- Mar 9, 2018
- 4,937
- 2,039
- 59
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
agreed it is a subjective comment, but then so is yours.Okay I've watched the first 15 minutes and it's pretty bad.
Misleading information and outright lies.
So far all he's doing is saying "If Abiogenesis and evolution aren't true, then Creation must be." which is a garbage argument on its own.
But there is no Science to prove it. That was the point.Firstly, he points out that the Miller Urey experiment didn't use accurate models of the ancient Earth, (more recent experiments have used them and still developed amino acids). But the significant issue is that the failure of any particular experiment to study abiogeneis doesn't necessarily demonstrate that it's impossible, and so doesn't actually work as "negative evidence" as it is claimed.
Amino acids are not living organisms and any amino acid that is used by a living organism must have been derived by a living organism, so the experiment proves what?
In order to have life you must have organic material period.
No proof of this, speculation and hypothesis. In other words it looks humanoid so it must be.The next section is about evolution and it goes from misleading to outright falsehoods.
Claiming that "Transitional Fossils have never been found". Just the human lineage alone has a multitude of fossils showing a gradual change from a more chimp like ancestor to modern man.
There is only one way to prove it scientifically in the fossil record and that evidence has not yet presented itself.
Are you familiar with the mutations in DNA? Most are not good. And none have been observed to change something into something else.
Upvote
0