Evolutionists Do NOT Want You to Know This . . . | Traced: Episode 16
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ส.ค. 2024
- Young-earth science is pushing back more and more against the decades of criticism it has received from evolutionists. In this episode of Traced, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson reveals something evolutionists do not want people to know.
See the full playlist of Traced episodes here: • Traced: DNA's Big Surp...
Check out Dr. Jeanson’s book, Traced: answersingenes....
All this science stuff has been the reason for me to become a Christian after being a life-long atheist. It’s so exciting to me! It’s like believing in God is SO MUCH MORE sciency! Mind-blowing in fact. 🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻
So you're saying science made you turn away from rationality? Yeah that checks out especially for Christians.
WHICH GOD?
@@blackkman1324 The Emperor
@@blackkman1324Orthodox Christian God. For more details look into the Transcendental argument for God or "TAG" explained by people like Jay Dyer
I don't have enough faith to be an atheist. God creates science and commands us to gain knowledge and wisdom. Those who do not believe in Jesus remain as they are. Those who do, become more and more like him. Seeing that he is the good guy, I have decided to follow Him.
It seems to me the Evolutionists are accussing Creationists of what they themselves are doing. Refusing to accept any data that would refute their preconcieved ideas
Well done Dr Jeanson, this has been brilliant, and I am getting a Y chromosome test from my Father; we all should do this and help support the science. God Bless
Of cours you got your Y cromosome from your dad and your X from your mum you sad little person
And if you are a girl you got one X from your dad and one from mom, and it as not a thing to do with your nonexsistant god
Be careful about such tests. This information can be shared with the devious government agencies who support the agenda of the New World Order for their nefarious ends. God bless you.
Thank you Dr. Jeanson for all of your hard work. I enjoyed listening to this series and look forward to reading any of your future work.
As a Catholic, I appreciate the good work you folks have been doing. There is a sad misunderstanding within the Church today that we somehow embrace evolution, and nothing could be further from the truth. All of the Church fathers believed in creation as described in Genesis.
All of the church fathers lived before science was invented
@@CaptainFantastic222
Science wasn't invented... it was discovered.
@@CaptainFantastic222 What an ignorant comment. I am pretty sure Pythagoras, Archimedes, Hippocrates, Galen, Aristotle, Eratosthenes, and Thales all lived before or during the Church fathers and are considered some of the most important scientists ever.
@@elcidcampeador9629 thank you! They lived before the scientific method was created! Important correction. Great catch!
The pope of the heresy called the Catholic Church has endorsed evolution and even claimed that there is no hell. No surprise there. Catholicism is a long way from the first century Church established on the Day of Pentecost.
00:01-11:45 the argument against creationism
11:46 how is creationism pushing back?
Nice follow up to the critics. Sometimes your train of thought is a bit convoluted, but can be worked through. I strongly recommend you get one of the editors of Answers in Genesis and have them reorganize and clarify some of your excellent observations and conclusions into a nice downloadable booklet. And maybe a companion book of Traced. Excellent book, but the technicality needs to be simplified to help a young or average reader understand more of what your work has accomplished. Impeccable logic and lots of excellent, painstaking detailed work.Thank you by honoring the Lord with such a great body of work. (By the way, nice imitation of the Bill Nye scientist look - complete with bow tie and lab coat. An engineer is may not do the extra work to be a scientist, but a scientist can apply science to become an engineer.)
LOL
I would like that too. Listening to it is like being on a roller coaster, sometimes the words come so fast that there isn’t time to absorb it, other times it’s slower and more measured.
It’s a lot to take in. What is harder still is the constant connections of references to previous videos, or as stated in his book. So I get lost before I begin.
Combine that with references to charts that are too small to see clearly, and have no key for the abbreviations. (PUY, JMZ, AQP, who are we talking about? But he’s onto the next without taking a breath.) Not easy to follow.
I’m unable to afford his book, but I’m interested in the topics. He’s had years working on them, this is my first view, confusing.
This is intended as constructive criticism as he is a brilliant geneticist. I simply wish it were easier to comprehend. Hoping that this can be accomplished.
Wait a minute…. Don’t they take mutations rates and then calculate that rate backwards to deduce the time it took for an animal to evolve? And they now complain because you did the same thing?
No, that's not what biologists do. It's more complicated than that because most mutations don't persist. They occur, and most are lost subsequently, so the rate of accumulation isn't equal to just the rate per generation x number of generations. This has been directly documented.
@@CreationMyths Jesus Christ spoke this world into existence roughly 6,000 years ago.
Why is believing in Young-Earth Creationism so important to you guys? Most Church Father's didn't even take the Genesis account literally.
I would imagine that all of your opponents have been enraged by Elon Musk's statement about how Twitter will allow scientific challenges to those who say that any science has been already settled and cannot be challenged.
Scientific challenges on Twitter? I have heard some stupid things in my life but you are a special case.
Jaw-dropping stuff! Can't wait to see what more this research yields. Very fruitful.
You know he's a real scientist because he has a bow tie. LOL
Seriously, good talk. The time has finally come to stop playing defense and go on the offense. I'm sure those who respond to Traced know subconsciously that you are right, and any experiments would only prove your claims and further erode the myth of millions of years.
Go get 'em, Nathaniel! (And I love the tie.)
Real scientist publish papers for peer review
But some of my favorite scientists do wear bow ties so there is some truth yo that
@@CaptainFantastic222 and because you are an atheist we are just supposed to believe you? The people at AIG have PhD's. Where do you work at? McDonald's? Why should anyone listen to you?
@@CaptainFantastic222 and you are a "real" scientist?
@@RobertA-oi6hw Although I studied STEM extensively in high school and at university I am not a professional science. That is not my main job.
You don’t have to publish findings to be considered a “real scientist” but this is an important step in the scientific process. I have also done further research and add Jeason has indeed published some articles.
@@CaptainFantastic222 really? What university?
This is SO SO exciting!!!!!
Thank you and big BLESSINGS to you and all At Answers in Genesis ❤
This is indeed "evidence that demands a verdict. "
Keep up the fantastic work! Very exciting! Blessings from Britain 🇬🇧
Keep up the fantasy world! Very exiting! Ignore all critical thinking and deny all the facts!
@@TheDancefreak35
You follow man’s religion if you want, your choice. Let’s see where it gets you on the Lords day of Judgement. So thankful I’m no longer in your shoes!
@@debbiewareing1178 that's just it sister. There is a judgement day coming and if a person has not given their life to Jesus, it is going to be a very bad day for them.
@@TheDancefreak35 Funny, because all you evolutionists are always saying to publish papers on this stuff, and this guy did. But you don't actually care about science. You care about being right.
@@zerosteel0123 Of course, believe in me, or you will regret it. They call that a dictator. There is also one in North Korea. Do as I say or else....
Anyone who chooses to kiss the feet of a fantasy figure forever is out of their mind. If he existed of course. But by now we know better since that hateful, self-contradictory, and dictatorial clown isn't real. Religion is the poison of the world. But good news, luckily it's only getting less and less.
Lord help this wicked generation to see You for who you are. Open their eyes so they may see and their ears that they may hear. Help them Lord before it's too late for them.
I am so glad our loving Father has given us evidence for His Word, for it would be a whole lot harder to believe in our modern era if there was no evidence at all.
Always remember as well, that much of what we have as evidence for our faith, many will refuse to accept. Many people simply don't want to come to God the way God wants them to. Many more don't want God to exist at all and nothing will convince them.
@@Bomtombadi1
You didn't actually watch or listen, did you? Okay, how about this: What's your position? And what would be a few examples of what you believe to be compelling, empirically verifiable, scientific evidence FOR your position?
@@Bomtombadi1 #1 God has given us free will to choose. God is not going to violate that and choose for us. #2 he has given a specific way to come to him and that is through faith in Jesus Christ. If it's some other way you choose then you will not find Him nor will He receive you. It's as simple as that.
@@Bomtombadi1
While your god is the magical god of "naturedunit", right?
@@jessebryant9233 "naturedunnit" lol
I like that
Good luck changing the minds of people who have been lied to all their lives. It's easier to fool people than to have them admit they are fools. Nice work.
@All About Britain People who have been raised to think trolling people who believe differently than them is a healthy way to spend their time.
@@allaboutbritain3367
Including the Church of Secular Humanism that YOU were raised in?
@All About Britain everyone here knows what the OP meant. You just trolled the comment. Stop playing games.
@All About Britain
No actually Globalist setup John Dewey (Atheist Marxist) "Father of Modern U.S. education" who's curriculum was first implemented by Stalin in Soviet education then here in the U.S.
@All About Britain I'm sure you'll get over it
I'd love to see a detailed response to the virologist's criticisms. I realize you said you addressed the big one 3 years ago, but a point by point refutation in one place would lead to better understanding for all parties.
If this guy would be debating actual genetic scientists he would be roasted harder than the Hindenburg disaster victims.
@@Jewonastick in journals after a study is published, the letters section would have questions or concerns from the community, and over time a good back and forth dicussion (if done in good faith by at least one side) would lead to better understanding for all (or some anyway). Since he's talking about specific research and specific studies, he could have valid points regardless of broader implications of what he's saying. The points he raised about discarding data that doesn't fit the conclusion happens too often. I haven't looked at the papers he mentions to know what was said in them, but it happens too often. Too many worry about risking future funding by straying from the expectations of those doing the funding.
I would also love to see a detailed response the the virologists criticisms.
(I am the virologist. Dr. Jeanson did not mention that I'm actually an evolutionary biologist; my focus is viruses but my actual field is evolution.)
@@CreationMyths Interesting, I guess he could say you are in (though around may be better) virology or something like that. I guess I should look at your own videos but I'm wondering what studying evolution involving viruses (which could have a few meanings) considering they are so hard to isolate. But when I was in school they were not considered alive, so if that was still the case evolution would be the wrong word.
Brilliant Dr. Jeanson, simply brilliant! May God bless you as you continue this groundbreaking research!
@All About Britain aha! here we have a conflict in worldviews. I have faith in the unchanging Creator of everything (Mal 3:6), and you have your faith in your god (the ever changing creator of itself, Naturalism/Humanism aka "science"). Creation by an Infinite Designer is plain to see, even to you, but you are suppressing the truth in your own ingenuity and idolatry. I shared your world view once, but I am so thankful to the Eternal Creator God for His wonderful grace. I don't know you, but as a fellow human being I would ask you to look to the Creator. :)
@@allaboutbritain3367
Disingenuous how?
@@paulmiller7775 what is the brilliant thing in his presentation? He doesn’t even seem to know how to do a scientific prediction…
@@paulmiller7775 Hilarious. One uses the Scientific Method and one is a multi million dollar a year for profit creationists business
@@mattikaronen7728 how do you do a "scientific prediction?"
Praying for truth and justice and victory in JESUS HOLY NAME ✝️🕊🇺🇸💙🙏🙏🙏
I enjoy Dr. Nathaniel’s work ❤
I would appreciate it if the titles and thumbnails of these videos were more reflective of the actual content and less inflammatory.
I agree, whoever does the thumbnails is making them inflammatory. I get that it helps attract views, but that doesn't seem very Christlike to me.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.~ Genesis 1
@All About Britain yes, we already know your bias against creationism
@All About Britain "Genesis is NOT TRUE." Explain in detail what you believed happened.
@All About Britain "Earth, it and the other rocky planets were formed from the dust created by supernovas - this dust can be directly observed both in space and especially around supernovas we can see."
So, you believe this "dust" - came from what exactly?
And it began to spiral to form a cosmos/galaxy, and that individual planets from this "spinning dust" all formed? Really?
@All About Britain So, let's be clear, everything was spinning in the same direction, and all of a sudden, some bits managed to spin together, and form the planets?
That's what you think?
Then puddles, pond sludge, and bacteria, coupled with lightning strikes, fairy dust and stardust made dinosaurs? So how did man get here?
@All About Britain So you can't tell me. Two planets spin backward, so the planets forming the way you believe is nonsense.
Explain how man got here.
With all your theories, it should be EASY.
Go...
It's absurd! We have endogenous retroviral elements in common with chimpanzees! Aside from this we've known for about 3 decades now that the chromosome number two in human beings is the fused product of cbimp chromosome 12 and 13...which are referred to as 2p and 2q. Hence the difference in chromosome #. Apes 48 humans 46.
Where is Nate's youtube channel? Did youtube really block it or something?
Repent from your sins 🙏and turn to God ✝️for the kingdom of heaven is at hand ❤️
Excellent news! Loved the book.
Great video; you are doing great work.
Also, has anyone noticed how Old Earth Christians are becoming more hostile to Young Earth Creationists? I have noticed that many of them that used to be friendly to the YEC community has recently turned and become mocking and dismissive.
I am not really surprised because they also minimize the flood which Peter predicted. I think there is a motivation to be intellectually included among the cool kids and not be seen as a Bible thumping, ignorant, fundie with all of the ignorance and credulity it requires to believe the plain meaning of Genesis. It has been a matter of interest to me to watch the shock waves in evolution over the last three decades. For example when people like Stephen J Gould and Colin Patterson explicitly admitted that the fossils do not support gradualism or descent with modification. The failure of molecular homology. The fraud of Haeckel’s embryos. The collapse of so many ape men stories. The relatively recent discovery of viable soft tissue and RBCs in dinosaurs and DNA in amber entombed insects. Jason Lisle predicted the the James Webb Space Telescope would find mature stars and galaxies deep in space, before it was launched and so far this is what the data is showing to the astonishment of the Big Bangers. Scientists at ICR have tested their own YEC hypothesis in a RATE study looking at helium in deep, hot zircons and found an actual diffusion rate that is so high, that no helium should remain given the supposed age of the rocks.
We are bombarded on every side by evolutionary assumptions from cradle to grave such that it becomes difficult not to accept their dogma even for Christians. Dinosaurs have become a meme for evolution even though there are human depictions of them that predate Darwin. When you add the presence of soft tissues, and C 14, it begs for an explanation that is rational.
Deep time is the magical black box that allows time and chance to make everything and to challenge it is to try to touch the pupil of the eye of materialists.
@All About Britain coming from an atheist we should take that as a compliment. Lol
@All About Britain it doesn't bring it into disrepute. It draws people to the bible narrative and you don't like that. That is why you don't like young earth creationism.
@All About Britain our worldview is that God exists and he is revealed through his word. Your worldview suggests the opposite so they will always be in conflict. If you think you are going to change our beliefs in God by coming here and attacking it, you are sadly mistaken. God has proven himself to us, so there is no need to even try.
@All About Britain the churches in decline are already prophecied in the bible. Jesus said this would happen. Why? Because of the increase in evil. Not because "all about Britain" thinks that the bible isn't true and it's all mythology.
This is called the "great falling away." You see nothing takes God by surprise.
Answers in Genesis does great work. Jeanson is a revelation with his data. I still plan to get his prior book for laymen, lol. I'm behind! This guy's is a prolific revolution in science himself! I have learned that I'm a young earth creationist. Answers in Genesis and scientists and others there have helped me weigh the data and draw that conclusion. Love Behe's irreducible complexity. Loved Demski's book too. The intelligent design scientists are blowing the naturalist evolution scientists away as well.
awesome,been looking forward to this doctor
Science done honestly is what led me to believe the bible and come to Christ, and all the moral arguments for and against were resolved through knowledge and understanding. If I find something I don't understand/disagree/doubt/dislike I now know not to doubt the word but my knowledge or understanding is the one at fault, so I study all arguments and the word and the science with a questioning method until I clearly see the truth.
@The Rick you can't cite one study, all you can do is make an asserted claim it has been demonstrated. Put down the x-men comic and show us something that doesn't result in deformity or simple variation of genetic expression, because that's as far as science has actually been able to demonstrate in decades long studies.
@The Rick I think you missed my point about the flaws in evolution. If not then, who is being the hypocrit? Not the one restating the flaws, you gave me no flaws in my argument just an assertion of what you believe. Ad hominem noted and as an adult ignored as invalid
@The Rick you're missing the fact it's not a fact and has zero data to support it. Just a lot of handwaving and imagination. It doesn't qualify as a scientific theory it is at best an unproven hypothesis. It is wholly a philosophy not science
Thank you! Wonderful to have something short I can post to show the wider community what is going on here, and how the evolution scientists are NOT disproving it! Off to post it on social media publicly!
We are all so blessed, those of us who know that God's word is truth, I would hate to be so smart and yet be so clueless..
All Hail King JESUS
If we have a solution to two crown questions, firstly: Does the political mainstream follow science, or is it: the reverse case?
We have to remember that there is no main stream until it is created through information (valid or invalid)to the masses which gains followers. If you are caught up in either side of this struggle, Jesus Christ can free you from both sides with a relationship with him which sounds foolish to most but when God shows you the future and it actually happens several times over (because you ask Him each day) then a transformation of understanding happens.
Thank you for your amazing work.
Thanks Nate, your work is great, I always wrestled with the timeline in Gen. 10, spot on. Ive been fascinated with your books since your 1st appearance on AIG. Keep it up, God is doing Great things with you. Praise Jesus ! ❤
PS, loose the Bill Nye bow tye..
Wonderful video and evidence that stands on its own proofs. Praise our Lord Jesus for your ground breaking research, Romans 10:9-10.
There has never been a shred of evidence for the existence of a god. Not from your favorite god and not from all those other gods either. The only thing that works is the scientific method, whether you like it or not. Jehovah's Witnesses have also been claiming since 1914 that the end of the world is near and here we are, over 100 years later. Faith, the word says it all, is based on faith alone. Science is based on evidence. The Bible provides as much "evidence" as Harry Potter.
@Dance nation "never been a shred of evidence for the existence of a god" Yet you are the one invading our space proving Romans 2:15 accurate. You want proof study the history of the nation of Israel, only the true GOD could perform that miracle, study Romans 10:9-10 or suffer the consequences, it is totally up to you.
@@markrobinson9384 You study from books that provide information about events that actually happened and are therefore also verified. The Bible only contains claims of events. Even worse, supernatural occurrences. In other words, magic.
The arrogant attitude that your god is the only true one is absurd. Animism is the oldest religion in the world and originated because people sought explanations for things they did not understand at the time. It is no different with your god. Those who believe in Christ can already disagree with each other, which is why there are Catholics and Protestants, for example.
Of all the many beliefs in the world, would you have the only correct one? Maybe you should study a little better yourself and not just accept everything you were taught in the past. A sane person wants nothing to do with that hate monger. And rightly so!
We all know that God’s time is perfect. Sometimes we want that results com fast to prove to others what we claim.
But, God doesn’t work that way. His timing is perfect. And the time of creation science, real science has come for His glory.😊
Nothing can’t stop it now. Only God can and I assume He won’t.
So, keep it up Dr. Jeanson, this is for His Glory.
So good! thank you
I've been questioning evolutionist on that once I understood what modern science was...
Here's the bottom line... They can't even agree on a number. So, how can they adopt an idea that has only one number
A link to your other TH-cam page would be helpful.
Thanks for your analysis. Crazy world these days!
Bottom line: IF the evolutionists are right, who cares? Doesn't that only suggest that we came to exist by accident, exist for no real purpose, and are only destined for destruction-to cease from existing? If that is the case, why do the evolutionists/secular humanists/atheists kick so hard against the goads and gnash with their teeth so? (Acts 9:5, 7:54) I think the Bible provides us with a few possible explanations... (John 3:19-20, Romans 1:18-22, 2:14-15)
Buzz Aldrin talks about population growth since the moon landings . I speculated from that the same graph shape. I was astonished.
Yes good video👍but we must always remember to share the gospel with love and respect. Cause even with this some will try to explain it away. We’re not fighting or trying to win a debate with them we’re trying to show them that evolution is full of errors and share the gospel that’s what I love about Answers in Genesis they said it’s not about winning the debate it’s about sharing the truth. Any way God bless you all.
AMEN. Nobody is debated into heaven!
@@Diniecita true. Information is good but only faith leads to salvation. The only thing information can do is help break down the walls of stubbornness but the cure for stubbornness is humility.
Yes, they will explain it away just like they have with genders, there are only two but they insist on their being many more genders! However when people get gender reassignment surgery, once again there are only two options! The medical world 🌎🙏🏻 has gone insane! Satan 👹 is the Master of Mayhem and CHOAS!
But, if you don't debate them with truth and facts, how can you break through the walls of stubbornness to share the Gospel? Yes, of course, we are to share the Gospel at all times with everyone, but as Paul said, "I am made all things to all, that I might by all means save some." (1 Corinthians 9:22)
For some people's sake, we must become debaters.
@@pugnaciousnoobeginnings8997 I have learned in life, that the only way a person is receptive to the gospel is after they have been through a hardship of some kind. If you're humble, you become teachable! 💜🌷🌸🙏🏻🌎
Ok you had my attention in the first 26 seconds! Let's go! 🤔🙏✝️
Ignorant people are easily convinced.
@@TheDancefreak35 so anyone who doesn't share your worldview is ignorant? You seem to not be able to accept the fact that not everyone in the world is going to share your opinion.
Mat 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.
@@akkafietje137 And guess what, you are one of those few. Just like everyone else.
@@TheDancefreak35 Since when is a few equal to many ?
Thank you Sir!
Awesome Dr. Jenson! Amazing work and interesting evolutionary response. Love to hear more about your methodology, I see the Y chromosome, I hear the 3 errors per generation, realizing the gigantic scale of the numbers of genetic variables I am still confused about your methodolgy.
Why is your work not convincing any of the evolutionary scientists that believe in God? How could anyone that understands evolution not be convinced by your argumentation??
Awesome point...
The answer is that Dr. Jeanson makes extremely basic errors, things that undergraduates in evolution would be expected to get right.
Firstly your premis is false. Many have switch over to YEC due to evidence persuading them. It's just after they do they get dismissed as a loon. The only way that wouldn't happen is if the overwhelming majority of the scientific establishment switch over at the same time. Which has literally never happened with anything ever. New theories grow more accepted as new generations enter the fray, a d older propnets retire, and die off.
@@anthonypolonkay2681
"many have switched over to YEC"....
Please provide evidence for this claim.
@@Jewonastick one right off the top of my head is john Sanford. He was your standard evolutionist for most of his life, and career, until late in it various evidences he was encountering in his genetics career led him to question most of those assumptions and ultimately he became a YEC.
Another less related to the topic one is an astronomer named Adam sandage (I think I got that Las name right) again most of his career believed in the standard cosmogany of the secular world. 13 billion year old universe and all that, but throughout his profession he encountered things that didn't make sense except In the biblical framework,so he eventually dropped his atheism, and became a Christian.
Now obviously I don't keep a personal record book pf all the examples I ever hear of. So you'll need to be satisfied with a few.
But there are plenty who do see the evidence and switch accordingly. But like I did in my first comment it comes with the consequence of being kicked out of the proverbial club so to speak. Both of the examples I just gave suffered massive ridicule from their colleges after switching sides, and it became quite difficult for them to get anything cooperatively done in their fields afterwards.
This bleeds into the explanation of why it isn't more people converting over in the scientific spheres. It's because they put their careers in jeopardy by doing so. Both Sandford, and sandage were already very venerated in their fields by the time the switched over, and they till got hit pretty hard. If you think some no name underdog scientist without a titans portfolio of citations, and achievements could survive the backlash like sandage, and Sandford did then you are wrong.
Anyone without a ton of tenure will pretty much lose everything they worked for, so they don't risk it, they stay yes men to the established paradigm.
Everyone needs to see this! This is Golden!
Let's not confuse operational and historical science. "Falsifiability" only applies to operational science, and this discussion is firmly in the realm of historical science, where nothing is actually falsifiable.
@All About Britain You are misinformed. I suggest you read my article, "Examining the usage and scope of historical science".
I hope Answers in Genesis takes a look at InspiringPhiliosophy's position of theistic evolution and does a video on it. It would be interesting.
The Darwinists look at theological evolutionists as chumps.
The pro-creationist evidence keeps mounting!!!
@@Bomtombadi1 so how much evolutionary nonsense do you consume a day? Out of curiosity
@@Bomtombadi1 Nonsense? Is that what you label stuff you don't like?
Yep
No it doesn't. Even if you were to disprove the Theory of Evolution (which you obviously can't, or you'd be on the front page of every scientific journal in the world), that's still a far cry from proving creationism.
@@joshuakohlmann9731 "you'd be on the front page of every scientific journal" no you wouldn't. Proof? Creationist have already disproven it and that hasn't happened. Evolution is a religion.
The fact that it's even possible to present an argument like this based on a Biblical worldview, should make unbelievers think twice about their presuppositions.
Most of them are not even aware of their presuppositions.
Speaking of which... "in a scientific sense, there can be no evidence for supernatural creation." The guy flat out says it! They dismiss the notion of anything other than nature, due to their a-priori commitment to naturalism, even though we know naturalism is impossible. The naturalists have far more faith then the creationists-as the naturalists believe DESPITE the evidence. 😥🙏
@@Bomtombadi1
Regarding your Darwinian faith? Simple, there is no one iota of empirically verifiable science that demonstrates that common ancestry of all living things is even possible, let alone true. What we actually observe is the OPPOSITE of what your faith requires. It's that simple.
@@allaboutbritain3367
Utter nonsense? How do you know that?
@@Bomtombadi1
The presup is that you know nothing? That's not true... And you are correct, nature is all you can study-and so you remain silent on the more fundamental questions, such as origins. (Even though you have a fairy-story to tell about that as well-that isn't supported by science.)
@17:32 " rate consistent in the past?", that's the very thing that evolutionist have refused to consider when their own models are in question, eg, sudden catastrophic events.
As people come to accept extraterrestrial life exists, it stands to reason that a superior intelligence has seeded life on Planet earth …., A Creater that like a scientist monitors and minimally controls us. He also communicates with us ,for those who wish to tune In !!
Wonderful thanks! Thank God for this wonderful channel!
This is substance... from "Theories", we finally move on to "FACTS" !
Theories are facts. You don't know what the word "theory" means. During math at school you also get math according to theory because it works and has been tested. This applies to all disciplines. Don't pretend to think critically because that's the last thing a Christian does.
@@TheDancefreak35 From Livescience's website: "In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists' explanations and interpretations of the facts."
If theories are facts, then why are theories regularly disproven? Disproven theories include the heliocentric theory of the structure of the universe (that the Sun is the center of the universe), The theory of phrenology (that study of the skull can indicate mental and personality traits), or the miasma and humor theories (accepted explanations for the cause and spread of disease before germ theory.).
Are those too old? How about Einstein's theory of a static universe? Or, the recently disproven (or at least radically altered and amended) theory of Cerebrospinal fluid diffusion to remove waste products from the brain with the discovery of lymphatic structures in the brain (that were thought not to exist until 2015).
Might want to try thinking a little more critically.
@@arichutfles9550 The essence of science is that it is always open to improvement. You talk (copy) about a scientific approach from a period (1917) when science was not as advanced as it is now. Later Einstein also admitted that he was wrong (you will not see that with Christians). Theories are models that work for what they were developed for, but are always open to improvement to be able to calculate things even more accurately.
You have copied a lot without carefully reading what it is actually about. You're missing out because you didn't fully read Einstein's misinterpretation in 1917.
As for the rest of the article, you have no idea what you are talking about. You just copied and pasted it without reading it.
Again, science is indeed sometimes wrong, but by further research they come to better and more reliable conclusions. That's what science is.
That still doesn't mean there is a god. It never appears in the list of possible options.
Next time read what it says and not what you think it says.
I am so glad I am not an atheist anymore! the FACTS are overwhelming to abandon it!
@@therick363 scientific, mathematic and historical facts counter it
The sad thing is that so many evangelical teachers capitulated to the evolutionist timeline because they believed in scientism rather than revelation given by God. God explicitly says there was an evening and a morning for each day with an ordinal number before each day. Jesus said they were created male and female from the beginning. Everything was created according to its own kind and so it is. To this day, everything procreates according to its own kind. Yet Christians decided to create a gap or a day age to accommodate evolutions assumptions. Peter said that in the last days men will deny the flood and so it it is. Men believe death came before sin. Jesus likened his return to the days of Noah and Sodom and Gomorrah. Jesus affirmed Moses and did not correct one jot or tittle.
The last thing that evolution will ever yield is deep time because that is their magic box yet there are so many rate processes that are going against their paradigm.
No real transitional fossils, no process to explain the abrupt Cambrian explosion, no mechanism for creating information, no answer for a pathway for abiogenesis, no answer for the beginning of a finely tuned universe… yet the evolutionists claim the evolution is falsifiable despite that evolution is treated as axiomatic.
Isn’t it interesting that although God explicitly says it was a day, morning and evening, and He does this knowing that He does not report creation of the sun and moon until a few sentences (and days) later, believers cannot accept, or even worse, have to go around thinking their Creator must have got this bit confused or mucked up or whatever. I have no idea how The Creator measured a day when the solar bodies weren’t in spin, but I have no idea how some things that weren’t, like time, like space, like matter, like atoms, like metals and gases and liquids and carbon came into being. The tragedy of it all, there is no credible explanation for it all, outside of the detailed narrative in the first few books of Genesis.
Fact of the matter is they would rather please man than God. That is why they compromise. We either take God at his word or man's word.
@@stephenbell-booth2648
Wouldn't a day have been what it is today-a single rotation of the earth?
@@Bomtombadi1 Until such time as evolution has an answer to anything, I would be more measured in what I call BS if I were you. I have been reading evolution literature and assumptions as well as critiques of macroevolution for decades and I have never seen so much equivocation, oversimplification, wild extrapolation, and outright deceit as origins science. One must essentially assume that either the finely tuned universe caused itself or something outside of time and space, greater than matter and energy caused it. It wasn’t until the 1930s that cosmologists had to deal with a universe that had a beginning but the first sentence of Genesis says that it did. Genesis says that everything was made according to its own kind and that is what the fossils, developmental biology, and breeding show.
One does not necessarily have to believe in God to know that 1. Evolution is in crisis and 2. materialism fails to explains all phenomena like metaphysics, numbers, art, music, consciousness, or a foundation for ethics.
Until such time as evolution can explain the origin of the universe, origin of life, or how natural selection acts on chemicals before life, I will stick with a creator and real science, not the metaphysical naturalism of evolutionary origins.
@@Bomtombadi1 you won't believe it regardless of what anyone says. You aren't fooling anybody.
Well done.
I was wondering how much longer their lies were going to last
now that True Science has shown Light on them
Your work stands on its own and you will be noted in history as the expert that changed the velocity of evolutionary science.
Yeah, can't wait to see his first peer reviewed scientific paper..... Oh wait
And he no doubt be awarded the Nobel Prize
@@Jewonastick Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson research has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and has been subject to scrutiny and evaluation by other experts in the field. This is an important part of the scientific process, as it ensures that the research is accurate, reliable, and free from bias.
Dr. Jeanson's research has focused on a variety of topics, including the genetic diversity of different populations, the origins of species, and the age of the earth. His research has used a combination of genetic and statistical analyses to answer these questions.
One example of Dr. Jeanson's research is his work on the genetic diversity of different populations. He has shown that genetic differences between populations are much smaller than previously thought, and that these differences can be accounted for by common ancestry rather than by separate origins. This research has been viewed as accurate by the scientific community because it has been published in peer-reviewed journals, and because other researchers have been able to replicate his findings.
Overall, Dr. Jeanson's research can be viewed as accurate to the scientific community because it has been subject to rigorous evaluation and scrutiny, and because it has been published in reputable scientific journals. While there may be debates or disagreements about specific findings, the scientific community generally accepts that Dr. Jeanson's work has met the standards of scientific research.
Source: chatgtp
@@RobShutt357
"Dr. Jeanson's research can be viewed as accurate to the scientific community"
Dr. Jeanson thinks that the world is 6000 years old......
He's an insult to science.
Great work!
So your critics are saying that you’re in error because you assume the mutation rate has stayed constant throughout the past. Isn’t that exactly what evolutionists do when they use radiometric testing on rocks and fossils? They can’t have it both ways.
I'm attempting to find Dr. Jeanson's new youtube channel he mentioned in this video but it does not show up in a search using his name. Anyone know why that may be?
Your work is awesome Dr. Jeanson. Thank you for proving scientifically that God is and that appears to be what the evolutionists cannot agree with or they will lose their anti-God way of life.
You cant prove gods scientifically. Science has no mechanism for investigating the supernatural. It is literally incapable
claire etc: Go and watch the Creation Myths channel where Dr Cardinale explains Jeanson's errors. The irony of you comment "... cannot agree with or they will lose their anti-God way of life" is astonishing. Jeanson is OBLIGED to spin these stories as long as he wishes to work for this organisation. That should give you pause for thought.
Evolution is essentially a religion. It has been disproven over and over again and yet they hold onto it.
@All About Britain evolution is a myth and religious folklore. When Jesus comes back they will have to rewrite it all.
@All About Britainapparently their peers are too busy denying the evidence against them because they don't want to accept defeat and the possibility that they may spend eternity in hell.
When evolution gets a tax free status, let me know.
@@stevenbatke2475 that's your evidence for scientific truth, eh? About as good as a supposed "neanderthal tooth."
@@therick363 it wouldn't be a scientific theory? Or maybe the scientific community is so biased towards it that no matter what evidence comes out against it they will hold onto it. Anything they can do to deny God.
PRAISE GOD!!! ANOTHER Jesus Revolution!!!🙌🙌🙌
I am so glad to find you. I have been researching on and off about debunking evolution. And the more sources the better. Thank you for doing this.
@@therick363 No need to debunk evolution….there isn’t any actual evidence
I'm pretty sure the core principle, the literal foundation, of biology and genetics, is not going to go away just because certain people, due to their personal beliefs, think it isn't real.
Any change in the inherited traits or characteristics of a population of organisms through successive generations is evolution.
Agriculture, medicine.. the hard work conducted by evolutionary biologists is what has led to, and leads to, many advancements in these and other areas that affect all of our lives.
Give me a heads up when Nathaniel goes through the proper channels and publishes his work in a relevant science journal.
I got Traced for my birthday and absolutely loved it. I wanted more!
Get Replacing Darwin. Or watch his 2020 video series "new history of the human race." I agree, I love reading about these discoveries and I want more.
@@maxpeck1962I have the book, and it's my next read. I watched all the videos too!
@@globalcoupledances Was the review written before or after Herman Mays did a debate with Jeanson? Because I watched the debate and it was embarrassingly obvious Herman Mays had not actually read the book he was debating.
@@globalcoupledances How convenient. 🙄 He already lost his credibility by then.
@@globalcoupledances Jeanson *is* a scientist. Unless you are using the logical fallacy definition of scientist = only scientists who believe evolution.
Has Dr. Jeanson shown that the father-son mutation rate and the long-term substitution rate have the same value? Otherwise, the whole hypothesis falls apart.
He has not. Direct tests of that hypothesis have repeatedly shown the opposite.
The long term substitution rate is derived from extrapolating the (supposed) time between humans, and chimpanzees diverging. If in part of the question being begged is whether, or not we did come from a common ancestor with chimps then you can't use a rate that relies on assuming that to be true. The pedigree mutation rates are observable irregardless of any given theory on origin. Long term substations rates, are not.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 That’s not accurate. There are a number of studies based on recent, known divergence dates, some of which are as recent as just a century or two, but still show a slower substitution rate. Dr. Jeanson himself highlighted two such studies in Traced. If you go to my channel and watch the response to this video that we’re commenting on, I provide references for seven or eight such studies.
@@CreationMyths hmm. I'm a tad confused then. Because doesn't the substitution rate mean the complete replacement of a given allele in a given population? I obviously haven't read the studies you'll provide yet, but having an allele completely substituted in any given population of anything in just a century, or two sounds like its wrong.
You'd have to have such a small, geographically close population to accomplish that, that by that point it isn't a good analog to anything with any real population, or diversity.
Besides that we haven't even known about the DNA molecule proper for even 100 years yet. Whatever methods these studies used will have had to use assumed divergence times rather than an actively observed event. Which if that is the case then we're back to the original problem of assuming the conclusion to justify dimisal of the pedigree rates in favor of substitution rates.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 Strongly recommend you start with a more introductory source, but here are some references that are relevant (obviously I can't post links):
Soodyall et al. 1998, "The founding mitochondrial DNA lineages of Tristan da Cunha Islanders"
Friedlaender et al. 2005, "Expanding Southwest Pacific mitochondrial haplogroups P and Q"
Merriwether et al. 2005, "Ancient mitochondrial M haplogroups identified in the Southwest Pacific"
Soares et al. 2009, "Correcting for Purifying Selection: An Improved Human Mitochondrial Molecular Clock"
Xue et al. 2009, "Human Y chromosome base-substitution mutation rate measured by direct sequencing in a deep-rooting pedigree"
Fu et al. 2013, "A revised timescale for human evolution based on ancient mitochondrial genomes"
King et al. 2014, "Identification of the remains of King Richard III"
Helgason et al. 2015, "The Y-chromosome point mutation rate in humans"
The key thing here as that all of these rely on groups with known, documented divergence times, either via family histories or recent human history. Timeframes, I will note, that are well within the YEC timeframe. For example, we know when the island of Tristan da Cunha was settled - about 1816. We can look at the current descendants of those original settlers (it was uninhabited before then) and calculate the rate at which mutations accumulate in those lineages. Despite being only about 200 years, we see a rate of accumulation that is significantly *slower* than the per-generation mutation rate Dr. Jeanson relies on.
You can also check my channel - I've covered this in a bit of detail, and even tested Jeanson's mutation rate directly by comparing the actual mutation accumulation in an island population with Jeanson's predicted number based on the pedigree mutation rates, and Jeanson's prediction was too high by at least a factor of 5, and at worst a factor of 60.
So you know, You Tube is checking the suitability of this video before publishing. I'm trying to subscribe to the channel and I get taken back to Answers in Genesis.
This channel is Answers in Gensis. It must have originally been posted on another channel or website.
'Evolutionists have a holy book that you can't question'
LOL, pure projection right from the start. Beautiful..
..and, 'evolutionist'..??
Read science revealed by Danny Nemu a fantastic insight into how humans cling to idea and don't want them challenged ... It's a super easy and interesting read
Correction for 26:30 or so: the textbook reference is for the *figure* on that slide. I’m referencing the book the figure came from. The argument is not from that book. I’m just referencing the picture there. The argument is based on other references provided, not the source on that particular slide.
Also, it’s “Stern Cardinale”. Two words. That’s my last name.
Good one ☝️just what I was looking for! ❤
Why is the evolutionist text book wrong? What research does the textbook use to prove that you can't overlay genealogy and phylogeny? Is it simply because of the need to preserve an old earth paradigm or is it because there are actual scientific reasons that the conflation can not be made. You need to discuss why the evolutionist textbook is wrong.
Wishful thinking of creationists knows no limit:)
Wishful thinking does not come wrapped in scientific evidence....
woooow thanx
From a young age I have believed in Jesus, the creator ..I've not paid much attention to the secular explanations. Yes, it is faith based. I can't put my faith in a scientist that has no power to save my soul and spirit. God's word was, is, and always will be true. If you're still on the fence please come down on the side of Jesus. As a great man once said "What have you got to lose?"
I would have a lot to lose.... Like my common sense, my rationality, my skeptism, my understanding of science, my ability to reason.
All that in exchange of something completely useless namely "faith"?
Nah, Im good.
Does the text book which the evolutionists cite in turn cite other sources such as published experiments or is it fully dogmatic in its assertion that “you can’t conflate genealogy with phylogeny. Thankyou.
@@allaboutbritain3367 well apparently he did.
GOD sent!😊
It isn't about enough evidence for Creation; there's more evidence than needed...it's about John 3:18-19 they love their sin more and deny the Truth!
All the evidence needed has already been given, seen, and understood!
John 8:24 makes it clear...they will die (eternity in Hell) in their sins.
Jeremiah 31:31-33 GOD has written His law on everyone's hearts.
Romans 1:18-22 man has purposely ignored/rejected Truth.
Romans 10:16-21 everyone has heard and made a conscious decision to reject that they are sinners and they have already been judged John 3:18-19 and refusing to repent.
The LORD Jesus Christ the Righteous Judge...Revelation 20:11-15
The bible is not evidence so if quoting a fairy book is all you have then you have problems
Don't tell me about this...take the Bible and prove it wrong!
It's still the only Book that the Author is still alive from over 1,500 years, by over 40 writers.
Again, John 3:18-19 proves my point.
You can test gravity where you're sitting by remaining seated.
So the question is, from where did God create life? What ingredients were used to create life? That's what is going to be amazing to find out in Heaven
From a science standpoint this is ridiculous! Lol
You don’t think people evolving from monkeys is ridiculous?
Yes! Keep making videos. Love your hard work.
Also, the same thing the guy was saying that you can’t do, he then does for the testing of dna in evolution.
The Catholic Church always taught the historical accuracy of Genesis 1-11 and condemned Creative or Theistic evolution, which requires millions of years of death, deformity, and disease, but these only came after the Fall of Adam and Eve. But I think Pius XII (1939-58), who was a good and holy pope, had his encyclical Humani Generis "edited" by enemy infiltrators who surrounded him, including the future Antipope Paul VI (1963-78), a NWO asset, in par. 36 to open the door for the now almost universal teaching of Creative Evolution over billions of years among apostate Catholics in the counterfeit Vatican II church, under the control of the traditional enemies of Christ. The traditional Catholics (pre-1958 enemy takeover; see White Smoke 1958) reject evolution and believe in a young earth, as the Bible, authoritative Church teaching from the beginning, and true science show.
The idea of the Big Bang first appeared in scientific form in 1931, in a paper by Georges Lemaître, a Belgian cosmologist and Catholic priest. The theory, accepted by nearly all astronomers today, was a radical departure from scientific orthodoxy in the 1930s. So you are sorely mistaken.
My “religion” is truth. If it’s not true, I don’t want any part of it. The geology that we have of five mega sequences of consecutive water deposited sediment layers over a mile deep with fossils in them around the world on every continent necessitates a global flood catastrophe. I know that hurts the belief of every other made up alternate narrative. It just happens to be a fact that we are all the descendants of those who stepped off of the Ark in the area around Mesopotamia.
You can’t argue with known human history or ancient calendars going back only 5,000 years. The ancient civilizations are all descended from Noah who had sixteen grandsons that became the sixteen ancient the civilizations each with their own paternal haplogroup lineage.
1) Tubal Italy K,
2) Javan Greek sea people T,
3) Tiras Thracians L,
4) Magog Asian O,
5) Meshek Siberians N,
6) Madai Medes Q,
7) Gomer Europeans R,
8) Arphaxad Arabs Hebrews I&J,
9) Elam Elamites H,
10) Asshur Assyrians G,
11) Aram Arameans F
12) Lud Lydians F2,
13) Cush Cushites A B & C.
14) Phut early Phoenicians E1,
15) Canaan Canaanites E2,
16) Mitzrayim Egyptians E3,
D is likely the Sinite tribe from Canaan.
C is the descendants of Nimrod since they can’t possibly be from anyone else.
Neanderthals are Japhethites and Denisovans are a mix of Japhethites and Hamites, not Semitic. It shows up on DNA maps and charts. Every grandson of Noah and their descendants have their own paternal Y chromosome haplogroup lineage! I can name all sixteen of them like I just did and give you each of their haplogroups!
The evolutionary out of Africa claim is exactly backwards since the *oldest* progenitor is Japheth the ancestor of Eurasians then the Semitic populations of Shem and then the Hamitic African progenitor is the youngest progenitor with their eldest sons connecting the three different families descended from the three sons of Noah.
It took me a while to understand that the evolutionary claim is assuming that SNP markers are being gained forming the stair steps out of Africa when *the reality is* that the original SNP markers cited are in fact being lost forming the opposite stair steps out of West Asia as known human history shows.
The stair step out of Africa claim has to be addressed because the SNP markers are real evidence but the evolutionary assumption is exactly backwards.
The correct view requires that the older most original genomes of the Japhethites be connected to the Semitics by way of the eldest son of Shem which is Arphaxad (IJ). Arphaxad’s descendants can share the (IJK) SNP marker with the descendants of his uncle Japheth while the descendants of his younger brothers do not share that same (IJK) SNP.
You have to root the tree with Japheth the oldest son of Noah and then the oldest son of Shem (IJ Arphaxad) and then Elam and then Asshur and then the youngest brothers Aram and Lud. So you have to begin with the *most original* Y chromosome of Noah’s oldest son Japheth and then the changes occur in the people who were born later. It’s not necessarily a stair step of descendency. It’s changes in the Y chromosome with time. *Arphaxad isn’t descended from Japheth.* He just shares a marker with his uncle that his father used to have when he was born. Shem then lost the marker when Arphaxad’s younger brothers were born.
The descendants of Shem are then connected to the descendants of Ham by way of Nimrod the King (C) the the eldest son of Cush who is the eldest son of Ham. So the Hamitic CF (xD&E) paternal haplogroup SNP marker was lost to the *odd ones out* and less original younger brothers and cousins verifying the Table of Nations outlined in Genesis.💥 Learn the Bible before trying to learn anything else.
It’s also noteworthy that the D paternal haplogroup lines up with the E2 haplogroup of Canaan which is his son’s tribe of Sinim the Biblical namesake of China. So the only Hamitic haplogroups outside of Africa are the C of Nimrod and the D of the Canaanite tribe of Sinim which is still there in Andaman, Tibetan, Mongolian, Chinese and Japanese areas today.
The earth isn’t flat and neither is the universe flat in regard to the rate of time and the measure of distance. This is a big deal because there is no single rate of the passing of time and there is no single measure of distance in the universe. Billions of years can pass by in between galaxies while mere thousands of years pass by where we are near a supermassive black hole besides the fact that distance is expanded in between galaxies causing redshift and it means that the distances aren’t as far mathematically as some scientists believe.
Acceleration slows down time near a gravitational well. Gravity is everywhere except that between gravitational wells in deep outer space there is much less acceleration to slow down time. It means time goes by at a very fast pace in deep outer space between gravitational wells where there is much less acceleration.
Instead of invoking dark matter and dark energy, do some thought experiments in general relativity and you will understand that the rate of time and the measure of distance are relative to the amount of matter and mass there is in the vicinity. The speed of light C literally depends on these two variables of time and distance.
Distances within the galaxies are vast so when we observe another galaxy, we are literally observing differing rates of time and differing measures of distance, still within the limits inside other galaxies, not to mention the *extreme* distances outside *between* galaxies where there is much much less “acceleration” which ironically accelerates the passing of time and expands the measure of distance.
The result is that you are seeing differing speeds of light relative to your observation *over great distances* from galaxy to galaxy since the measures of time and distance are both dependent on the amount of matter (mass) and gravity there is in the vicinity. (The speed of light isn’t actually changing, the measures of time and distance are changing *which effectively changes the speed of light as we observe it over GREAT distances.)* That’s what causes gravitational lensing too.
The result is that distance is greatly expanded (not expanding) where there is no matter between us and distant galaxies (causing redshift) eliminating the need for dark energy and the movement of the outer spiral arms at the edges of galaxies are at a faster rate of time and a larger measure of distance causing them to move faster as we observe them eliminating the need for dark matter. This also means that plasma jets shooting out from the centers of a galaxies are NOT moving seven times the speed of light. It’s that the distance is expanded AND the rate of time is faster the less *matter* there is in the vicinity.
There is no such thing as a nonsensical infinitely expanding universe faster than the speed of light or an imaginary inflaton and there is no such thing as magical invisible dark matter to coalesce hydrogen into being stars and galaxies.
Distance is *merely* greatly expanded between the black holes in galaxies (causing the redshift) so the universe is not infinitely expanding as is believed and claimed. Not only is distance greatly expanded where there is no matter between galaxies, time runs at a much faster rate where there is much less acceleration. *Both the expansion of distance and the increased rate of time have to be taken into account.*
*It’s what allows for us to see fully formed distant galaxies in the infrared spectrum in the first place.*
I can also tell you about the tectonic plate movement! The continents broke apart 100 years after the global flood as the Bible says. Animals were separated by the split between South America and Africa. The Jaguar and the leopard, the eagles, possums and opossums, the tapirs, the greater grison and the honey badger and crocodiles were all separated by the breakup of the continents.
Sediment layers and the fossils buried by the global flood line up perfectly between the continents. Glacial striations go from south to north in India on top of the sediments deposited by the global flood as well as in South America, Africa and Australia. Animals and entire ecosystems in the north that were shoved into the Arctic were quick frozen in some places and buried by tsunamis from a rise in sea level in other places as result of the breakup and the continents moving north from the centrifugal force of the spinning earth.
The people never made it to South America from Africa as the animals did in the first 100 years because they were too busy trying to build Nimrod’s Tower of Babel. That’s when the earth was divided according to the Bible and the name Peleg was given to the ancestor of Abraham because the word Peleg means divided in Hebrew. However in the later Aramaic, the word Peleg came to mean: “as the waters flow” (between the continents).
The truth is so much better than fiction.
Energy and matter prove the existence of a Creator that is not contingent or dependent on any physical thing that He made. That’s because energy and matter cannot make or direct themselves. So the existence of matter and energy AND the billions of bits of written programming inside of us ordering us to be humans instead of chinchillas or something else proves the existence of an all powerful all knowing eternal Creator of the fabrication our limited measurable quantifiable time and space.
Has someone done the math to figure out the relativistic effects on light? How close would one have to be to the black hole to experience thousands versus billions of years?
@@haggismcbaggis9485 That’s part of the problem is that in between galaxies there’s no way to measure the rate of time or the measure of distance and no one has ever been there.
However whenever there is a way to calculate the changes in measurements, they invoke dark energy and dark matter instead. The faster moving outer spiral arms is the result of both a faster rate of time and a larger measure of distance. Likewise the plasma jets that shoot out of the center of galaxies is another observation of the differing measures of time and distance. You can almost visualize the changing rates of time and changing measures of distance so they should be able to work out the math. Good question!
The Bible says that a day is like a thousand years and they just discovered that the earth is closer to the center of the Milky Way galaxy than originally thought.
Very logical and interesting... you could write a book! There are in fact many variables...just think that if the earth revolved around the sun 10 times more, then our time would be different too and a year would only last a few weeks! Furthermore, if the size and therefore the gravity were also different, then everything would change too! Thanks for your comprehensive comment.
@@JungleJargon How do you know that model is correct and Lambda-CDM is incorrect?
@@francescoc9976 Absolutely!
Ask dog breeders what is the prediction accuracy that breeding dogs not only with the same breed but the mixing of breeds, what is the likelihood that the dogs genes will degrade because of the losing of the pure genes!
Overbreeding occurs when a bloodline is continuously mated, amplifying negative attributes of the breed. It also puts the dog giving birth at increased risk of issues like dystocia, difficulty in passing the foetus through the pelvic canal, when it is forced to have more litters than its body can safely handle.
Now, what is the likelihood that if we are hundreds of millions years old how we’re still thriving!
What does mixing breeds have to do with anything?
@@Bomtombadi1
Hm... And yet YOU believe that ALL living things share a common ancestor? I think you just argued against yourself. According to your mindless faith, ALL breeding is inbreeding... isn't it?
@@Jewonastick Well it cancels genes out or infuses them, causing mutations! Evidence shows that it cause ms health problems!
@@Bomtombadi1Okay I agree with that but my point is if millions of years then it is reasonable to believe we would be all the more susceptible to go extinct!
Millions of years in mutations, just look at how things have gone in just 1000’s
@@jessebryant9233 this can be debunked by the fact that there is only ONE dog breed in the world that has an inbreeding capacity above 1 because of the age of the breed and the population, and that is, ironically, the Chihuahua, the very dog breed heavily memed as an inbreeding monstrosity.
The Chihuahua can be traced back to the Aztecs royalty, and then brought to Spain. Most modern breeds can be traced back to a single ancestor back to the New World, but the reason why they are the only breed that has an inbreeding capacity above 1 (i.e. there is a very high likelihood that the Chihuahua you own can be mated with a Chihuahua with no worry for inbreeding depression) is because the population density AND the age of the breed, which is a 500 year old breed, is enough.
The average age of the modern breed is 200 years old.
If this is just how short it needs to avoid Inbreeding depression (less than 500 years old, i.e. 250 generations), yet a Chihuahua can still freely mate with other dog breeds and is still considered one 'species', then why, then, can we conclude that evolution, as it is being taught right now, will not consider the Chihuahua a subspecies of a dog?
Heck, Chihuahua has virtually checked all the boxes needed to classify it as a subspecies except one (Chihuahua can still mate with other dogs and still be able to form a fertile offspring with no complication). Meanwhile, we consider two bears 'species' that are actually capable of crossbreeding and producing fertile offspring not as a singular species, but two different species (i.e. the Grizzly Bear and the Polar Bear)?
This is why the definition of 'species' itself is being questioned altogether.
I can't find your personal channel Dr Jeanson! It didn't come up when I searched. Can you add a link to this video description?
It's in Arabic, so you may have to set your default language to Arabic.
Is the house of cards folding? Interest in facts that cannot be explained by mass media manipulation is beginning to take hold.
It is hardly a debate. It is two belief systems stating why they are the better fit for all the evidence.
Creation obviously is a more complete answer, even disregarding proofs of God inspiring scripture. (Prophecy and modern scientific knowledge that was stated in scripture, always assumed to be poetic, but turned out to be factual.)
@@Bomtombadi1
What evidence is that? Can you support your childish narrative of naturedidit at all? You said "leaps and bounds", right? Okay then...
Science isn’t a “belief system.” It’s a method of investigating the natural world through testing, demonstrating and evidence. Science is subject to change and revision.
@@Bomtombadi1 it’s nice to want things
Mostly people disregard creationism because they disregard God.
@@allaboutbritain3367
No explanation for known facts such as...? And what would be a few examples that demonstrate this "mountains of" claim you've made?
The scientists need to ask themselves, Who created the laws of gravity and physics and the language of DNA?
How did you determine that it was a Who?
I'm trying to search for your You Tube channel. You are only coming up on Answers in Genesis page.
Isn't it interesting that at this time when rejection of Christ and Christianity is rapidly increasing the evidence that supports the historical record of the bible is being revealed to us.
There is absolutely no evidence to support any Supernatural claim made in the Bible.
None, not a single thing.
@@drewdrake9130
Science can't prove supernatural claims
That's a silly statement
@@1Corinthians13.4_7
I didn't even mention the word science, I just said evidence.
Please don't misrepresent what I said
@drewdrake9130
The evidence you are talking about is evidence that can only be tested using the scientific method
Hence supernatural claims cannot be tested under your worldview
There is no misinterpretation
Let's not pretend you are not an atheist here
@@1Corinthians13.4_7
No, what you just said is completely false.
It seems you have to misrepresent people's positions, in order to have something to argue against.
Nathaniel is gold standard, but DO NOT SHARE YOUR GENOMICS WITH THE CORPORATIONS!!!! (23 and me, etc)
☆
Nice job AIG. You guys rock.
WEIRD: New episode and it was never recommended to me :( I had to search . (commenting for my algorithm)
Your gonna have to write Traced II !