@@drsatan9617 time doesn’t create life

evolutionists operate of faith purely. but deny they do categorically.

@@drsatan9617 hahaha being called a liar by the father of lies. That's rich! Thank you for the laugh.

@@drsatan9617 you had me at satan calling me a liar man. 😅 I can't take it seriously 🤣

@@shananabark variables are not part of the assembly process and can be altered changed, cancelled but we still have the finished article. Hence variables are not necessary

Damn you blew a hole in the evolution theory

Add to that the increasing complexity of information that is layered multidimensionally when moving up from cellular to tissue to organ to system to species. This would take a miracle on par with God creating in 6 literal days to compare to in terms of being supernatural, because naturally the odds are plainly zero.

Exactly, @@Liamitis123. As shockingly improbable as it would be for any protein to evolve, it would violate natural selection to keep it around until the other components of its system could evolve.

@@smb123211 we hypothesize that based off assumptions that could well be wrong. Just saying, but we used to "know" spontaneous generation was how mice, rats, flies, and frogs were generated. It was debunked by Pasteur.

@@smb123211 it "seems" as though we understand how carbon decay works, and based off that assumption (and the assumption that the old matter we've identified as originating on earth actually did) it "seems" we've dated earth at 4.6 billion years old. If it turns out carbon decay is logarithmic rather than linear than those assumptions and "seems" all fall apart, don't they?

@@smb123211 assuming the scientific assumptions about the rate of isotope decay are accurate. Which was my main point. I may have been off on the technicalities, but if that rate of decay deviates from what we think it is then all our timelines are off. Considering that we've been observing isotope decay for less than a tenth of a percent of the timelines we're extrapolating it to, minute errors (10^-6 or smaller) could create large inaccuracies over the millennia. And that's assuming linear decay when it may not be. Again we've been observing for such short periods of time that it may be logarithmic or exponential and we're just observing the more linear segment of what could in fact be curves. An example would be plastic particles in the ocean, where they find fairly consistently evading particle size up to a point where particles seem to just vanish as the organisms that degrade the particles find optional conditions and relative size ratios. You're still assuming that the scientific models are accurate. I'm pointing out scientific models are regularly inaccurate, and asking you to question this one too.

First show him to me. But even if you did, I still wouldn't bow. Anyone worthy of worship wouldn't need it and definitely wouldn't want it.

Why you don't touch electric wires and you don't see electricity

@@ericguynga ““Worship” “Show him to me” Sorry but this is a straw man argument and the (Catergory Error Fallacy). Not to mention the (Crackers in the Pantry Fallacy). The only form of worship required is to treat our fellow humans with unconditional positive regard. According to the brilliant philosopher Emanuel Kants categorical imperative you should “do unto others as you would have them do to you.” That is treat people always as ends in themselves never as mere means. This expression of worship and universal love is the only way of truly being free, that is to carry out the teaching to love one’s neighbour is the only form of worship required. The negative, grovelling straw man version of “worship” that militant atheists like to pretend and prevaricate about is nothing more than a cynical and rhetorical attack on the low hanging fruit of the philosophy of religion. To treat a person as a valuable end in their own right means that they deserve fair treatment, justice and human rights such as freedom of expression and the right to life. This is the only form of real and free worship to be wrestled with. Accordingly for Kant the categorical imperative is the voice of our free and rational selves and what we all truly believe when we are thinking with logic, rationality and common sense. Kant believed that governments should promote and protect this form of liberty. However, Kant stressed that this should not only be thought in libertarian terms as the ability to do whatever you want. We are truly only free when we act in accordance only with our best natures not our individual best interests. We are slaves when we act under the rules of our own passions or those of others. According to Kant a free will and a will under moral laws and duties are one and the same. This form of worship leads to real freedom from our pride, ego, narcissism and tendencies to turn to addictions to fill the gaping hole in our lives. This type of freedom isn’t an absence of authority, government and a free society isn’t one that allows a person to do what ever takes their fancy. It’s one that enables everyone to live by the categorical imperative.

“Show him to me” The demand for “physical” “proof” for the belief in the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness/monotheism is viewed as a classical category error by scholars as theists don’t believe that “God” is just another “physical” being that exists in the universe but is (being) and (existence) itself including mind and consciousness itself. This assumption that this is a materialistic question or a question that can even be grasped in its totality using the “natural sciences” or formal proof is what’s commonly known as the (crackers in the pantry fallacy). Because it assumes that the belief in the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness/monotheism, the necessity of an absolute ontological ground of reality is a materialistic factual question, and should be answered in the same way as any other factual questions regarding “physical” reality. The assumption that all existence claims are questions about the “physical” world, matters of materialistic fact, the assumption that all of these are answered in exactly the same way is not only over simplified and misleading it is completely mistaken and is a question begging fallacy and special pleading fallacy of the highest degree. The existence, factuality or reality of different kinds of things is not established or disconfirmed in the same way in every case. For example in order to “prove” (Is there a box of crackers in the pantry) we all obviously know how to answer that question. Just look in the pantry!. But that is completely different from the way we go about answering questions determining the reality of for example atoms, quarks or probability waves discovered in quantum mechanics that are invisible, unmeasurable, bi locational/non local, superpositional and timeless. Not to mention the difficulties in measuring the qualitative experience of mind and consciousness, galaxies outside our visual field, gravitational attraction, the laws of physics, radio activity, concepts related to reality and existence such as time, being, identity, ontology, teleology, the abstract world of mathematics and numbers, historical past events, categories, future, contingencies, laws of thought, individual identity over time, causation, memories or even love, altruism, beauty or bravery. It is very rational to believe that all these things are real and yet one does not simply (walk into the pantry and look inside for evidence of these metaphysical realities) There are numerous questions related to existence but they are not at all answered in the same way in each case.

The (Encyclopaedia of philosophy) suggests that this presumption of atheism does not hold water as it does not accurately represent the reality of the situation with regards to who has a burden of proof. Because the fact is that despite the constant attempts to pigeon hole, stereotype and straw man the belief in the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness/monotheism the debate between atheism and theism is not just simply an argument about whether “one more thing” exists in the universe. Because this is a straw man argument and is what’s known in analytical philosophy as a logical fallacy! Furthermore, as I pointed out already this is also what’s known in analytical philosophy and modal logic as the classical (Catergory Error Fallacy). It’s a logical fallacy, a red herring, an irrelevancy fallacy, a non sequitur constantly committed by internet atheists due to hubris, philosophical illiteracy and the fact that the internet is saturated with militant atheist propaganda and fake news. Because the fact is that an absolute, ontological, metaphysical ground of reality and existence/God is not to be understood as just another entity in the universe at all because any such entity would by definition not be “God”. The debate is rather a debate about the character of the universe. Theists don’t believe that the concept of “God” is referring to just another “being” that exists in the universe but they believe that “God” is (being) and is (existence) itself. So sceptics are going to have a very difficult time hand waving (being) and (existence) away without literally undermining “themselves” including all knowledge and even science itself. Equally, the theistic belief in the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness/monotheism/deism/panentheism is not referring to just another “physical” mind or rather large brain or just another metaphysical, irreducible consciousness that exists in the “physical” universe. It is referring to the belief that “God” is (mind) and is (consciousness) itself! God is (reality) and is the (universe) and is (existence) itself and is transcendent. “That of which nothing greater can be conceived.” (Anselmo d’Aosta). So the belief in “God” as such is just a (lack of belief) in a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism as the ground of reality. It’s just a (lack of belief) in the unproven assumption that the basic entities in the natural world can be reduced to meaninglessness but still contain “meaning” and have the character of existing “on their own.” It’s just a (lack of belief) in the assumption that the sum of the parts is greater than the whole!! The theist believes that every object in the natural world exists because the absolute ontological ground of truth and morality exists. Every finite thing has the character of being dependent on the whole. The atheist denies this and affirms that the basic entities in the natural world have the character of existing “on their own”, albeit popping into existence accidentally from “nothing” and then ironically reduced to their component parts as if this solves the problem and is a no nonsense “rational” conclusion. Because whilst asserting the baseless notion that there is no burden of proof they are oblivious to the irony that in order to assert that a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism is true you have to assert that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. But this reduces your argument including your “self” to circularity and reductio ad absurdum. So this is just hubris and is incoherent as it is an unproven assumption that requires evidence as it is clearly not an honest, coherent and parsimonious way to think about reality and existence because it does not even address the real question! The fundamental question is, does a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism have the greatest explanatory power. Or does it lead to absurdity, that is circularity and self contradiction because it is clearly not obvious that atheism is safer than the belief in the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness/monotheism. Because the debate is clearly not about the existence of “one object”, but about the character of the universe as a whole. Both parties are making claims about the character of literally everything in the natural world and literally everything in the universe and in existence. Not to mention the possibility of realities outside the natural world. The claim to a universal negative is a question begging fallacy and special pleading fallacy of the highest degree. So (Fallacies of False Equivalence) and (Appeal to Ridicule Fallacies) are just a way of avoiding the deeper issues and burying your head in the sand. This point is particularly conspicuous in the compelling moral arguments for theism, since one of the questions raised by such arguments is the inadequacy of a naturalistic worldview in providing proof, a justification and a ground for metaphysical presuppositions such as values, morals and ethics, including realities such as epistemology, teleology and ontology. Not to mention metaphysical presuppositions such as the prescriptive laws of logic, the pillars on which all science stands, that is empiricism and conscious agents. Evidentialists may properly ask about the arguments and evidence for theism, but it also seems proper and rational to ask about the arguments and evidence for atheism and it’s ability to prove, justify and ground all knowledge, metaphysics and science itself but more importantly morals, ethics, duties and human rights. Especially if the atheist is committed to a rival (metaphysic) such as naturalism or eliminative materialism. The fact is that you can not prove, justify or ground metaphysical presuppositions such as morals, ethics, absolute truth, prescriptive laws of logic, identity over time, the one and the many, the myth of the given, empiricism and conscious agents in a strictly reductive materialism, atheism or philosophical naturalism that clearly excludes metaphysical realities!! So it is rational and proper for those who believe in the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness/monotheism to ask for evidence of a world view that clearly undermines the pillars on which all knowledge and even science itself stands. More importantly it is proper and rational to ask for evidence of an ideology that reduces, morals, ethics, including human rights and duties to total absurdity and nothing more than the meaningless chatter of accidental, blind, mindless, random atoms and brain chemicals creating the illusion of stable patterns and regularities.

who was it that told Albert Einstein to stop telling God what to do when he said God doesn't roll the dice?

@@fatmaramadan6928 you completely miss the point..God as a concept..is all knowing so playing dice is pointless

@@fatmaramadan6928 That cannot be proved or disproved. Atleast scientifically

Can anyone disprove it? Doesn't Israel exist?

Let's be more sophisticated than "grow up". You can do better. The nation of Israel was dispersed by God thousands of years ago. And Scriptures correctly predicted that it would one day exist again. No other nation on earth has experienced anything close to that. Be kind to your fellow humans. Do not succumb to your animal instincts.

PLUS on a planet the perfect distance from the sun with ozone protection and complimenting plant life.

@@JScott-ut8ko so how does a breed produce another breed that cannot breed with the first breed? What would it breed with ! Lol

Also our sun has a corona without it we wouldn't exist.

J. Scott the fossil record argument on behalf of evolution is an incredibly weak argument. In fact it’s not the best argument for either side of the debate.

Stephen Merritt A problem for me and should be for evolutionists is, how do two, male and female, reproductive systems emerge simultaneously? The information for all of these systems, heart, lungs, digestive, reproductive, boggles the mind as to their complexity and function. But we hear all the time the just so stories of “we think it happened this way”. If biologists knew how living cells came to be, this info would be out there for all to see. Evolutionists like to use time as the great lynchpin of existence. Time adds no information to create these systems.

On a major changes/common ancestry one to all angle...... Literally and mathematically impossible ... agreed.

@Van Smack it's possible that x number times x number times x number to the x power = 3x number to x power. However without more factual information it's just another possibility with insufficient data.

Too bad, it's true

@@tagalogkurt I agree that evolution is a fact

if you make infiiti times you got many forms and maybe one time you got a dog house. also it can be programmed

Just to make a single protein.

cool so i still gotta chance to score.. Dumb & deumber

it sounds like its so unlikely and takes so much time, it can't have happened yet.

yep, but there isn't enough time in the universe to make it happen

Brah Nice reference.

creationist be like yo, the chance of 0% of a magical fairytale having magical events again and again and without a single evidence for it is still valid even if it's literally impossible and literally can't happen

​@mouhaahaahaa atheists be like using the word "magic" to describe things they don't understand and go on pretending that there is no evidence of God.

San Jose Mike very well said, Doc!

Good point Mike. I'm a nurse and when l studied fetal embryology, the blinding complexity even of what we know about it lead me to consider that l did not have enough faith to believe it happened by chance. I was an evolutionist and atheist at this point too. Then l looked at probabilities and the chances of these processes occurring without design and that convinced me that chance did not produce this world. God is hidden because He wants it that way for now. He is granting faith to a chosen few only and those will become co-labourers with Christ to bring in the rest of humanity. He is not desperately trying to get everyone to believe in Him now. His plans for humanity according to properly translated scripture is that all will eventually be reconciled to Him after we all have learned the lesson of what life looks like when we try to run it on our own. He is bringing humanity to the end of itself and when we are about to destroy ourselves He will intervene and fix us. That is God's plan but most are not aware of it. Scripture says that God "locks up all in blindness and stubbornness that He might have mercy on all." So right now God looks hidden to the majority of humanity. But not always......

@@caroleevandyk5544 Thanks for writing. I have a med school classmate who is a Christian. (He is also a lawyer). During the times we knew each other and worked together, he always thought of me as the "atheist" I professed to be. I intend to "come out" to him and tell him now that the science has "dragged" me into God. I have to admit that I am surprised by all of this. I have never seen more rock solid proof of God than in the science I see all around me. I too was wondering HOW embryology worked and how targeted tissue got the place "where it belonged." My professor never told us HOW that happened. He didn't know, actually. In fact, he didn't have the faintest idea. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

@@kkdesignservices183 I get your point. The "problem" with your post is that virtually EVERY scientific discipline points to a conscious universe, from cosmology, to physics, biology and of course biochemistry. It's not just ONE issue or one branch of science. It's everything. Everywhere. Like you, I would not just take "one" factor to derive this proof. I have to admit that this was difficult for me. I was an atheist for over 50 years. But the science is utterly clear. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

U call him God or yhwh or Allah but He's one and he can't become a human he does Godly things no one can see him

@@salpertia He is against homosexuality, but not against homosexuals. Those religious people who hate homosexuals take the Lord's name in vain. If as a homosexual, you follow all the commandments, you'll enter the kingdom of heaven before any of those hypocrites will.

MosheMYY M If YHWH is the Creator and all knowing, all powerful and sustainer it would be illogical for him to become a creation. A creation is limited while Creator is all powerful all knowing. So if he become human he wouldnt be all knowing and all powerful. Are you trying to tell me the Creator became a creation?

Lawrence Grott I agree. Jehovah God is the creator of all life

@@moshemyym4627 what do u mean if God becomes a human then he's not God he's human and we know human can't run this universe the whole universe will collapse if c+o2 - C02 now we can't say it's c and o2 it lost its properties and now it has the properties of co2 God created this universe the time space and matter he does godly things he doesn't come in time he's out of time read it twice and think about it thrice

Evolution vs creation of life: How life really began kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jrCjerp0x6zan2w.html

Its the only answer because then why or how can you justify the rolling of dice which can give you a six or other numbers,how can you justify the coin fliped gave you heads or tails. Did God controlled it once you assume yourself puppet of God you loose your identity.

@@pooshpoosh9232 See if you actually do the probability of the math and science behind how life actually came to exist it's nearly impossible for life to even happen without God

@@pooshpoosh9232 It’s easier for random letters to be scrambled into an entire Shakespearean play in full iambic pentameter. It’s not just the proteins, it’s the perfect functionality of all animals and the synchronous manner in which they operate in an ecosystem. Then the perfect harmony in galactic systems.

@@alexdrake8079 How is it possible with God? He just speaks magic words and proteins pop out of thin air? Let's get into the nitty gritty of those mechanics shall we?

you are not wrong...

That's what I'm wondering. Is there a theory on how the proteins arranged themselves into a cell?

@@icedice6393 following

@@RolandMaurer Ever since Dawkins had his stroke, he has become less public, probably in order to recover. However, I believe there are other reasons as well. The questions Dawkins gets at his Q and A (after his lectures) have become impossible for him to answer. The worse question is protein synthesis and models of folding, as related to "first life." But there are others as well. European scientists are not as frightened of God as are Americans. The Materialist dogma is being fractured in virtually every scientific module and model. Ultimately it is easy for atheists to attack the Bible. But they are having a hell of a time attacking science. Ultimately, I dislike Dawkins intensely. He is an arrogant man and I detest that. I did like Chris Hitchens though, and Chris never called himself a scientist and openly stated that "Fine tuning is the best argument for God." Chris is gone now and I miss him. He met his God and was undoubtedly surprised. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

Roland Maurer Your faith in science is remarkable. It’s called the “just wait” hypothesis. As the new biological science comes out and the complexity of cellular chemistry becomes more disclosed, “just waiting” has only damaged atheism even more. Instead of science establishing atheism, the mathematics of cell function has only served to further disprove atheism. Frankly it was much easier for scientists who just thought cellular life was just “undifferentiated” protoplasm, like cloudy jello. Crick himself was astonished by the information carrying capacity of DNA and it bothered him enough to suggest “alien panspermia.” But of course we have never found aliens yet. Ok, just wait...and wait...and wait...and wait... Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

Roland Maurer Outdated Crick? Even Dawkins state that “first life may have been seeded by advanced aliens.” I’m sure Dawkins regrets that comment. As you know, Dawkins had a stroke. It would be very unkind for me to wish him luck in his oblivion. So I won’t. I am very familiar with the arguments for atheism, as I was one for almost 50 years. I was delusional then. However I am not a Christian, although I do admire them. I am however a “believer” in a conscious Universe, even if I don’t completely understand what that is. I am old. Perhaps I will, soon. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

@@RolandMaurerI think you get particularly irritated by "Creationists." I am not a creationist. Intelligent design is NOT creationism. I am not a Christian. I was a surgeon when I worked. Biology has changed enormously since I (had) to memorize parts of the Kreb's Cycle. I am not certain what the form of God is. I'm not sure it makes any difference, even if I was. I don't know and am not particularly interested in any Bibles. I have been a scientist (and musician) all of my life. I have to wonder...and always did in fact....HOW did Johann Sebastian Bach come UP with the miracles of music he wrote. I have played Bach since I was 8 years old and can still play the Italian Concerto. (not as well as I used to). Then, there is the co-existing problem of evil, pain and suffering. God certainly is strange. I have come to the conclusion that conscious life is NOT supposed to be easy to understand. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

@@RolandMaurer since evolution is everywhere then please give examples. THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT ANY SPECIES HAS EVER EVOLVED INTO A DIFFERENT SPECIES., PERIOD! For you to say that proof of evolution is everywhere then provide just one single transitional fossil. There should literally be 100's of millions of transitional fossils if evolution was a reality.

Atilla the Big Bang theory was discovered by a Catholic priest. Einstein mocked him, then about 10yrs later Einstein apologized to him. LoL Go figure

@@PInk77W1 As a muslim, I cannot accept a notion, that God who created this infinite universe, requires blood and man slaughter for mercy and salvation killing Jesus for mercy and salvation. It does not add up to the majesty of the Creator of this infinite universe.

Rizwan Rafeek it is not required. It is Love

Van Smack how did science prove Dr MLK jr was stupid ?

@@PInk77W1 _"it is not required. It is Love "_ If killing was necessary, then there is no room for love or forgiveness before the God. God says, "I Lord, I never change" Malachi 3:6. I will give you an analogy and it goes like this... Lets say that you borrowed $500 from me and haven't paid back for years. I come along to your door and tell you, that Mr. Him Bike, it has been many years now, you haven't paid me back the money you owe me, but I will forgive your $500 dollars owing but your 4th generation have to pay me back the $500 dollars. Am I really forgiving your $500 owing? Absolutely not. In the same context, if Jesus must be killed for mercy and salvation, then God becomes an unforgiving entity, there is no room for mercy and forgiveness before the God. Therefore your notion of love is in contradiction and do not make any sense. I will give an analogy and it goes like this. There was a king in the land and this king had number of servants in service to him and this king known to be a respected ruler on the land. All king's servants stolen things from king's palace, in spite of king being honest and fair, after many years of servants were stealing things from palace, the king came to know about servants were stealing and on one day king gathered all servants and told them, I know all my servants were stealing things from my palace but don't worry I will punish my son, behead him for your actions and you all my servants will have your jobs secured, you all get a raise in salary and a bonus. Killing king's son make any sense to anyone? Should God demanded killing Jesus for mercy and salvation, then God has to honor evil killing Jesus, God has to endorse the evil killing Jesus, God has to frame the evil killing Jesus, God has to accept the evil killing Jesus, God has to participate in the evil killing Jesus and you know none of which is inline with God's majestic nature, because God says, "God tempt no one to commit evil". James 1:13. If you got a thinking mind, think hard my brother.

Jonas V. Correct. I suggest you to watch some videos from a group called "Gensis Apologetics" their very well informed and logical. They have a channel on KZfaq.

@@duckmonster921 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/h7CGfpqCsq7bkmQ.html

Duck monster God doesn't have a origin it's simple. Omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence is beyond comprehension.

Andrew Oliver What?

@Juno Donat Ive heard that story before. That Jesus is just a mix of other greek gods. Im not saying there is no answer or i dont know it. But you dont even bother to look for an answer. Is it because you want a justification to sin? I know when i first heard the gospel i tried to debunk it cause of my lust. If evolution is true you cant know Truth and if you do it doesint matter cause you will rot in the ground no matter what. Why cant you accept Jesus cause what do you have to lose but gain eternal life?

Time isn't infinite, and it's running out for our civilization.

dalethorn2 just because the time is running out for our civilization does not mean that time is ending

Well we are moving toward the death of the universe as eventually it will reach equilibrium. Our universe is finite. Once equilibrium is reached nothing, by definition, can happen.

Ruslan Batko - 1. Time isn’t infinite. 2. “Design” isn’t a god of the gaps argument. 3. Infinite time doesn’t increase the chances of life forming from non life - the probability is actually either the same or worse with infinite time.

@@ruslanbatko4892yeah bur we already went over the fact that it is not infinite. So it had a beginning. Cam we please address this before jumping too far ahead

@@cnault3244 no one knows, but there is certainly one.

John 10:10-11 NET The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come so that they may have life, and may have it abundantly. [11] "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

Proverbs 1:22-33 NET "How long will you simpletons love naiveté? How long will mockers delight in mockery and fools hate knowledge? [23] If only you will respond to my rebuke, then I will pour out my thoughts to you and I will make my words known to you. [24] However, because I called but you refused to listen, because I stretched out my hand but no one paid attention, [25] because you neglected all my advice, and did not comply with my rebuke, [26] so I myself will laugh when disaster strikes you, I will mock when what you dread comes, [27] when what you dread comes like a whirlwind, and disaster strikes you like a devastating storm, when distressing trouble comes on you. [28] Then they will call to me, but I will not answer; they will diligently seek me, but they will not find me. [29] Because they hated moral knowledge, and did not choose to fear the LORD, [30] they did not comply with my advice, they spurned all my rebuke. [31] Therefore they will eat from the fruit of their way, and they will be stuffed full of their own counsel. [32] For the waywardness of the simpletons will kill them, and the careless ease of fools will destroy them. [33] But the one who listens to me will live in security, and will be at ease from the dread of harm.

Will your God resurrect you when you're dead?

So the world around us is random chance? And there's no such thing as love? It's chemical reactions? And you're just an animal?

what fairy guy is in the sky? I dont know even know who youre talking about? Fairy guy in the sky? What in the hell are you even talking about Gutter Spout?

what are you rambling on about son? Possibility is the determination of what could happen. Probability is the determination of what will happen. Once possibility determines something cannot happen then the issue of probability is solved. Case closed. What I find interesting is that no one ever deals with the demographics of 'atheism' and evolution. How many areas of science have shills and evangelists whos target audience consists of children and the most uneducated sectors of society>? Richard Dawkins target audience is NOT the educated. It is NOT other academics. It is NOT the upper tier of society. It is children and low IQ/under-educated members of society. Can anyone say 'OBVIOUS' ?

@@thetruthchannel349 The amazing thing about Atheists is when you ask them for science, they run to making fun of some fairy guy in the sky. I guess you have to change the subject when you keep losing the game of truth. Evolutionary major changes and common ancestry to all is a joke. The other sad thing I find is you don't even need to go to theism to show how bankrupt it is. Simply showing actual probability, using real science and math is damning enough. Steve does that well and injects a theistic point of view at the same time. What does the atheist concentrate on when trying to dispute the actual probability and math? The go to theism, but they fail at disputing it solely on it's scientific merits. Atheism and Theism are maters of what one believes.

@methecsgod And in science, once you get past 10^50, you're chasing rabbits down a hole.

No, Buckwheat there isnt. The purpose of stating that there is a POSSIBILITY of ZERO is not to say there IS a possibility. There is a GREATER mathematical possibility that a pink elephant will far from the sky and land on a Steinway Grand Piano as it is being delivered to Carnegie Hall than there is that a Protein will appear. You clearly have ZERO understanding of SCIENCE or COMPUTATIONAL MATHEMATICS. Its also clear that you do NOT posses a fundamental understanding of how LOGIC functions. Observe your own mentally handicapped statement: "Like the spontaneous appearance of proteins? Yeah bucko, there's still a possibility there." -- There is ZERO possibility that a protein could spontaneously appear. Not only that but there is a ZERO possibility that LIFE can arise spontaneously. Abiogenesis is probably the MOST CONSISTENTLY and PERSISTENTLY disproven concept in the history of Biology. I personally participated in an experiment to test the concept of spontaneous generation. Even if your intellectual prowess and education serve no purpose your attitude however, does! You prove that the motive for clinging to the ridiculous notion of evolution is purely antiGod bias.

Ofc there's a chance. Creationistards can't seem to understand. There position is selfdefeating.

@Justin D Technically, there's always a chance, but..............

@Justin D No, there's actually No chance. Because the components break down quickly regardless of the time span allotted. And then, all one would have assembled at this point is a concoction of chemicals. It would still need for life, somehow, to be instilled. Get over that hurdle!

@Question Question How we are here then, is because of an all powerful intelligence, what is commonly referred to as "God". Why is that so hard to accept, or to understand?

@@dougoverhoff7568 and that all powerful veing doesnt beget. He remains unseen and none can see him in this life

If protein is that complicated , imagine how much the blu-print for its arrangement must be. D.N.A is not just a blob of goo to imagine that it come some how bring life from an amoeba to man no F#$^%ing way

@@cnault3244 The Bible was written by 40 different authors on three different continents over a period of 1500 years. As a serious student I am astounded every day by how deep the layers go. Revelation addresses the very issue that you raise. God is in control and used the antichrist/beast to actually help preserve the Bible throughout the dark ages. You can raise doubts all day long about who took part in preserving or choosing which writings to leave in or out. What you really need to do is TEST the Bible to see if it holds true. I have done this and the Bible has surpassed my expectations on every level. It's a personal experience thing. Here's what is prophesied to happen next in the prophecies. The United States will legislate mandatory Sunday observance laws. We've known about this since the 1840s. These prophecies are 100% accurate.

@@cnault3244 You have put so much work into trying to debunk the Scriptures that I'm afraid you would just be a person convinced against their will. Every verse you sited must be understood in context. Obviously God does not want Christians to go around literally moving mountains. The earth would be a huge mess for no reason other than a cool trick. God is letting us know IN A POETIC WAY that He will go to great lengths to fulfill His end of the bargain in the plan of salvation. I've seen this first hand in my life. As for the "United States" in prophecy it is found in Revelation. The very first verse of Revelation states that these prophecies were "signified" to John by the angel. In other words symbols are used for various world empires, nations, kingdoms etc. God had to do it this way to protect the Bible from those who would destroy it if their plans were put in plain language. If you read a blueprint for a nuclear reactor you would be absolutely mystified but that does not mean they don't make sense to those who have put in the time and had the training. These prophecies actually begin in Daniel. The Bible gives the interpretation for these symbols leaving no wiggle room as to their meaning. These prophecies are a perfect outline of world history that impacted God's people from 600 BC down to our time and beyond. The nation/empires mentioned in succession are Babylon, Medo/Persia, Greece, Rome, the Papacy, United States and European nations. If you want proof then watch kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ZtmCiaWD19SXcWQ.html

@@cnault3244 6 months later and still no answers to your questions. I love when logic defeats superstition.

The idea that a Christian god created all of this is highly improbable. It is more likely either that there is no god or a god that no one understands yet

The idea we know anything is highly improbable because we haven't left planet earth.

Still amazed at how many just absolutely shut their minds down to the possibility of ANY concept that does not fit their own. They simply will not allow for any other explanation. They have reached their destination and will travel no further. There is so much we do not know.

For most of my life, I believed that evolution seemed improbable, but *it must be true* because so many people believe it. But then I took a closer look and realized it can't possibly explain what we see. This protein issue is the biggest problem. A mutation can slightly tweak an existing protein. But there's no way to develop a totally new protein by the rules that evolutionists believe in.

Evolution is definitely a fact, there is no longer any question about it. Every single branch of science has accumulated huge amounts of evidence now and it is obvious what has happened. From archaeology to comparative anatomy to geographical distribution of species, to genetics and molecular biology, all lines of science support each other tremendously. I want to clarify something for you based on your statement: "The odds against life starting on it own appears to be so astronomical as to be 0". You are lacking a key element of understanding and awareness here. So let me try to expand your mind a little on this one. Yes the probability of life arising anywhere is very small. Very specific conditions need to be met and it is perhaps a chance of one in many quadrillions that any biological processes or molecules will arise by chance. That is correct. However, the earth is not the only planet to consider. We now have some idea of the size of the universe which you may be aware of and the actual size of the universe may be much larger than the observable universe we can currently see. So we're talking about trillions upon trillions of galaxies each containing many billions of stars and planets. In fact, it may turn out that the universe is virtually infinite in size, if not actually infinite. This would mean an infinite number of planets. So, let's say you have one quadrillion planets that can support life and the probability of life arising spontaneously is one quadrillionth. On average, you would expect life to arise once. In an infinite universe, you would expect life to arise an infinite number of times even with this incredibly small probability. You cannot begin to really get your head around this until you've spent some time looking at the size of the universe and the number of galaxies in the known universe (which is astronomical), remembering that we can see may be just a small fraction of what is actually out there. So, my point is, don't let your thinking be biased by an inappropriate understanding of the maths involved. In an infinite universe, the appearance of life is a certainty. And even in the observable universe, the chance of the appearance of life is very very high.

Surrender to God. Cause what do you have to lose but gain eternal life.

The numbers tell me that random generation of life or species is basically impossible. From a statistical perspective it is beyond improbable. As for being scientific I have issues with the lack of experimentation showing the method of evolution beyond adaptation. That is changing a lifeform from one species to another. Or taking a species and developing a new one. So I find evolution to only qualify as a hypothesis. On the other hand if we conclude there was a designer then we immediately are faced with something outside the physical universe. A designer almost by definition is outside the design. Thus not limited or discoverable by physical means. Science makes observations, records those observations, makes a guess (hypothesis, conduct experimentations and collects data in the process of testing the hypothesis. So what sort of experiment can we conduct where in we can test for a non-physical designer? My conclusion is science cannot answer the question since it is bound by the physical universe. However, we as humans will fight and die over non-physical concepts. Most of our wars were fought form something other than something physical. So we firmly believe in the non-physical and here we have to accept something non-physical is the possible cause of the physical. BUT from a scientific position I have to conclude we don't know.

the word select mean that nature has to have a mind and conscious to be able to choose from and thats makes it intellegant and power to do it so thats mean that nature mean god

@@thesuperbouda right. Natural Selection is a God of Atheists. Its like if every religious group had a name for God. The God of Atheists would be natural selection

First explain the appearance of space, time and matter before we get to 'chance'.

@@desaad1725 That is why I've coined the phrase Natural Selection Fairy!

Yes, technical. Unfortunately, the entire universe has never had enough time to make it happen - to strike even one cell by possibility.

@James Bond "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." Conan Doyle "God does not play dice" Einstein "God always takes the simplest way" Einstein "When the solution is simple, God is answering" Einstein "That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God. " Einstein "We should take care not to make the intellect our God" Einstein "A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool." William Shakespeare The maths here demonstrate it is impossible by the laws of chance. So what else could give a protein function, shape, sequence? Intelligence seems to be the simplest explanation. Life by chance is impossible otherwise man could explain it, but no theory does or can be tested. Face the facts and accept the human mind isn't able to explain everything or solve everything or know everything. God isn't a magic man in the sky but a creative, wise person who inhabits eternity who wants you to know him and receive him in the person of Jesus Christ. God bless.

@James Bond why cant science prove abiogenesis? If you have an alternative to the two options, please prove that theory. Aliens did it? Platinum/catalytic matrix did it ? Panspermia did it? "In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence." - Copi, Introduction to Logic We have no evidence that abiogenesis did occur. I can reasonably conclude it didn't occur and cannot, just based on logic. There is nothing inherent within atoms and molecules that programs,directs them to produce life. Nothing innate within atoms that would enable them to form complex,chiral compounds capable of the function of self replicating or any other function. Unless you have evidence to the contrary? So the alternatives are: random chance and God. But I guess many sit on the fence and just say silly things like this so they can avoid the reality of living in a universe where abiogenesis didn't occur. And I have enough proof that God does exist to my satisfaction. I found the truth, so I don't need to look to speculative theories anymore. How proteins are made (FACT): anything else isn't science at all but just speculation of futile and imaginative minds: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/odOiiN11vqfRdX0.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jsWkjNWf28XTZnU.html

Cause he doesn't exist

dknight Agreed.

Jeffrey B What?

dknight . Thats because you are too stupid to understand science, math etc.

@@MC-wh3xm, this is a great question.

M C If you can begin to tell me the number of assumptions needed to believe pasteurized rocks are responsible for producing complex living systems, I'd love to hear! Man creates computer . Man himself, infinitely more complex than the computer, but no design needed!!???? Bawhahahaha!!!!!

@@ThomasKundera "At some point......" Please explain how.

Von Braun wanted that in is grave. And he was an amazing scientist. That should tell us somethimg.

@@eclipsesolar8345 He was also a Nazi.

Wouldn't it be the same odds on each "habitable" planet?

@@Tall-Cool-Drink And if anything this world would have the highest chance, as for some reason we have every single thing needed for life in this planet, what would be the probability of those requirements being met in other planets

@Jason37 the odds would be exactly the same if the parameters were exactly the same... 20 possible amino acids x 150 length chain x peptide bond required x left handed amino acid required. If the biology were somehow different, that would change the parameters and the odds.

@@tagalogkurt Aww..now I see. The same process responsible for us both neglected to include me in on the whole deal..but not you. I didn't know natural selection could be so partisan. Enlighten me.

Evolution makes time into a magical quality. Things don’t all of a sudden happen because you have billions of years.

The point is that you have to calculate by chance (ie randomly) since this in and of itself is the odds of the first functional protein forming. Not more of them forming. Just one. And this is only for one type of protein. Not others. So the numbers and analysis are still completely valid. Unless I've misunderstood your comment. In which case. Please point it out... Also how's life been these last 5 years?

lol. That's wrong. A trial with a judge, trained in law, doesn't disprove anything stated here..

Well do you feel like belief in god is justified by evidence? Because let's say we agree this video establishes life is extremely improbable: _if we don't have evidence of any gods whatsoever, isn't the probability of god 0%?_ So then random chance is still "most probable" out of all possibilities we're considering, right?

​@@tonygoodkind7858 "if we don't have evidence of any gods whatsoever, isn't the probability of god 0%?" No, it means the probability is unknown.

@@GRD1618 That depends on how we're using probabilities, but clearly both 0% and unknown probabilities don't stand up against a non-0% probability for something happening so this isn't an argument for a god. (By "depends", I mean that if we observe a roulette wheel's _result_ without actually being able to see or know about the wheel itself, then over time we're going to observe the frequency of each result, and that will generate a "current historic probability", and so if we spin a million times and somehow never land 7, then we'd say the probability of 7 coming up is 0%. So in that method of establishing probabilities, the probability of god doing anything is 0% because we've never observed it (or even that it exists) to know that it's even possible.)

​@@tonygoodkind7858 Correct, this is not an argument for God. It's an argument against your logical fallacy, i.e., that: the probability of something unknown is zero. And now your new logical fallacy with roulette: the probability of something unobserved is zero, even if it's physically possible. I see little difference between evolutionists and stereotypical Christians. You both have unyielding faith against science.

@@GRD1618 You're contradicting yourself. Unobserved things are unknown. (Knowledge requires evidence.) So when you act like the right way to express the probability of unknown things is different from the right way for an unobserved thing, that's a contradiction. I explained the two different ways probabilities can be used (historic track record and our guess at the future), and neither is a fallacy, these are just the two distinct ways probabilities are used by people. Neither supports the OP's god argument. If someone believes in evolution, what specifically do they believe without evidence? (Be very careful that your answer actually addresses _evolution,_ because what you're saying _heavily_ implies you don't know the basics of what evolution is -- that you wrongly think evolution deals with the origin of life, when it doesn't.) There's no faith involved with evolution, it's just a belief justified by overwhelmingly strong evidence.

No need to call people dummy if you had an actual point to make.

@@myopenmind527 Biology is one thing. Evolution is a religion 👍

@Richard Smout but with our powers combined... Point is, the evolutionist relies heavily on 'chance' and thus a vast timeline which has already been scrutinized. Fossilized trees in the vertical position that span multiple layers of rock should have caused a revision of the timelines they propose. Human artifiacts have been found in layers of coal which should be impossible. Soft tissue from dinosaur remains is a third. We are to believe that soft tissue survived 65 million years without being eroded or fossilized? Absurd. Even if we *give* the evolutionists the timelines they claim, it's still impossible.

He is only talking about creating a single protein, not 20 proteins. A single protein already takes more chance than the entire universe can give. He is also using the shortest protein at 150 amino acid long. Protein in and of itself is not a life form. Protein cannot replicate without enzymes inside a cell. That is another issue. Under specific condition with specific proteins that are short, 20 length, can self replicate. That is neither here nor there.

@@briangeiger9307 the uploader isn't a scientific. This is a religious channel. So I can't trust this info isn't biased.

@@fittutube I have no doubt this guy is biased. 99% of info on the internet are biased one way or another. Try Israel vs Palestinian or climate change for biased views. Not a single person can keep their head on straight. You have to take his information and compare with others. His math is good. Optical isomers is correct. That is why I like to find opposing view to poke holes at his logic. Opposing side would have to explain how these molecules find their home.

Brian Geiger well, fair point, but if you cant believe something from bias only you cant believe anything because as you said everything is biased in one way or another.

Naturally drawn? That implies information? Where did that come from?

@@blindwatchmaker2345 well, you just proved my point... Did you even read the comment?

Play the lottery for enough centuries and you will win? Theres actually a law that states the opposite. In fact, the MORE time that passes the chances get LOWER and LOWER and LOWER til an infinite is reached where it becomes no longer possible.

DOLPHINS - YOU EITHER DO NOT UNDERSTAND COMPUTATIONAL MATH or YOU ARE IN PAINFUL DENIAL. WHAT YOU JUST SAID REVEALS ONE THING. YOU STILL DO NOT UNDERSTAND BASIC MATH.

IN a 250 SITE PROTEIN YOU HAVE JUST 20 AMINO ACIDS that HAVE TO APPEAR at all 250 SITES in the RIGHT ORDER. THATS WHY HE USES a HYPOTHETICAL 10 SITE PROTEIN to DEMONSTRATE how the PROBABILITY CUMULATION WORKS. IF IT IS 1 in 10 TRILLION for a 10 site PROTEIN then for a 250 site PROTEIN the NUMBER is ASTRONOMICAL. IT ISNT THE SAME PROBABILITY and NO THE SET ISNT STATIC. YOU ARE LOOKING at IT COMPLETELY WRONG BECAUSE EITHER YOU DONT UNDERSTAND BASIC MATH or YOU DONT UNDERSTAND CELLULAR BIOLOGY. WHAT DO YOU THINK THE CHANCES are that A CAMBRIDGE EDUCATOR DOCTOR would BE CONFUSED and SOMEONE LIKE YOU WOULD NEED TO CORRECT HIM? ESPECIALLY, AFTER MEYER's WORK has BEEN PEER REVIEWED and PRAISED by MOST SCIENTISTS. IF YOURE A TROLL YOU DESERVE to BE PUNCHED in the FACE REALLY HARD.

You are desperately in denial of reality and YES, YOU ARE QUITE DEAD. Your denial is a symptom.

Even if the materialist lottery won and you got one functional protein it means absolutely nothing!!!! you need a million other parts to have a functional cell.

It was.

GENESIS....chp 2 vrs 7......

The protein is the smallest simple cell with life. Nothing smaller that is alive exsists. So yes, God is behind it all.

So what's the problem with this guy ;) kzfaq.info/get/bejne/e5qlhbqclZy7n2Q.html Nothing. There is a Creator plain and simple and that is where all life comes from. Gods word says creation screams of a Creator, and it certainly does. Gods word says on judgement day you will be left without excuse. You certainly will.

When you combine the odds against life arising with the other “evidence” you start to see the big picture. God is not the answer. Consciousness is. The universe is conscious.

Shawn Clark, Realtor. So what is consciousness and who created it? Your answer is going to sound a lot like God. Omniscient relational being.

This justifies the theory of parallel universes. This happens to be the universe where this statistical impossibility is possible.

Dave Partner no it justifies there being a creator

Imagine someone watched this video and said to themselves, _"AHA! I knew life couldn't form randomly! This proves leprechauns did it!"_ Assuming you know this person doesn't have evidence showing leprechauns did it, _is their conclusion logical?_ Also, do you have evidence that a god caused functional proteins or life?

The naturalists always count on people being too LAZY to do the math...which DESTROYS their BELIEF SYSTEM due to the impossibility of what they propose! Everyone should take the time to understand and do the math So that they won't be fooled by them.

short bus rider im guessing

There has not been anywhere near enough time to account for this happening since the big bang.

you probably have the best answer....to all of this...

Ed will - actually you can know... all it takes is simple deductive reasoning. Since nature can’t be the cause of itself, something supernatural must have been the cause. That’s the only other option.

@@maynardkford4906 Well he's right. I mean DNA cannot be added to offspring no matter how many millions of years are provided. DNA can only be lost. Evolution is scientifically impossible. Plus, it's not even science. Science is anything testable or observable. You cannot observe evolution (except micro, or changing within the kinds).

@@maynardkford4906 Dogs produce dogs. Dogs can vary in sizes, but you can never get a dog as big as a house or as small as a flea because they have limits. Animals cannot produce anything other than their kind. Now you can argue that with millions of years it may be possible, but that's not science. That's a fairytale

Maynardk Ford I never said a dog will produce a non dog. i said they have limits. and no amount of time will erase those limits. yes they are eukaryotes, but so are certain types of plants. plants and dogs are not in any way related. you keep trying to insult me when I am just using logic.

Maynardk Ford - how is what I said a false dichotomy? Please explain.

...and what would they say to that huh??

I have no clue what point me from 4 years ago was trying to make here...

@@13ciaran13000 This is great Thanks

@@13ciaran13000you had a good point

​@@13ciaran13000 Let me try to help. It looks to me like you were saying his argument is valad, but extremely difficult to articulate and explain to someone with only words. May I ask if you're a Christian?

Even if you had oceans full of amino acids doing trial and error chains for billions of years on billions of planets…the odds remain hopeless.

They have done this exact calculation...they know the exact amount of time it takes for a nucleotide to attempt to make a bond, they know the time since the big bang, and they have an estimate of the number off atoms in the universe...still doesn't even come close.

This calculation has been made: oceans consiting only of amino acids see here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mbefhMqF1tCXoIk.html As you see the odds are not very promising.

"Wouldn't it be better to compare or even divide that immense probability of chance by an immense amount of space (oceans) and time (nanosecond trials)? " Yes, that is one consideration. Another more important point is that no one, except for ID theorists, says that a contemporary protein has ever self assembled in the first place. Things only evolve in tandem with everything else in its environment. Everything exists in relation to everything else over billions of years. There is no way to calculate everything that could go into this scenario.

How would a functional protein be able to fight it's way into existence? You have to remember that protein require other components to carry out its function, otherwise it's not doing anything. Also it has to have a way of replicating itself because left alone to the elements, it will inevitably break apart. Add all that to the probabilities required for life.

​@@JiminyClarksondon't forget the sugar molecule has to form in the exact same location and time for a fuel source btw

SO few people get this point.

You're both missing the point - the rest aren't functional. Using your logic, with this many combinations there should be tens of thousands - millions - of distinctly solitary types of life. There should be right handed ones and right-left ones, too. Instead, we share 50% of our DNA with a banana. Over 1% of the human genome comes from viruses. Every life form discovered on Earth comes from one core arrangement. If what you say is true, then where are the rest of these life forms?

​@@holdfast7182 you're missing the point - the claim was about probability, yet probability doesn't play into it at all. If I roll a pair of dice 10,000 times and write down the results, the probability of my getting that exact sequence at the end is astronomically low... yet that is what I rolled. The only way it means anything is if I predicted/expected to get that exact sequence. Nothing you wrote addresses this.

@@devb9912 , no, I know the argument well and I understand what you're saying. It's the same argument such as "What are the chances life would have occurred on Earth?" And the answer is, of course, "This is exactly the type of planet where life would have emerged." You're saying that this is just what the universe happened to roll, and thus therefore life emerged out of this, because this is how life emerges. But this isn't picking the number after the roll. We're at one step above that. This is knowing the number before you roll the dice, and then rolling that number. The only other option is that there are multiple avenues for life to have occurred, and as I stated, where are these other avenues? Why do we have only one apparent avenue?

​@@holdfast7182 I have no idea what you are trying to say with this: "This is knowing the number before you roll the dice, and then rolling that number," other than suggesting that life was the intended result. If I am wrong please explain. *Why do we have only one apparent avenue?* It might be that only one ended up being viable; or, early life started in multiple places and, being simplistic, interbred; or, early life started in multiple areas and one specific population killed all the others. These are three options I just came up with off the top of my head and I am most certainly NOT an evolutionary biologist. Saying that there are only two options is false (even if we only think of two). And suggesting that if we can't think of any others then whatever we do think of must be correct is also false. The argument from probability is a form of Begging the Question, it assumes intent as a premise.

It’s far too much to put into a single comment, so if you’re really curious as to what I mean, I’m going to suggest two books. David Bentley Hart: the experience of God Martin Heidegger: introduction to metaphysics So long as it’s a question of probability, I would remain an atheist. These books showed me that the question of Being (and so of God) isn’t a question of probability, but possibility. How could anything exist at all, and exist as it does? The only answer that would give us a world in the end is to posit exactly what Aquinas would call God.

No ,natural selection and coincidence is gods of atheism

it leaves something....what that is....or who that is....is something that one has to try to search out....

@@philipbuckley759 People like you pick for magic😂😂😂

Yeah.. what scientist worth their salt would actually believe a protein just randomly assembled itself.. one thing builds upon another, reducing the random chance involved. Rules are followed, and yes a lot of time is required. It is even possible our origins exceed the life time of Earth itself. Strange how he didn't even suggest this.

Alex Benton - then you still have the problem of who set up the laws of physics? Besides, laws don’t do anything. There’s still has to be a mechanism in place for things to follow the laws of physics.

Lloyd Chin We only CALL them rules/laws, they aren’t literally laws. Also, that is an incredibly loaded question, like saying “who forged the Bible?” It’s implying that it was done by someone. But to fully answer your question, it is often hypothesized (especially by me) that we actually live in a multiverse, in which multiple universes are born and die with what you might call a random set of laws of physics. We happen to live in one of these infinite universes because it happens to be able to sustain life, so any probability of life existing is 1/1. Infinity over infinity is one.

Steve Sorenson I answered your question above-^

Lloyd Chin Uh, the laws of physics are not “assumptions” they are facts. We have proven time and time again that the laws of physics are reliable. Chemical reactions ALWAYS happen exactly the same way. And besides, even if the odds were one in infinity, we have demonstrated that we can replicate the processes mentioned in this video. Of course, we don’t have billions of years to watch a cell evolve into a sentient being, but we have other examples we can study to prove that it is possible.

At 10^139, does it matter?

TallCoolDrink probably not lmao

Exactly. It reminds me of Frank Turek who tends to say that people are on a happiness quest, not a truth quest. Turek claims that he often asks atheists if they would become a Christian if they found out that Christianity is true, and many of those atheists say that they still wouldn't become Christians even if they knew it was true, so those particular atheists are on a happiness quest instead of a truth quest. Also, isn't it odd that the general atheist's main objection to God is based on moral grounds despite the fact that morality does not affect the truth (their moral objection is also based on misunderstandings, but that is another subject altogether)? The fact that the #1 objection raised by atheists focuses of morality instead of the law of noncontradiction means that most atheists are, in fact, on a happiness quest in which they actively seek reasons not to believe in God. I recently watched a very eye-opening video by Frank Turek on this issue: he asked the audience to think of one atheist friend who they would like to become a Christian, and then he asked them if they believed that their friend is actually and genuinely looking for the truth about God, or whether that friend isnt as zealous as they would like to claim to be. Nobody in the audience raised their hand, and Turek said that this is pretty much the reaction he gets from every audience that is asked this question.

​@@fatmaramadan6928 ​ atheism requires the absence of an objective moral framework, so it doesn't allow for you call anything "good" or "evil." Everything is simply supposed to be neutral to you. Watch the following video if you desire to understand: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rbddlNSfqa7VoXU.html I expect the above to fall on deaf ears, however, because this realization undermines what, in my previous comment, I called the #1 objection that atheists raise, and most atheists don't want to abandon their primary objection. You should (re)read the second paragraph of the comment you replied to because it addresses the objection you've raised in your response.

@@fatmaramadan6928 there's overwhelming evidence that our universe has a creator. Also, it's not just the religious who question the shape of the earth, and there are atheists who oppose evolution theory. Relatively recently, a well-respected atheist philosopher (Thomas Nagel) published a book pointing out that evolution can't true be true. He was treated with disrespect because nobody is allowed to question evolution, and the fact that there's so much stigma around evolution is a pretty strong indicator that evolution is upheld as valid emotionally, not intellectually. nationalpost.com/holy-post/what-has-gotten-into-thomas-nagel-leading-atheist-branded-a-heretic-for-daring-to-question-darwinism And a world-renowned natural scientist of the 19th century, William Thomson, proved that evolution could not have reached its present state before our sun would have burned out, and yet our sun hasn't burned out, so evolution must be false. Evolutionists have assumed that Thomson made a mistake in his calculations somewhere, but that mistake hasn't been found because he really made no mistake. The assumption that Thomson was wrong is based on the assumption that the fossil record still confirms evolution, but a recent addition to the theory of evolution, which is called "punctuated equilibruim," actually serves to explain away the problem that gradualism is nonexistent in the fossil record, which effectively undercuts evolution to its very core. Charles Darwin himself noted that evolution theory couldn't be true if there was no gradualism, and now the modern theory of evolution itself testifies of the fact that there's no gradualism. Then there's geology, which is a field of study that was created by a lawyer, not a scientist, who hated the Bible and specifically sought to subvert belief in the Bible. You can read his books to figure out how much he was driven by ideology instead of evidence. The geological column is also perfectly explained as a result of the global flood. Just look up "hydrologic sorting" here on youtube. You say that theists cannot bring evidence, but everything you believe isn't based on evidence: you just think your beliefs are based on evidence but all of it is mere conjecture. I really advise you to watch the video I recommended before. I'm not telling you that morals only come from the Bible, but I'm telling you that moral judgment are only valid if there's an objective standard of morality. I'm telling you that your moral judgments are utterly useless if you don't believe in a Creator Who has defined morality. Words like "immoral" make no sense if you're an atheist. That's why you need to watch the video. Also, the Bible explains perfectly why the world is in its current state, and it also explains what God has done and what He is going to do. Also notice a contradiction in your comment--I urge you to watch the following short video to spot the contradiction in your argumentation: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/fd6Djbtz196zdY0.html

​@@fatmaramadan6928 *> "So no evidence presented just claims .........like this."* The cosmological argument. The teleologiucal argument. The ontological argument. And where is your evidence of the contrary anyway? Positive and negative claims both carry the burden of proof. *> "evolution which by the way is not an atheist concept but a scientific field of study"* Evolution sustains atheism. Have you never wondered why virtually every atheist can be assumed to be an evolutionist? There's a reason why Richard Dawkins suggested that Charles Darwin made it possible to be an atheist on an intellectual level, as opposed to being willfully atheistic with no prospec of justification. *> "wacky creation fairytale."* Your opposition to creation is emotional. Creation is a perfectly reasonable explanation. By the way, what you currently believe was a wacky creation fairytale before: the big bang is a 3000 year old Hindu fairytale, and evolution theory has long been an ancient myth as well. *> "The overwhelming majority that object are religious ,hardly any that are not theists ..... this should indicate something."* True, and that's because the religious have an a priori reason to object: they have an alternative explanation for the existence of reality. The irreligious do not have an alternative to natural philosophy, so they simply accept natural philosophy without properly questioning it. I know you want to say that the religious question natural philosophy because of their religion, but I can just as easily say that the "irreligious" do not question natural philosophy despite its problems because of their lack of religion. *> "And that statement is utterly useless until you can prove ..."* And that's why I'm now telling you for the third time to watch the video that I recommended. That video explains why you're mistaken in your assessment. I'm NOT saying that my morals ARE objective, but I'm saying that YOUR morals ARE NOT objective--that's what the video teaches you. The video teaches you about the implications of your atheism. You misunderstand the argument and you're unwilling to learn because you desire to sustain your atheism. You can accuse me of doing the same but that still won't change the fact that you're ignoring the video for bad reasons, and that you're in fact, doing what I'm accusing you of. *> "They make less sense if you are a theist that believes ..."* Again, you need to watch that video so you can understand why this isn't the argument. The real argument is that you cannot make objective moral claims REGARDLESS of whether or not I can or cannot make them too. Stop trying to shift the problem onto me because that's not the issue here, and that's why you need to learn about the implications of your own atheism. Even if you can argue that my morals aren't objective, then that still doesn't change the fact that your morals aren't objective. Please watch the video and really take to hear what is being said. *> "destroy instead of fix?"* Be aware of the implications of what you're suggesting here: why should people not be allowed to have the freedom to do evil? If removing evil people is not considered a fix, then the only remaining fix is to forcibly change their attitude from evil to good, but that would violate God's desire for people to choose to be with Him. What is love if love is all that you know? If you know both love and hate and instead choose to love, then your love is genuine, whereas forced love makes love a meaningless word. I suspect that this will fall on deaf ears, though, but at least I explained it instead of skipping this question of yours.

​@@fatmaramadan6928 You're an elitist with an excessive need to ridicule, your reasoning is practically nonexistent, and you continuously avoid having to understand what is being said. What's the point in even talking to me? Why can't you just pretend that I'm stupid and move on? If you're going to avoid and dismiss everything I say, then what reason is there for me to talk to you, especially when you're arguably doing no more than continuously re-assert that I'm supposedly gullible and stupid compared to you.

Corey P dumb & dumber refference

😂😂😂 you are funny

Lloyd Chin one man’s God is another man’s Aliens. For a fellow who lives crunching numbers, look at all the cultures around the world that discuss “alien” like encounters millenniums back. All documented in scrolls, wood cuts, historical events, and religious texts. It’s highly likely there’s a grand designer, but I doubt it’s who we think it is. Read A.C. Grayling the God Argument, and Fingerprint of the Gods.

@@TestofBelievers *Thumbs Up* Different strokes for different folks, what really matters is how we conduct ourselves while we are here. Just be fair loving and compassionate, and the world can be a great place. JC is a great model for that.

well the point is in finding the truth and math does point out that evolution according to richard dawkins is not just very unlikely but impossible which should tell us that another probable explanation for the origin of life like intelligent design would be much more probable

Lloyd Chin well let me ask you this. Is it a fact that if the 1000 jackpot machines went off at the same time we’d have the results the jackpots machines gave us? If so then regardless of how unlikely it might be we have to except the fact that 1000 jackpots machines went off at the same exact time. What would be the alternative to that?

So you are really telling me that if i want a car, its better to wait for it to form itself randomly in front of my eyes than to have an engineer to make it for me?! That is atheistic evolution's delusion. Also God isn't a wizard who performs magic, its higher intelligence, and of course, he is the best engineer, look at life.

If there is no god, please give me your version of the out of nowhere appearance of space, time and matter before we get to the easy stuff like 'chance'.

How would God be created if he is not made of anything at all? Christians believe God has no substance, not even time or space (except when he became Jesus I guess). You could say God is made out of pure nothingness.

Hundreds of years ago people didn't know what caused lightning strikes. Some people thought it was God's wrath. How could you possibly understand how lightning strikes work if God was responsible? At the same time, some other folks, the more curious ones, said hey before concluding it's God and it's unknowable, why don't we do some science experiments and try to figure out how it works? Fast forward to today, thanks to those curious folks, we now understand perfectly how lightning strikes work. A lightning strike is nothing more than a simple electrical discharge between the clouds and the ground. Morale of the story? Never underestimate human potential and what we as a species can achieve. What if 100 years later, we discover a way create the simplest form of life out of non-living matter in a lab, would you still say life was created by God? To me, attributing it to God is just giving up on trying to really understand something. If you keep telling yourself: forget it, life was created by God, I will never understand how that process works, you will never make any progress. Not saying science today is 100% correct, most theories have holes in them. But they are away trying to improve, unlike religion. The thing that bothers me about religion is that they tell you to stop trying, it's God. What the hell do you know? If you don't try, (which you first have to assume it's NOT God), the day the mystery gets solved will NEVER come.

@@zhouyinpiao Who does the scientist in the lab running the experiments represent?

@@TestofBelievers Using our supposed lack of understanding of such a being is simply a weak rebuttal.

Current physical law explicitly predicts singularities. We know for a fact that they break down and dont work anymore at very small scales, or if there is too much mass in one place, or if we turn the clock back on the universe far enough. So it's not necessary for a God to be beholden to any of those laws, they aren't even applicable to the inside of black holes. It also doesn't make sense to claim a god would also need to be created, that's just an appeal to infinite regression. It doesn't logically follow that god needs to be created, and if it is distinct from our physical laws, it may very well be eternal.

But people don't think proteins formed randomly. They likely evolved from earlier shorter molecules that could replicate and mutate and pass on their mutations. It's either that or God created some pretty faulty designs what with all the diseases, aberrant mutations, deformity and calamity. If the world is natural, it's wondrous. IF it was created it designed horribly.

@@69ElChistoso OK here's a better one. Without programmed instincts from a programmer the first organism would just sit there and do nothing like a blank computer waiting for a program. The chemicals that make a computer even though they may be in the correct shape to function, without a program it's useless.

@@69ElChistoso Logically any knowledge, instinct or otherwise requires a programmer, a computer isn't conscious yet it does what it does by instinct created by the programmer. The programmer of life must have a consciousness superior than the created, otherwise He wouldn't be God. Christianity/Judaism is unique, there is no other religion like it, no other religion claims to be truth, and the Bible hasn't been proved false, ever. Entropy is why nature can't exist by itself, to keep an engine running it requires constant ordered input, without God nature has no input. Putting energy as the sole source of the universe is in opposition to thermodynamics, without directed, ordered, intelligent input you get nothing. Nothing + Nothing = Nothing, that's all the atheists have as evidence for our existence. In the beginning was information, i.e God.

@@davidm9618 Right, the RNA and DNA molecules aren't themselves programs just like the letters in this sentence aren't words in and of themselves. However the way in which the molecules are ordered give them meaningful information in which a program is stored, which requires a programmer and a meaningful language in which to program. For a language to have meaning it requires the intent to convey information, intent requires a conscious mind i.e. the programmer. Just random keyboard smashing uhvefjiaso bfjklvb eilgbdfkglbaefvkl aebil i.e. evolution, will never convey meaningful information.

Yes it is useless without the written language and especially without the WRITER Himself .........

very good points@@joshzwies3601

j mufferaw A creator would be an uncreated and uncaused being. A creator uncomplicates it.

Good thing proteins don't form by "random mutation." Get a clue.

@@69eddieD I have lots of clues, but it appears you need a few: “Biologists usually agree that all genetic mutations occur by “chance” or at “random” with respect to adaptation. The claim dates back to Darwin's conception of “spontaneous,” “accidental” or “chance” variation (Darwin 1859, 1868; Darwin and Seward 1903).” ~ Evolutionary Chance Mutation, a defense of the modern synthesis, University of Michigan Biology Department

@@69eddieD actually you are correct though... proteins don’t “form” at all. They are created... by our all powerful Creator who has the KNOWLEDGE to create them. It is His DESIGN that we see in the complexity of proteins.

vaxrvaxr Its not moot. What this shows is that the probability of life forming by chance is impossible

@@MarkNOTW Is it impossible or improbable now?

And how does it compare to rhe probability that God did it? Questions over questions.

The thing is we are here and we consist of these proteins. Yes, we don't know how that came to be, we can only speculate. Nobody can credibly claim otherwise. So far so good. Then a guy with an agenda pulls some stage mathematics and calculates some probability based in random assumptions. And a bunch of people incapable of critical thinking or even following the argument conclude: God did it. All those acrobatics just to make fools of yourselves.

Let's put this in concrete terms. Now that we have the protein, how did we get from the protein to you? What is the probability that you personally got born on the exact day you did and are using KZfaq now wearing exactly what you were etc.pp. Is that the consequence of past events, one of an infinite amount of very unlikely things that did actually happen, or did God do that too?