I realize that the hardcore atheists on here probably won't take the time to watch this. I really don't care. But if you haven't made up your mind yet, you might want to take a look at this. It completely destroys the theory of evolution using science. Well worth your time. Check it out.
I got through 12 minutes of it and learned nothing new. The same old argument: the life we see is so complex it could not have been natural. I bailed when they started interviewing laymen with no real knowledge of the science.
Then why don't you try to refute it? All you say is that it's a bunch of BS. If you cannot give a reasoned argument, then you lose. Pick something from the video and try to refute it. You can't. In fact, no one has even tried.
According to a strawman argument in the video, information cannot be created so life can not start from non-life since that would require more information. They say this is a problem for evolution but they are incorrect. Read
this and this:
Creationists, in an attempt to coat their myths with a veneer of science, have co-opted the idea of information theory to use as a plausible-sounding attack on evolution. Essentially, the claim is that the genetic code is like a language and thus transmits information, and in part due to the usual willful misunderstandings of the
second law of thermodynamics (which is about energy, not information), they maintain that information can never be increased.
[10] Therefore, the changes they cannot outright deny are defined as "losing information", while changes they disagree with are defined as "gaining information", which by their definition is impossible. Note that at no point do creationists actually specify what information actually is and often (even in the allegedly scientific case of
complex specified information) will purposefully avoid defining the concept in any useful way. Creationists tend to change their meaning on an
ad hoc basis depending on the argument, relying on colloquial, imprecise definitions of information rather than quantifiable ones - or worse,
switching interchangeably between different definitions depending on the context of the discussion or argument.
The deliberate conflation of the totally unrelated concepts of thermodynamic and informational entropy is, while an obvious flaw in the argument, a flaw that the creationists' intended audience is
less likely to pick up on, so it remains a popular argument, as seen in
Ken Ham's...
debate with
Bill Nye at the
Creation Museum.
