutations are errors by definition. Errors don't generate information.

Natural selection IS evolution

Yeah. A whole bunch of needed changes just happened to appear, and all in the right order. Think how many died in the process though. *sniff*

@@the420god3 No, natural selection is just an instance in which certain variations in gene expressions just happen to be exactly what is required to enable an organism to survive some environment. Natural selection never increases the complexity of an organism, it always results in subtraction of information. Organisms with genomes unsuitable for the environment die out and that information is lost. If you define "evolution" as change over time, then you can call anything evolution and the term becomes redundant. Natural selection is just natural selection. Calling it evolution does nothing. It does not prove macro evolution to be true. Also, your name compels me to advise you not to smoke marijuana. It's not good for your lungs and it causes brain damage.

@@the420god3 continue smoking that Hash while you’re at it. Hope you re read what you wrote “Natural Selection” get it selection? As in selecting for what was already there. Continue dozing off my guy

The multiverse is somehow involved. I can sense it!

Hehehe

And who made god ? I am waiting for your nonsensical answer such as he always was or he gave birth to himself or good always existed therefore God always existed. Those are terrible answers.

@@kookamunga2458 No it isn't in the Bible it even says God is eternal. Something or SOMEONE HAD to be enteral to set everything in motion. It's common sense there can't be an infinite regress There had to been a uncaused first cause too try to deny this is saying we don't have a universe and you don't really exist. But you Do... Because something or someone aka God is eternal. And the arguments I have heard points too that someone was enernal not something this is what thesis call God.

totally agree with that

Yeah💯

I believe that this was addressed @13:40.

We need to look critically both at Michael Behe's presentation of irreducible complexity (IR) AND at his detractors responses. Can you name which paper you're referring to that responds to IR? I have Michael Behe's book A Mousetrap for Darwin which responds to various papers. I can check out the paper and Behe's response to speak to it more intelligently. Personally, I have only seen one argument against IR that was based on evidence instead of bad reasoning but I haven't seen the papers - just discussed with various proponents of them. And I also heard the response to the evidence based argument.