Creation vs Evolution in 5 minutes

Creation vs Evolution in 5 Minutes.

If you're new here, consider subscribing to the channel. If you enjoyed this video, hit the like button and share it with others. Make sure you press the "notification bell" so that you don't miss an episode. Thank you for watching!

[notquiteaxl]

I like the way you handled that! The truth is we don’t know exactly what happened. I’m willing to consider any of these theories possible, but funny enough, I’m least likely to believe in evolution in at least the way it’s defined presently. And I can honestly say I’d doubt macro-evolution even if I wasn’t Christian. It seems to require more faith than Christianity itself.

Let’s also not forget there have been proven misreads in the scientific processes of dating, especially carbon dating - though, to be fair, is not primarily used to date fossils contrary to what many people assert.

[dinohall]

0:42 "Bill Nye has no degree in science."
Bill Nye's Bachelor of Science Degree in mechanical engineering from Cornell: _Am I a joke to you?_

[BaabaStevo]

The observable universe and not the earth is 14+ billion years old.
The earth is only about 4.5+ billion years old.

[whateverreally]

Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are not different mechanisms at all. Macro-evolution is just lots of micro-evolution. Proof of one is proof of the other.

[aidank]

You said that scientists believe that the Earth is 14.6 billion years old. not true at all. they say 4.6 billion years for earth and 13.8 for the universe

[logicalatheist]

Creation = fiction
Evolution = scientific fact

Debate over in seconds

[maxxam]

Evolution is a fact, observed and proven and demonstrated in all the relevant fields of science. As a scientific model, evolution is better supported that gravity, literally.
It has even been directly observed, both in the lab and in the field. Genetics alone prove common ancestry. How do you explain away all the evidence, creationisms?

[trippingjune]

FAIL @ 3:28 ... 4.6 billion years, not 14.6 billion.

[MiltonRosso]

Bro, as a person who has a partially complete masters degree, your explination of evolution was really really bad. The typical misrepresentation put forth by creationists. Please listen to this, micro and macro evolution are the same processes, one happens to take place over a longer period of time. 6000 years is not an ideal amount of time to get all the vorieties of frogs. Living organisms evolve in similar ways languages do, there was not first person to speak French, much like there was no first organism to have a heart or lungs. 2:18 about us not being able to observe evolution, we have, speciation is very real, and creationism used to disagree with it.
With regards to observe, you must be misunderstanding what the word observed means within the definition of science. We can't observe evolution, it takes to long, but we can observe the evidence. As an example let's say I'm reading a book and I hear the front door open and close and someone running upstairs to my brother's room, them I walk over to the door and see my brother's coat and bag there when they weren't there before. I can logically conclude that my brother is home, I don't need to see my brother, observe my brother because the evidence that is observable is conclusive enough. Like it is with evolution we can't observe it, but we can observe the evidence, things like ERV's, the fused chromosomes 2, psudogenes, nanog Gene's, and the many fossils that are almost human but not quite, almost ape, but not quite, it's a transition. I am already familiar with the creationist arguments against this stuff, and I cant prove to you that it's all false, but I will say this. 99% if full time biologists accept macroevolution, (many of them believe in God) most of them are familiar with young earth c re creationist, and they have not been convinced because there knowledge of the natural world was not handed them in a book, they personally did the science that has already been done to prove the validity of it to themselves. No person is required to believe in evolution, if fact it is taught in a very mild way in most places (coming from my experiences) most scientists accept evolution as a result of understanding the natural world, not being brainwashed. I have known many people who were creationists who are now old earth and accept evolution, because there is no evidence in favor of a young earth or any of this special creation. Anyone who understands the natural world understands that. Most young earth creationist scientists understand that. In short I used to think that creationism was harmless, but I now know tha tat is not true, the US has a shocking low scientific literacy among get the general public. The US is a popular place for creationism and other anti science ideas. And the problem with people who are anti science is they almost never understand science. I have never i. My whole life known a creationist who could show me anything that even hints at the idea that the earth is only 6000 years old, or that there was a worldwide flood. The fact that we cannot find a worldwide flood layer that exhibits graded bedding is more than enough, and there is even more. And the problem with the bible is we do not ha e the first version, or the second version. We have the twohundreth version.

[EcclesiastesLiker-pyts]

Unfortunately, young earth creationism lacks Biblical basis, one simply needs to read Genesis 2:4 "This is the history of the heavens and the earth in the time they were created, in the day they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." This is a clear instance of the Hebrew word for day being used metaphorically, just as we may say "my father's day" or "king John's day". If all of creation is described as one day there is no basis for claiming that starting that the days of creation are not literal is in some way a Biblical deviation.

[Ozzyman]

You never get scientists telling us evolution didn't happen. So many well-funded creationists, and still they can't find a flaw in evolution that can be solved by creationism.

[raulguzmanjr]

It baffles my mind that we can study or do scientific research on the human body with our technolog today. The anatomy of the brain, the heart, the intestines, the veins we have - in short; the complex physical & emotional part of the whole human creature and STILL eliminate the possibility or not give the credit to a Creator is beyond words. To say that we are here dangling in the middle of stars and perfectly equiped for survival existing day by day ---"byyyy chance" is so foolish that my response is not something i can say but feel :(

[jerryjohnson]

I am glad that you explained the differences on the creationism side. I am a Christian and a scientist and am an old world divine interventionist. I have no problem believing the the world is billions of years old. I believe that the 6 days of creation were 6 long periods of time and the Cambrian Explosion (large number of animal species appearing over a small period of time) helps to show that IMO.

[michaelborg]

When yom is used with and identifier ‘night and day’ ‘day 1’ ‘night’ ‘day’ it is always referring to 24 hour day. The only reason to reject it isn’t because of ‘some interpretation ‘ the grammar doesn’t allow that, it is purely because of presuppositions. Or the ‘science’ group who who don’t really have strong language emphasis but focus on God’s fallen creation. If exegesis is important that should guide our understanding, of eisegesis is your thing it won’t matter anyway.

[mostlyscienceandadventure]

Nobody says that the Earth is 14.5 billion years old. Is the Earth is 4.5 billion years old is and the universe is 13.8 billion years old learn your facts

[jakubholic]

There are ways to experiment and observe - for example, if you have two species (fosils) that you expect to be related. Than you can expect, how some of the characteristics of species between them would look like. You could predict how new fosils will look like. And that happens all the time.

[habamoon]

Evolution, specifically macro-evolution, is not statistically possible. Please try searching for a video called "Information Enigma: Where does information come from?" before trying to argue with me. It should be the first result.

[DarkFiddle]

3:29 I believe the consensus is that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, not 14.6 billion.

[sarbnitrof]

As long as you ignore the lies, this is a good video.

[responsestability]

So many misunderstandings in this. Why put a video up where you completely don't understand what you're talking about