Are they evolutionists?

@@gibbonstarfish1127 Jimmy Akin, yes. Trent, I am not sure. Jimmy said there is plenty of evidence for it. Where is the evidence? Mutation has not been observed producing even a lowly new functional peptide. And the fossil record shows the sudden appearance of fully formed new body plans.

They also need to read some of the books by Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer of the book by Matti Leisola - "Heretic - One Scientist's Journey from Darwin to Design"

Especially Jim Akins - quite obnoxious - wont waste my time on his super-imposed ego!

Me too - it just boggles my mind that we embrace that Christ is the body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist, but creation by fiat is such a problem to believe. Meanwhile the pillars of evidence of evolutionary theory are collapsing like a castle of cards

Which isn’t in opposition if God used this process to arrive at speciesizarion.

amen 🙏

odd considering we're not all invisible... and on the flip side, its weird to consider him an ape

@@Unclenate1000 Man isn't an ape, he isn't scientifically identified as an ape, he is identified as a hominid.

This is a fallacy of logic begging the question. An invalid argument.

Your understanding of “revealed by God,”. Is not consistent with the understanding of what inspiration means in Dei Verbum, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Interpretation in the Church.

God didn’t tell man lots of things, nuclear power for instance, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. This is an irrational argument with faulty premises.

The Roman Catholic Church has a considerable amount of historical involvement in Darwinism. A lot of people don't know that it was an RCC Priest (Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître) that came up with the big bang hypothesis. It was an RCC priest (Pierre Teilhard de Chardin) that was directly involved in the fabrication of "Peking Man," a supposed transitional form between ape and man. And how many people know where Charles Darwin himself is buried? That is no coincidence. The RCC's ultimate goal is to get everyone under the "authority" of the papacy, and their Jesuitical Order has been very busy infiltrating the various epistemologies of the world to accomplish that end. Your comment is not a logical fallacy that begs the question, it is simply stating irrefutable fact and asking a question that is direct, important, and relevant to the stated fact.

@@michaelspeyrer1264 If you are going to try and call people out on logical fallacies, at least have some self awareness. Your appeal to the "Dei Verbum" is a perfect example of the "appeal to authority" (argumentum ad verecundiam) logical fallacy. The "Del Verbum" is not the authority when it comes to scriptural revelation or interpretation. And it really doesn't help that the organization you appealed to is so anti-Christ.

Einstein was a pantheist he did not believe in God. He believed God was the universe.

Or you could just look at fossil evidence.

@@michaelspeyrer1264 it is clear you did not even bother watching the video. the speaker discusses the fossil record and how it doesn't support evolution. how about you refute the arguments instead?

I believe God’s words! And I infinitely appreciate more coming from God and being His on IMAGE than came from a irracional animal??? You kidding me? I’m did not have to burn my brain in college to outsmart mostly of well educated people today! Amazing! Uauuu thanks be to God for that! I’ll pray for all e theistic people. So the Holly Spirit the Teachers of all Teaches will bright their dark minds! Praise be to God our CREATOR! Amém 🙏

@@michaelspeyrer1264 fossil evidence is not accurate. Its more of a estimate, they can only track things about a couple thosuands of years. Keep studying...dont drink the kool-aid of evolution just yet.

@@MariaFlores-rl2eq God's word isn't founded on fundamentalism, as confirmed by the Dogmatic Constitution on the Interpretation of Scripture in the Church, Dei Verbum. Being created in God's image and likeness has nothing to do with your physical form, but that you have an intellect and a free will. Accepting some from of evolution doesn't equal atheism. Most of your comments here are overlay broad assumptions of false dicthomy.

This is false.

***WHY NOT?***

There is no evolution; the genome is degrading according to the second law of thermodynamics just like every other molecule in the universe. There is no magic that protects the genetic code from following the same laws of science that everything follows. Information exists in material things and materials things are always breaking down over time.

Inevitable progress isn’t a part of evolutionary theory.

@@michaelspeyrer1264 it is at least a part of the layman's and colloquial conception of it. And it is also an idea that permeates the academy at all levels. And it is the foundation of the notion that a species could become what humans are without any intervention.

@@stevedoetsch indeed, the genome has a significant potential for decay if the proper environmental pressures are not applied to it. The industrial revolution has massively increased the survivability of individuals carrying larger and larger mutational loads over time, including significant mutations to brain structure and function, resulting in spiteful mutants. Eventually the system will collapse under the strain they put on it, and we will return to the selection pressures we faced in the tribal stage, religion will return to the mass of humanity that remains, as it is itself adaptive, and we will again make the ascent. If we saw fit, and with humility, we could make our way out of this cycle, surpassing it, and returning to tradition out of free will, rather than out of necessity.

@@sethapex9670 abuse of something doesn't make it the value of the original concept. That's a rule of philosophy 2,400 years old.

We know we descended from apes, it's not in doubt.

Critical thinking is dead. You're nothing but a mannequinn.

His lecture is a pile of bad arguments and nonsense.

@@michaelspeyrer1264 cry about it.

@@arthurcuesta6041 When its illogical arguments according to the rules of rhetoric, it does make me cry a little....and then laugh hysterically that people think these are what constitutes good arguments.

@@michaelspeyrer1264 Please expand

​@@benoitmeyrieux2446 Well, where to start, poor biblical exegesis based on false understanding leading to wrong conclusions about the text, and poor understanding of science used to attack scientific investigations with bad arguments and worse conclusions.

yep, sadly. They also teach many other, even borderline blasphemies.

It's technically not even a theory. A theory can be tested. Evolution takes millions & billions of years, making it impossible to be tested. It's a poorly supported hypothesis.

@@malibudolphin3109 I agree 100%

***it is up to you, take it or leave it, for me is proved as actual truth, perhaps for you due to your religious bias it is not accepted, nothing wrong if it do not care to know the truth and to base your faith dipper in the truth.***

What are the evidence that contradict genesis and are confusing you?

By your 'evidence' that contradicts with Catholicism, I'd assume its adaptation to circumstances, and how a genome can change to it circumstances. While true, we haven't seen this to a degree where that creature fundamentally changes from its current genus to a different genus. We have never, despite directly spurring on hyper accelerated "evolution" in Dogs and various flora, we have never seen these change fundamentally into a different genus. We've never been able to turn a Potato into something anything other than a potato; we've never seen a genus of dog, from all our Natural Genetic Modification from selective breed, become a unique animal that is distinguishable from a Dog. The fact is that we have essentially sped up the evolutionary clock for many species due to the selective breeding, and yet, we can still trace a genus, and the form of that plant within the wild is still compatible and still genetically similar to its wild counterpart. "Well give it more time." For example, if we remove the physical impossibility, a small dog can still breed with a wolf, and they are still distinguishable as canines.

Kent Hovind (it was listening to his debate with Shermer that snapped me out of evolution, which I accepted because it was taught in my school, on tv, everywhere pushed as "of course the science is settled" and you trust them! lies!) .... anyway so he was very good ...but for those who don't like him, I'd recommend at least watching that old debate once fully... but there is also Steven Myer.

The Kolbe center is a joke that uses bad arguments, a understanding of biblical exegesis that is incomparable with the Church, and a grasp of science what is extremely poor.

@@michaelspeyrer1264 It's true that they are on shaky grounds with some of their arguments. But accepting the scientific consensus on everything cannot be the answer either. Otherwise we would need to listen to the climate change crap and the transgender bs as well, and we rightfully don't.

@@ecclesiaxxi6210 Kent Hovind is good in the topic of evolution vs young Earth. He snapped me out of evolution back when I would watch him pre KZfaq, on Google videos. Too bad he is a protestant and dislikes the Catholic Church. So yes only watch him for evolution topic but don't follow him in regards to salvation/the gospel.

@@affel6559 Not a false dicthonmy I promoted. An all or nothing position I took, Or an exclusion of the middle fallacy I didn't make. The Climate does change, how much human involvement is part is the question.

Sim.

I agree, and the speaker never mentions what has really put the nail in the coffin of Darwins theory of evolution: the science of mathematics.

from what i hear, the speaker says "thank you Father" right at the start of the video. why should someone give an academic talk to church parishioners? Or are you insinuating that all Catholics need to have degrees from the MIT in order to understand evolution?

@@gibbonstarfish1127 Because it is an academic subject, and not simply a "Faith versus Science" argument, which is what ill-informed athiestic proponents of Darwinism would have us believe. As for the the idiotic MIT remark...

I tend to prefer an OEC model of origins or some form of macrodevelopment

Search on the channel for Kolbe Center and listen to more. Also check out KolbeCenter.org

@@LilBitDistributist All of the Fathers of the Church were young-earth creationists

@@SensusFidelium ok

Alternate dimensions

Transposable elements were not supposed to cause adaptation. That's what evolutionists have insisted for decades. The evolutionary assumption was that junk DNA and transposons were trash accumulated over evolutionary history. So yes, transposable elements being used by the organism for adaptation does contradict evolution. The business of evolution is to explain how adaptation comes about, not how they are "selected". By the way, nothing in nature is "selected for". Because the evolutionary "theory" is just circular reasoning on top of circular reasoning, an evolutionist will try and adapt the theory to incorporate the new view on transposons. The only thing that evolves is the evolutionary theory.

That was a falsified experiment. It's posted on Kolbe Center

That is an assumption (story telling). Has mutation ever been observed producing a new, functional protein fold?

@@bolapromatoqueejogodecampe8718 that depends on what you define as a new protein. Two proteins can differ by only one amino acid but have totally different final shapes. Each stage of folding depends on the steps before it. The functionality or lack thereof of protein depends on the shape. Some proteins interact with the DNA in the nucleus itself to protect, inhibit, or enhance the expression of other genes, so tiny mutations, if they are in the right place can have massive effects on the entire organism. The only thing that can determine if those effects constitute a new function, malfunction, or neutral effect is the environment itself.

@@sethapex9670 Great! Could you cite a study where a mutation in a protein that affects gene expression was observed producing a new function?

good point. but both ideas are not mutually exclusive. im pretty sure there are multiple reasons for the similarities. for example, similar genes in disparate creatures should have similar functions.

Over millions of years, it certainly can

@@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039 "over millions of years" ... con artist. "I have a theory...but it will take millions of years to prove it.." 😂

Not true. We have scientific evidence with cross breeding.

What's great is that Darwinists claim to base their worldview on empirical observation of the natural world (a.k.a. naturalism). But when you actually apply empirical observation of the natural world you see the exact opposite of Darwinian evolution. Genetic information does not improve over time. The absolute best a person can be genetically, occurs at conception. From that point forward our genetic information is continually breaking down and decaying. This is empirically observable fact, and is revealed in the most obvious ways - grey hairs, wrinkles, etc. Darwinists must rely on cognitive dissonance and other logical fallacies (especially argumentum ad populum) to uphold their worldview.

@@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039 I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you, but don’t worry: it’ll only take you millions of years to pay off 😁

It looks more like degradation to me. Here's how I see the world. The first plants and animals were created perfect. They not only had specific traits, but the potential for a vast variety within them. Each offspring manifested a slightly different potential from it's parents. But, with imperfection, not all traits are passed onto the next generation. So, if we take a much more recent example of this sort of thing, a wolf has a huge number of actual and potential traits, which allows them to fit in many environments. Dogs have much fewer traits, and each specific breed has fewer traits still. A wolf has the potential to be as small as a Chihuahua, or as big as a great Dane, but if you only had a population of Chihuahuas, you could never breed them into great danes. The population simply no longer has those traits. Not even in potential. The only way to get those traits is with a population of great danes. That is, a population that still actually had those traits. But, many populations are completely gone. Than animals and plants alive today are a pale reflection of what once was. And because there are no populations with those traits left, those primordial animals are just gone now. Currently species aren't more developed, so much as they are less diverse

False dichotomy.

@@michaelspeyrer1264 "alexpaguirre" didn't say that those were the only two options. You are straw-manning his position. I think its cute how hard you are trying to appear smart in this comment section. Committing logical fallacies while trying to call people out for logical fallacies. Never change bud.

@@kevinmiller6443 false dichotomy. I think its cute how far down the rabbit hole of bigotry and nonsense and a lack of real scientific investigation contradicting your premises you are engaged in. And how poorly read in philosophy and argument you are engaged with.

Where did the homeobox genes come from?

***IT IS SELF EVIDENT, ONLY A NARROW MINDED DO NOT SEE IT***

Very simple: in the perspective of natural life, you can only cover that land extension which reaches upto the horizon. What is beyond could be expanded by you, and only by you, walking to the edge of that horizon. Et voila, another expanse opens to you, with a new horizon as a limit. Thus, for a natural perception makes earth flat. The spherical form of the earth which we take as Truth is the result not of a natural experience but of mathematization. It is a very useful construct, giving us power but moving the natural experience away. Feeding ego of wanting to know but pauperizating our heart.❤️

Consensus is earth is round

I would say that creationism, both young and old, is a separate topic entirely than the earth being spherical or flat. That being said, I would likewise say that most Catholic creationists would believe the earth to be round, especially considering that icons and statues have had angels and saints holding globes to show authority for centuries. However, I would also say that creationists might be more vulnerable to be deceived by flat earth ideas. The reason is that when one rejects a mainstream idea it can be too easy and very tempting to not trust any mainstream idea. But that is an error in judgement. Every idea has to be tested by its own merit, not simply by whether it is mainstream or not. All reasonable factors should be considered.

Pius XII broke with tradition and sound metaphysics. It makes no sense whatsoever to speak of the "evolution" of the body and creation of the soul. The soul is the form of the body and both were created together. And I don't think you understand the point: evolution just doesn't happen. It is irrelevant what you think the church says about it. Why believe in a wrong theory?

@@tomato-ir9xs You thinking that the serpent in the garden was actually a snake is hilarious. You are clearly quite ignorant of the Bible.

@@tomato-ir9xs evolution is disproven as genetic decay is the real reality of our fallen nature, there are no links (not missing, they never existed) but a universal human race, not multiple humanoid, ext... Christ Was Incarnate, died and Rose from the dead; HIS testimony Is true as HE IS the Truth.

Evolution is claimed to be a scientific theory, and the pope specifically nuked that theory in rejecting polygenism (which is required by the theory). So right there is an "intrinsic conflict" between divine revelation and evolution. So those who wish to harmonize evolution with revelation effectively end up with "theistic evolution" - which is neither.

ambiguous enough to not cause an argument while still allowing for the ego to be proud of the comment.

@@CatholicK5357 It seems obvious that he is simply answering the question posed in the title. And I agree. A better title would be: 'No Catholic should be an evolutionist'.

@@jaspermay5813 You are quite likely right. Seeing too many anti-Catholic comments has jaded my judgement. I should always give the benefit of the doubt. God bless.

I apologize for my comment. I completely misunderstood and assumed it was an enemy of the Church trying to pollute the comment section. Forgive me. God bless.

He Said he wasn't selecting at all.

do you even know what genetic drift is?

they always claim false credentials when they really seem to all just be engineers and dentists lol

​@@Unclenate1000 because you got alot of faith in evolution..j😂😂 just google it there are alot of them

Dr. Romulo actually has a Ph.D in zoology from Oxford and works in the fiels, you can look him up​@@Unclenate1000

Yes but what's the statistical probability of that happening?

Now explain how the nerves become an eyeball...we'll wait.

You described the hardware, but you forgot that it requires software to interpret those signals which would have to coincidentally evolve at the same time. All you did was describe something that reacts to light, like a piece of film, but the question is WHO is going to interpret that signal and more importantly how?

"Not hard to produce". And yet, I could give seth apex 10million dollars and he wouldn't be able to produce a light sensitive cell in the lab from scratch. It is only "easy to produce" in seth's imagination.

A photon does not exist, scientists still do not understand what exactly light is but Tesla understood it is a medium disturbance with nothing physically travelling. How could anyone imagine mindless matter without thought or intent solved the processing of light to such a degree that it requires a hundred super computers to match the processing power utilised by the eyes.

No.

Let me guess. You did not bother watching the video, but out of Faith in evolution, decide to comment anyway

@@gibbonstarfish1127 I did see the video. Including the Darwin Comment taken out of context. And to respond. Evolution does not require faith or belief. Evolution stands on it's own. It's the ancient tales(aka scriptures) of gods and legends that rely on blind devotion.

@@jstube36 please refute the arguments in the video then. Surely, given that your trust in evolution is not faith based, you can defend the theory from criticisms

@@jstube36 these people are deluded beyond words. They question you for acknowledging evolution yet they see no problem believing outlandish, supernatural tales like resurrecting the dead and noah's ark etc. They don't even believe in genetics, so they're arguing in bad faith. Don't bother with these loons, you're better than them.

@@apokalypthoapokalypsys9573 I don't judge them too harshly. I thought as they did for so many years. I was brought up in the Church also. And I also would dismiss Evolution. But of course I knew so little about it. Maybe I didn't want it to be true. But once I began actually researching it. it opened my eyes to a much broader reality. Just as it did for Mr. Darwin. And he was reluctant to publish his findings for very obvious reasons. But he knew he was right. And that has been proven abundantly.

False. We evolved and we know we are apes.

@@CaffeinatedDebate, false, we evolved and we know we are not apes.

Adam and Eve were not apes. They were humans. Apes and humans has always been different things. Evolution demonstrates that apes and humans have a common ancestor, but at no point was an ape a human or a human an ape.

@@tryingnottobeasmartass757 Incorrect we are apes. "Humans are classified in the sub-group of primates known as the Great Apes. Humans are primates, but the primates that we most closely resemble are the apes. We are therefore classified along with all other apes in a primate sub-group known as the hominoids"

@@tryingnottobeasmartass757 Incorrect, humans are apes. Adam and Eve did not exist, they were myths from superstitious tribes telling make believe stories.

Dna or Rna have zero chance of forming spontaneously in nature. Zero. The calculation done by sir Francis crick is 1x10-270 or zero.

@@Crusader33ad okay think about what you just said, the comment you replied to, and what you are trying to prove. I will infer you are attempting to say that because RNA and DNA formed in a process that we can not replicate that therefore evolution as a theory is wrong. Am I correct? Okay do you know what the Earth was like billions of years ago before biota existed on the planet? Because it wasn't anything like you see today. Also I will take that your reply is meant to indicate that I am saying God does not exist, which is the opposite of what I actually in fact stated. The opposing sides in this video comment section are arguing over the exact same events but can't seem to take a moment to sit down and compare notes.

DemitriVladMaximov - no I’m not accusing you of atheism. I simply quoted Sir Francis Crick (one of the discoverers of the DNA double helix). He WAS an atheist but honest enough to admit that Spontaneous generation of RNA is impossible. The devil in the details of evolution is ABIOGENESIS. Forget about the absence of fossils. If a simple STRAND of Rna cannot form BY ITSELF, how could complex organisms form.??As Michael Behe puts it, the principle of “irreducible complexity” puts the lie to evolution. A mouse trap Can’t work unless at least five parts are perfectly aligned. For a living organism to have life MILLIONS of parts have to work perfectly. Darwin had ZERO knowledge of cell biology. None. Your assumption that I’m saying that since we can’t REPLICATE dna, it didn’t occur is not true. I’m saying, not just WE but NATURE can’t create dna SPONTANEOUSLY., and THAT is the Achilles heel of evolutionary believers. It CANNOT happen. Forget the absence of any documented evolution since 1850’s when Darwin came up with his untenable theory. As to your understanding of how the world was Millions of years ago, I wasn’t there.

@@Crusader33ad Absence of fossils? We have an abundance of fossils, radiometric age dating, and a geologic record. The fact Darwin may or may not have understood how cells and DNA work is completely irrelevant to him being able to see and demonstrate adaptive radiation and natural selection. We still are learning all the details of it and the fact we are still refining our understanding doesn't take away from the work Darwin did any more that the fact Nicholas Copernicus didn't have a full grasp of gravity takes away from the fact he proved the Earth revolves around the sun. Science isn't about what you know, it is about what your can discover and demonstrate repeatedly. One's personal beliefs, be they political or religious, are irrelevant to the scientific method. Would you ignore Gregor Mendel's work on genetics by proving dominant and recessive traits solely because of a private belief he had? Or would you toss out the theory of relativity just because Albert Einstein was Jewish? No because the scientific method doesn't care about the beliefs of the scientist, only is the experimental process being followed and is there data to support the claims made. So why don't you break open a geology textbook and open your mind to the idea that maybe this world is older, the universe is bigger, and God is even greater than you initially think.

DemitriVladMaximov - Fossil evidence of the missing link is just that- MISSING. Remember “Lucy”. Turned out to be a chimp and a hoax. There should be TRILLIONS of humanoid species. There are NONE. You should know that. Think about his. If evolution is valid, for the first human to be born, 2 apes had sex and gave birth to a dude. What did that first human say to his ape parents? I’m guessing “get your hands off me you damn dirty ape” ( cue the planet of the apes ). Again. Fossil evidence is zilch, nada , zero, nichevo. Would you tell me the species of ape JUST PRECEDING MAN?? Could the ape type? Cmon man. By the way, I have 2 degrees in science and have studied evolution ( or the lack thereof) all my life. Even Richard Dawkins knows he can’t keep the hoax of evolution going Your reference to Mendel, etc are bordering on fallacy as they have NOTHING to do with evolutionary “science”. In fact their science is NOT the fable of the evolutionists, but provable. Evolution is not. By the way, you NEVER rebutted Sir Francis cricks math. Would you please try? If you can’t, game over for the evolution fairy tale.

Atleast refute arguments presented.. talking from from your faith of darwinism does not help

@@Yesunimwokozi1 evolution doesn't go against God

@@Yesunimwokozi1 the evidence of evolution speaks for itself. I'm a Christian and do not deny evolution.i don't have "faith" in darwinism, there's none needed.

@@lovethyvibes7293 keep learning. SURELY YOU WILL COME TO JESUS FULLY.. thinking God created through evolution is a blesphemy.

@@lovethyvibes7293 provide strongest evidence for evolution

Did you even bother to watch the video? From what is being said, evolution just doesn't happen. Mutation does not create novelty.

@@gibbonstarfish1127 I agree. As a system developer for 25 years, I know about code. And I know one thing 100% - you never do wholesale system development based on random "mutation" or changes. You can perhaps utilize random changes in a particular search function, thus "controlled random search" has its place in programming, but of course, it would be ridiculous to base everything on this method. The funny thing about computers and code is that you could easily simulate a program on the size of the DNA and then mutate its "offspring" to see if anything happened. This way you could fast forward generations of changes like no biological experiment. It would disprove the idea in approx 10 sec. After two, ten, or hundred generations - no offspring would be able to run (=alive). And of course, no new function would arise. Everyone knows this if they have any sense. It's not that I couldn't believe in evolution if the DNA was let's say 1KB of code - in other words if life was a relatively simple thing, where "most changes" actually worked. Darwin was excused in believing so. However, we now know better. The DNA is 750 MB of code. Life is incredibly complex, my programs are laughable in comparison. So "evolution" must come up with a new technique to explain the changes. It cannot be random changes. I believe it must be intelligence.

@@gibbonstarfish1127 as much as I could stand. Mutation doesn't just create novelty according to whom?

@@gibbonstarfish1127 This person has no intention of honest discussion, as evidenced by his/her spamming and straw manning people in the comment section.

@@mortensimonsen1645 Well put! Also, one of the many ways that companies remove useful information (code) from decommissioned drives, is the use of software that makes random changes to the disc space. We know that random changes destroy useful information, and we actively use this knowledge in the IT industry. The best way to clean information from a disk is to "bit wipe" it but that can take time and be more expensive, so using software that "scrambles" the data is often more cost effective.

That's an amazing logic right there. I don't know who the person is, therefore they don't know what they are talking about. How about you forget about ad hominem fallacies and focus on the arguments? Who gives the arguments is completely irrelevant to how strong they are.

@@gibbonstarfish1127 I'm pretty sure you just misrepresented what the OP said. The OP wasn't even making an argument lol.