The SNEAKY Tactic Evolutionists Use to Convince People They’re Right
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 มิ.ย. 2024
- There is a SNEAKY tactic evolutionists are using to convince people they’re right… In this video, Calvin Smith exposes this tactic, shares how we can spot it, and emphasizes the reliability of the biblical creation account.
Subscribe to us for more high-quality biblical videos every week.
Love our content? Help us to continue to proclaim the gospel and the authority of the Bible-from the very first verse-without compromise using apologetics by partnering with us here: answersingenesis.ca/donate
_____________
🔹 DIGGING DEEPER: Want deeper answers to your theological questions? Visit answersingenesis.org/answers
🔹 BLOG: See Calvin Smith’s weekly apologetics articles here: answersingenesis.org/blogs/ca...
🔹 FREE e-BOOK: Sign up for our email newsletter and get a free copy of Calvin’s eBook, “Fellow Biblical Creationists! - STOP Doing These 3 Things…” answersingenesis.lpages.co/fe...
🔹ANSWERS TV: Get equipped to defend the gospel of Jesus Christ and the truth of God’s Word with live and on-demand video content from Answers in Genesis, the Ark Encounter, Creation Museum, and other Ministries worldwide. Start your free trial today at www.answers.tv
_____________
SOCIAL MEDIA
🔹 Facebook: / answerscanada
🔹 Calvin Smith: / aigcalvinsmith
🔹 Instagram: / answerscanada
🔹 X (formerly Twitter): x.com/AnswersCanada
🔹 TikTok: / answersingenesisca
_____________
Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from The ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. - ยานยนต์และพาหนะ
Q: How do you call somebody with no body and no nose?
A: Nobody knows
😂
Lolol 😆
Keep the Dad jokes coming!
Shouldn't it be
Q What do you call someone with a nose but no body?
A Nobody knows.
@@rizdekd3912Knows nobody
To God be the Glory 🙌
*Man made god*
And the blame
What did u pretend ur imaginary friend did?
@@bigboreracing356 nature created evolution, we discovered it.
Amen praise God❤❤
Being a video maker myself, allow me to congratulate the video editor of this episode. Very beautiful stuff. Thanks.
*A masterful thought cave pseudo reality*
@@Pay-It_Forward God bless you Sir.
@@garudasomanna *Which One?*
@@Pay-It_Forward Jesus
@@garudasomanna *The dude who sneaked across the Tijuana river & now owns ("HEAVENLY TOUCH LANDSCAPING"), in Casa Grande??? He might get virgins pregnant, but don't think he has any supernatural powers.*
Jesus is Lord!
He's a lie and same with your entire religion
@@WhoGitDaBiscuit
Hey Moe! Hey Larry! Jesus is Loid!!
Wu-wu-WU- WUP- wu-wu-wup....
Heey, Porcupine - look at that - the kid finally got something right...!
@@johnboehmer6683 Knyuk, Knyuk, Knyuk…..
I’ve observed Richard Dawkins “evolve” from being a scientist to being an evolution spouting ideologue, does that count as observation of evolution?
No, it just proves you have an agenda and are stupid.
My gosh yes it does!! 😎🤣🤣🤣👍🙏
"Just imagine a single mutated light sensitive skin cell"🤣🤣🤣🤣
His " evolution of the eye" presentation is pure comedy genius! 😎🤣
@@jimhughes1070 Just because you are an idiot who cannot comprehend it doesn't make it wrong...
@jimhughes1070 Wow, you must be slow to have something explained and still not understand. 😂
*Evolution is a species level modification*
Another great video! Thank you for these shorts series.
@@teks-kj1nj
"DNA insertions"
Is abiogenesis part of evolution now?
@@teks-kj1nj Sounds like you’re moving the goalposts. This was indeed an excellent video, that calls out the evolutionist tactics to try to sell the misinformation that evolutionism is somehow scientific.
Evolutionists use the terms like evolution. While I agree evolutionism isn’t science, still evolutionists try to use the words and associate it with science. Did you even watch the whole video? There was an atheist that used the term “evolution”.
@@technicianbis5250-ig1zd So you never heard of retrovirus DNA insertion?. You know, that pesky fact that proves chimps and humans share a common ancestor. Coz you know, how else could chimps and humans have the same virus DNA inserted in same genome locations unless they were inserted a common parent.
And what does that have to do with Abiogenesis?
@@CiscoWes Say what? Moving what goalposts?
Are you seriously saying evolution isn't scientific?
@@teks-kj1nj Since science simply means knowledge gained by observation - testable, repeatable, OBSERVABLE things - things measured, weighed, or counted, based on this, no, evolutionism is not scientific.
Evolutionists move the goalposts when challenged regarding evolutionism.
Sneaky, sneaky. The devil is sneaky and always appears harmless. Until he bites.
So creationists are the devil? The sneakiest, most deceptive and all-around dishonest people who pretends to be harmless I know of.
YHWH, meanwhile, willjust charge in and beat you so hard that it'll be hard not to just nod your head when he tries to convince you it was for your own good.
Calvin is the wolf, buddy.
@@burnttoast2790silly rabbit... Let's get your own opinion... Do you prefer life or death 😎... Would you rather stick a small screwdriver in the socket... Or just simply lay across the 50,000 volt main lines?...
Would you rather your parents taught you good common sense... Or just let you grow up stupid? 😎
No need to pretend like you don't know the difference
But what if I'm into that? 🤔
What if I don't mind a lil' reciprocal head action with the Dark Lord? 😂
Thank you so much for standing on the authority of God's Word. Also, your editing and graphics are getting better and better and I love the lab you filmed in!
Calvin has become quite adept at polishing these creationist terds.
@@samburns3329
You do realize that your decision to come with childish insults instead of a clearly stated rebuttal of the info presented renders your credibility as nothing higher than buffoonery, correct?
@@johnboehmer6683 I wouldn't pay him much mind, he just trolls these new videos as they're posted and repeats that everyone is a "liar," he's not a threat... probably just a kid.
@@johnboehmer6683Samburns trolls Christian channels to call them names.
@@michaelg377 Michael why do you hate God?
Also known as moving the goalpost. Every time they are debunked their answer is "well that's not what we meant". Yeah, right.
Evolution hasn't ever been debunked.
The problem is you listen to people who have an agenda who constantly strawman evolution.
If you have a hypothesis that disproves evolution, get it published and it will win a Nobel Prize for science.
The difference between me and you is, I don't see that evolution and God are mutually exclusive.
There is only a problem if you have to insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Oh, and your probable need to rely on presuppositionalism.
FYI moving the goalpost is not synonymous with a strawman argument.
@@pencilpauli9442they are not mutually exclusive but in my lifetime it's always used to combat religion so logic dictates evolutionists are not our friends, typically.
@@pencilpauli9442who takes a position without presupposing beliefs?
Theists do that
@@BornAgain223
Me.
I don't have to presuppose the existence of god to form the basis of my arguments.
Nor do I need to make special pleading for a transcendent being, or leap to the conclusion that god did it to fill the big hole made by your lack of understanding and/or incredulity.
Those dad jokes 😂😂😂😂. Nice
I'm trying to remember them to entertain my grandkids with!
If Calvin wasn't so good at exposing evolutionists's lies, they wouldn't be commenting on all his videos panicking, trying to attack him and anyone who likes his videos. I wouldn't be surprised if they make multiple accounts to comment, and like their own comments.
Calvin is right because people tell him he’s wrong? You’re not too good in the think department, are you?
"if im wrong then why do you feel the need to tell me im wrong"
I'm not entirely convinced they attack these videos so aggressively because they know they're wrong. That could be the case, but what it does definitely reveal is there is absolutely agenda behind the theory, and spiritual dynamics, whether they realize it or not. Despite the fact that the theory does not disprove God, it is a stalwart tactic regularly used by atheists to attempt to discredit the Christian Bible.
@@johnboehmer6683 what is the agenda? You’ll be hard pressed to find an atheist who doesn’t believe a god exists because of evolution.
Last I checked, CALVIN is the one obsessively posting about it. CREATIONISTS are the ones attempting to say god exists by discrediting evolution.
@@Bomtombadi1 Unguided or no? And the agenda is the same as it was in the beginning “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden?’" Genesis 3:1
Good video love the start. ❤ 👍🏻👍🏻
athiests running here "to protect science" - whatever that means - while believing in hypothetical organisms is hilarious!
Pointing out creationist lies about science is done as a public service. You're welcome. 🙂
@@samburns3329 Reposted for your reconsideration: You even admitted it yourself when you said "(K/Ar) which at the time was known to invalid on dates less than 2MY." ...that must be embarrassing, but it's okay to make a mistake sometimes Sam.
Right alongside young Carbon-14 found inside of "billions of years old" diamonds, a 26K year old live snail shell, the 5.5B year old zircon which is "way too old to be accurate" lol... And your only response is an Ad-hominem attack (a logical fallacy). "Liar liar" makes the evidence go away, right? *How do you know how old these things are before you date them?*
The reason those scientists who dated that 10-year old lava dome sample were wrong is because they *incorrectly assumed* that all of the Argon in it was the product of radioactive decay from Potassium - when in reality it just inherited additional argon as it solidified. *There is no time stamp, only a quantity of 2 chemicals, and a LOT of assumptions.*
...if we can be so wrong on dating an object that we observe, then what does that tell us about dating objects from the unobservable past which we cannot observe? *And what do you do when multiple different tests all yield different "ages" on the same material - which ones do you throw out, and how do you know?*
@@samburns3329Takes one to know one! As you are also fallible humans like us, your side has liars as well.
@@usapatriot444 He trolls Christian channels to call them liars.
@@samburns3329 Why do you even care? Does your impersonal, amoral, absentee, deaf, dumb and blind universe reward your pointless and meritless mission? You're perhaps days away from being returned to dust. Enjoy this plane of existence while you can because you'll really not like your next.
Just as man is appointed to die once, and after that to face judgment" Hebrews 9:27
Keep up your good work for God's truth.
Gods truth is to lie?
Levitcus 21: 16-23 Descrimination
Deuteronomy 21:10-17 Women are just sex slaves/property
Joshua:10:1-26 Totally Unscientific
Psalm 137- WTF
Yeah God's truth alright.
Glad I'm an atheist.
If it's the truth, why the constant need to misrepresent and blatantly lie?
@@razark9 Shonk!
Must be the Satans! 😂
Ah, it's so fun mocking idiot creationists~
@@razark9 Must be the works of Satan!
The first insecticide resistant bug was a mutant. The first herbicide resistant plant was a mutant.
I don't know if that is true or not, but either way, mutation is an aspect of evolution. You all just like to pretend otherwise.
That's a huge yawn to people who watch AIG and CMI... But you don't know that probably because you don't even watch the videos you comment on. Mutations that delete DNA information, which are obviously the ones you're citing, will not turn a bacteria into a fish, ever. Mutations that add information, on the other hand, have never, I repeat, never, been observed, and are statistically virtually impossible even if given 10^100 years... I've done the math myself, and encourage you to as well. Take the DNA code length for even one complex organic molecule, such as ATP synthase, and figure out how many ways there are to arrange the number of nucleotides needed for this molecule, and figure out the minimum number of years it would take for the maximum possible number of creatures on the Earth to go through that number of possibilities through mutations, one mutation per organism per generation. Even if you just considered bacteria, the most abundant and rapidly replicating organisms on Earth, it would take a number of years that's hundreds of digits long... for one molecule, in ideal circumstances.
@OlegLankin - "Mutations ...are statistically virtually impossible even if given 10^100 years... I've done the math myself" 1/64 of mutations creates *new* information. YECists Robert Carter and Don Batten claim 100 mutations per generation. You have 1-2 new genes! The math is simple
@@OlegLankin You don't seem to understand statistics, so I don't care that you did the math yourself. No matter how great the odds are by your calculations, it doesn't prevent something from happening in a finite time.
Look at the a Powerball: your odds of winning are 1:292M. So, does that mean I need to play 292M times before I can win? No, I can win with a single try. And almost every week, someone wins. Someone almost HAS to win, because while MY odds are 1:292, the odds of SOMEONE winning are very high, given the high number of ticket sales.
So, back to your example. The odds of MY genes mutating in a beneficial way are astronomical. The odds of SOME creature's genes mutating are pretty good, considering how many living cells are on this planet.
Also, no matter how emphatically you state "Mutations that add information, on the other hand, have never, I repeat, never, been observed", it doesn't make it true. Mutations do, I repeat DO, add new information all the time. Creationists just try to define it away.
@@saintmalaclypse3217 Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers? My friend, you don't have 1:292M odds. You have 1 chance in 10^138 (a number with 138 zeroes) that our earth could form so perfectly meeting the 122 known conditions required to support life, you have 1 in 10^95 possible conformations for a single protein to form, the odds of obtaining all the enzymes required for life are 1 in 10^40,000, and at some point you also need DNA to program itself with encoded instructions for building complex machines like your eyes and cells (information elsewhere always comes from an intelligent source), and you need all the necessary cell components to form themselves inside of a cell enclosure by chance chemical reactions. It's a scientifically ludicrous Special Pleading Fallacy my friend, nothing you're preaching is actually rational here...
To put it into perspective, there are only 10^90 particles in our entire observable universe... I just don't have enough faith to believe in this Atheistic Origins mythology that nothing created everything accidentally with mathematical precision for no reason, that is scientifically ludicrous. None of this is a problem for a biblical worldview. *You need a Creator.*
*"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"* (Romans 3:23)
*"It is appointed for a man to die once, then comes Judgment"* (Hebrews 9:27)
*"No matter how large the environment one considers, life cannot have had a random beginning . . . there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)2000 = 10^40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup"* (Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (London: Dent, 1981), p. 148, 24)
"Even a single protein could not arrive at its native structure in biological real time because conformational space is far too vast": ~10^95 possible conformations for a chain of 100 residues, so that *"even a small protein that initiated folding by random search at the time of the big bang would still be thrashing about today."* (Peter Tompa and George D. Rose, "The Levinthal Paradox of the Interactome," Protein Science 20 (2011): 2074.)
*"An interactome is the whole set of non-covalent molecular interactions in a particular cell. If one merely considers all protein-protein interactome combinations in just a single yeast cell, the result is an estimated 10^79,000,000,000 combinations."* (Peter Tompa and George D. Rose, Protein Science 2011, 20, 2074-2079. Department of Structural Biology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium, and the Department of Biophysics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.)
St. Steven was stoned for telling the truth in the Acts of the Apostles. If you believe a favourite falsehood you might not like or even hate the same truth, that sets wiser people free!
Punctuation precious!! 🎉... I'm a little slow but I finally got it! 😎.. well said! 🙏🎉
@@jimhughes1070Yes if you deny evolution you are "a little slow" 😂😂😂
@@Max012
See what I mean?...
Atheist brains are so filled with "evolutionary dreams",
There's no room left for all the actual *knowledge* required to validate them...
Just enough room to squeeze in a few kindergarten insults.
That's called Empirical science... What's in your brain... Is what spills out your mouth.
"Well doctor, it appears all he knows is... Insults" 😎
If they showed you something and then textbooks that actually made sense... You would use that... instead of posturing like a third grader.
Tell me are you a True believer? Worshiping Lucifer face to face... No deception necessary!?!...
From this end it looks like pure evil is the only thing that motivates you 🧐
Another excellent presentation ! BOTTOM LINE. Adaptation is not evolution no matter how loud the comedic preachers and tricksters of evolution shout, in fact, adaptation is the opposite of evolution because it results in a genetic decrease. God apparently put into the original animal kinds the ability to adapt to various environmental pressures, and express great beauty and creativity in the process. After the fall, all life is genetically degenerating, not evolving. Mutations are corrupting genetic codes, though sometimes this corruption can have short term benefits under certain conditions ( like beetles on a windy island) However, there are limits to the amount of change adaptation can go. Bears remain bears, dogs remain dogs, they will never morph into a dolphin or zebra. Instead of a tree of life, God made an orchard of life, with many original created kinds becoming new species over time. No evolution involved. THANKS AGAIN AIGC !
Fascinating theory you have on Genetic entropy, care to prove it?
@@mrdoginabog5499 Oh, another comedian.... Sure, dog. I'll type it all out and then you will immediately see the light and thank me, right ?
NOT! But here is a tip, go on line and Google Genetic Entropy by John Sanford and read it for yourself. Your welcome.
Another comedian….. Sure, dog, if it is explained to you, and it’s typed out you will immediately see the light and be thankful…… NOT ! Why don’t you google Genetic Entropy by John Sanford and order a copy for yourself ? Your welcome.
@@greenguitarfish So John stole an idea and rebranded it as his own. Great start. He describes error catastrophe and gives it a new name so he can claim it as his own, but nonetheless, error catastrophe has never been observed in nature. Sanford claims H1N1 underwent this process, but actually, H1N1 evolved into a new strand an is still causing flu today. What we actually see is that as harmful mutations build up, it is much more likely that positive ones will follow. It T mutates to C, and that mutation is a harmful one, well, that mutation can't happen again. That means when a mutation occurs again, the C will change to something else (maybe even back to T), and that is likely to be a positive change, if only because C was a negative change to begin with. He claims more mutations means more negative mutations, but more mutations opens up the door for more positive mutations.
This has been researched extensively, and has never been documented, even in a lab. The one study that claims it happened introduced errors into a single generation that died off, and that is called lethal mutagenesis, and the decline in fitness could have been due to other factors because. they used a mutagen that causes many different effects. Lethal mutagenesis occurs in one single generation, "Genetic Entropy", originally error catastrophe, has to show accumulation of mutations over multiple generations and then the species must die off, which no study has done. Also, at least one trial testing this theory showed an increase in fitness, meaning if it did exist, it very well could do the opposite of what Sanford claims.
You are welcome.
@@nathancook2852 TRANSLATION: You are far too emotionally invested in the dead theory of evolution to give it up even when all its fatal flaws are brought to light.
That Intro is Legit 👏🏾
Omg there is no difference between macro and micro. They are just referring to the scale! 😂😂😂
Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just wait a long enough *time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people by chance? We ONLY observe biblical speciation within each creature's kind (finch>finch, dog>dog, bacteria>bacteria - "microevolution"), never even ONCE a change between kinds as atheistic evolution requires (fish>philosopher, dinosaur>chicken, placoderm>shark, etc. - "Macroevolution"). All the best observable evidences for 'evolution' can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, which A) says something about the "evidence" evolutionists think they have, and B) as atheistic evolution is constantly radically ad-hoc rewriting itself because it doesn't match reality, all of these evidences fit the biblical worldview just fine - no radical rewrites required.
Science is a methodology - what you're referring to is a constantly radically ad-hoc readjusted atheistic origins mythology about the unobservable and untestable past (an Ideology) - not "science." Fish don't evolve into philosophers no matter how much *Time* you add to the pot - that's just not how "science" works.
Very insightful and scientifically correct! The assumption demanded by the "macros" is that natural selection - localized adaptation to immediate factors - *leads* to the macro (exactly the switcheroo lie first cited). They ARE, however Olympic-level mental gymnasts!
''scientifically correct'' Says who? Right.. Creationists on TH-cam and in blogs. 😂
@@razark9 Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers? Science is a methodology, what you're talking about is an ideology - that's not science, that's something else. Let me ask you this... the 1st law of thermodynamics doesn't allow energy to "naturally" come from nothing. The 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy) says that energy is always being converted into a less usable form, and it doesn't allow energy to remain usable forever, because in the infinite past it would have been infinitely used up by now (Heat Death). *So if our universe can't "naturally" have a beginning from nothing, and it can't have just always been here (otherwise all of our energy would be infinitely used up), how do you naturally explain the beginning of our universe?*
Have you ever wondered why Atheistic-Naturalists have to invoke such wild and sci-fi sounding theories to sustain their "natural" (atheistic) beliefs on our origins? *Infinite* alternate universes, an *eternal self-existent* singularity, alternate unobservable metaphysical laws of nature, *pre-existent* phenomena... they have to attribute supernatural qualities of God to "nature" in order to "naturally" explain our origins. This is the Atheist's Natural-Supernatural (!) worldview. It's an internally inconsistent and self-refuting belief system... the only way for nature to create itself is if nature is *pre-existent - like God.*
*"The evidence of God... has been clearly seen since the beginning in all that has been created, so they will have no excuse"* (Romans 1:20)
*Google "TalkOrigins" as everything in this video has been debunked*
*DNA proves we are part Neanderthal & part Denisovan. DNA genome tests of 3,500 species has reverse engineer proved the accuracy of the Evolutionary Taxonomy Tree. Shared DNA endogenous retroviruses between different species also proves the common transitional form ancestor between the 2, from which they inherited the virus. There is many such ERVs between humans & other apes. Many Speciations have happened since Darwin & there are many new species which can no longer interbreed, even if they still appear to be the same (KIND).*
Evolution was made to expain the diversity not orgin that's abioginess also expain away aromeda galaxy
Interesting.
Keep up the great work and continuing voicing the message that needs to be heard world-wide.
Was the sneaky tactic supposed to be conflating micro with macro, or that the evolutionary process is subtractive instead of additive?
Not related, but a question about faith.
Is there any scientific evidence for purity, like if it has any benefits?
I’ve seen mixed takes on it and wanted to see what is and isn’t true.
Nope. Go have fun, Kyle. Just wear protection.
Without artificial equipment or even with, the result is quickened death and destruction in it worse forms.
With it, when looking as several different articles "purity culture" is counted as bad due to women not seeing their worth and religious trauma. There is good from purity culture that not many people post, such as respect for men not looking inappropriately at women and others (which many articles say it's bad). The articles though not many talk about (that I know of) the relationship being shown by fathers and daughters. Many religious leaders has turned corrupt on purity (more towards pastors or elders raping women) but the bible condemns that. Research it biblically and physically for more info. I do hope people turn back to Christian dynamics that is biblical. Which was many nations foundations.
Benefits in the eyes of people and in this life are subjective. Objectively, diseases and death are related to impurity depending on what is meant by impurity. In subjective terms, there is some evidence that religious people are more likely to feel guilt over impurity and less likely to feel anxious overall than non-religious people. On the other hand, plenty of people enjoy their impurity and would label it positively. At the end of the day, we’re all dust and God is God. Perceived and therapeutic benefit, which is what social research can assess, is not of eternal significance!
@@ethanwasche6465 “enjoy” vs “acknowledge” are two different things, and what one would call “impure,” another would called “flawed.”
From this end, Christians strive to be perfect and pass judgment on others who aren’t trying to be. Atheists in general acknowledge their imperfection, and strive to do their best.
Difference between macro/micro is like a character creator in a video game.
You can slide the sliders that have been programmed to define your character's traits (size, shape, color, etc), but no matter how much you slide those sliders...even sliding them for billions of years, ever so slightly...that will not add a new slider/previously unseen trait to the character creation menu.
Exceptionally poor analogy even for a creationist. You're claiming micro-erosion can wash out your driveway but macro-erosion can never wear down a mountain. Or micro-gravity can make a dropped rock fall to the ground but macro-gravity moving whole planets is impossible. Or micro-walking a mile is fine but macro-walking twenty miles is impossible.
@@samburns3329 The lies they tell themselves have to be exhausting to keep up with.
"sneaky tactics" = facts
"sneaky tactics" = facts / evidences
Theists use their tactics to show their fictitious deity exists
@@JuanManuel-ep8do Sad, how their efforts always seem to be in vain~ 😼
Equivocation reminds me of how Progressives debate and curtail the 2A
Thanks for exposing the truth
Maybe you should learn biology for a biologist, not for a person who has a clear lack of understanding of biology
You can't learn the truth about biology from someone who doesn't understand and/or deliberately misrepresents biology.
FYI Evolution does not have anything to say on the existence or otherwise of a transcendent being.
@@Max012What’s wrong with the information in the video?
@@Bob_Bobson47
1. The theory of evolution makes no claims about the origin of life.
2. Mutations are new information.
3. Macroevolution has plenty of evidence. Creationists just refuse to hear it.
@Bob_Bobson47 the beginning the middle and the end. Love the green screen lab though
The production of this videos is top notch quality! 💪🤝
Real nice green screen. Do you think Calvin can even use that microscope "sitting" beside him?
Top notch anti-science propaganda is still anti-science propaganda.
High production value propaganda.
@@nathancook2852 I think Calvin can use your mom sitting on him.
@@sammyking9407 Oh look, the "Christian" not acting at all like a Christian. What a surprise. And yes, my mom does know how to work a microscope. But she wouldn't be able to find Calvin's penis, even if she did have a microscope while she was looking for it.
I took a biology class in Portland State University (required credits). The lab was exactly how you show. We had 2 different plants, and one was killed off and then... TADA! EVOLUTION! I expressed my confusion about how anything was evolved in this experience? No new information was added, so exactly evolved? The lab teacher was confused by my question. Critical thinking is so rare in the classroom.
Evolution can add new genetic information in the form of new alleles but it doesn't have to. Evolution is defined as a change in the allele ratios in a population. Changing selection pressure can also cause the ratios of existing alleles to change and voila, evolution. I suspect you didn't understand the experiment.
*"we see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the lapse of the ages"* (Charles Darwin)
*"we are condemned to live only for a few decades, and that's too slow, too small a time scale to see evolution going on"* (Richard Dawkins)
We observe biblical speciation within each creature's kind (dog>dog, finch>finch, bacteria>bacteria) never even ONCE a change between kinds as atheistic evolution requires (fish>philosopher, dinosaur>chicken, etc.). However Darwin and Dawkins define "evolution," at least we agree it's not actually observable.
We are all Uncritically Indoctrinated into this modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers today; they don't talk about its scientific problems or embarrassing history of radical ad-hoc rewrites and excuses... most people don't even know how to question it. Glad to see others with critical thinking skills out there.
@@michaelg377 Michael G never misses a chance to C&P his favorite quote-mined lies.
Pretty sure we need more information, and there is info you are leaving out, and from the wording of this, you seem to be leaving it out on purpose. I doesn't help your case that known liar and quote-miner michaelg377 is commenting in your defense.
@michaelg377 - Darwin observed evolution by observing old pictures of flowers and dog breeds
I'm not a fan of the UTTP but I think Answers In Genesis actually needs them in their comment section.(Edit-Tons of them!!)
UTTP?
*UTTP aren't old enough for adult topics. They can troll monitor posts about their favorite fantasy video games.*
Why did Lazarus cross the road?
To get to the other side and back.
What do you call a guy with no arms and no legs lying in a pile of leaves?
Russell.
I bet that is an original from the first supper Lazarus enjoyed after waking! 🤣... I have no doubt!
Please Explain how 75,000 species of animal life alive today can all be found in the Fossil records. Unchanged and unevolved. Dating back to 280 million years? How is it possible they survived 5 extinction events and are still alive today? There have been 8,000 fish species that have all been identified to their modern-day ancestors. But Evolutionists say these are not the same animals.
No extant species are found in the fossil record. The ancestors of extant species are found in the fossil record. That some extant species may closely resemble their distant ancestors is due to there being very little selection pressure in their particular environments to change their morphologies.
@@apoliticalobserver2741 Okay then, bypass selection pressure and transition a population of wolves into a whale species through selective breeding, in similitude of Pakicetus transitioning into modern whales. How long would it take you?
@@firecloud77 Whales didn't evolve from wolves. Any other stupid creationist demands you want to make? 😅
@@firecloud77 *How long would it take you?* It took evolution around 50 million years and a whole planet to experiment with. How long ya got? 😂
@@samburns3329 Well DUH. Got any more stupid comments?
It is claimed that Pakicetus (a wolf-sized carnivore) "evolved" into modern whales. If a wolf-sized carnivore species "evolved" into modern whale through natural selection, then we should be able to accomplish the same feat through intelligent selection (selective breeding).
(Macro neo-)Evolution is merely a postmodern creation myth...
Interesting. Especially considering the fact that the theory of evolution makes no claims about the creation of life.
In other words, you have absolutely no idea what evolution is but want to project your faith in magical creation onto empirical science?
@@johnryan6658 ....Oh sure it does...or perhaps...more accurately it certainly used to = again, just another century long failure for "the Theory"/("The Myth)
☀⛈⚡🌊✨🍲👾Hey Everybody! magic primordial Soup's On!
@@razark9 ...well, that's sorta true, I suppose...as I really don't know of a lick of "empirical science", that proves Evolution...do you have a particularly compelling piece of evidence, that you find convincing, and would like to share with me?...please be specific ...(i.e just saying "the fossil record" is so broad, it's saying nothing, but narrative)...my very favorite myths, are human and horse evolution...but, I dabble in everything Evolutionary and imaginary...
@@anarchorepublican5954 Your problem isn't a lack of evidence. It's religious denial. Evolution is backed by centuries of science across over a dozen empirical fields. I'm not going to spoonfeed someone who has deliberately ignored centuries of data and pretend there is none.
I learned some time age that all of creation have genetic markers! The marker is a defect in the genome! It’s interesting that humans don’t share these markers with other species in God’s creation!
Genetic markers are not defects in a genome, but are specific DNA sequences or genes with a known location on a chromosome, that are used to identify different species, and individuals within a species. Of course humans are going to have different genetic markers than every other form of life on this planet. But every life form on this planet have their own unique set of genetic markers which is how we know we're examining human DNA and not the DNA of a tree. Why do you find it "interesting how humans don't share these markers with other species in God's creation" when every species has its own set of unique genetic markers they don't share with any other species including humans?
Have u noticed that there's is no program in biology on the comparison of animals plants and structural and mechanical engineering. The reason is the structural and mechanical rules apply exactly the same to both which prufes plants and animals have a designer.Heres an exsample:strongest part of the structure must be the base.lamppoles. tree trunk top of the arm leg.surfuses that slide over one another must BE ULTRA SMOOTH and have a method to keep a lubricant there: crank shaft bearings ,joints in arms legs. Act. REASON then all will have to admit we have a engineer GOD that used the same thought process in designing
What makes you think evolved life forms aren't subject to the same laws of physics as everything else? You have no evidence any plant or animal was consciously "designed".
_REASON then all will have to admit we have a engineer GOD that used the same thought process in designing_
If god designed and engineered living things then he's just an incompetent idiot lol
1/64 of all mutations creates a new protein coding gene. That is your designer
If GOD is such a wonderful Designer why did he screw up so badly with the human spine? The mammalian spine evolved horizontally in quadrupeds. In that orientation it does a great job of supporting weight suspended below the spine, like a suspension bridge. Taking that same "design" and turning it vertically is horrible. Now all the weight merely compresses and ruptures the vertebrae causing humans no end of back miseries. When humans began walking upright to free their hands for other tasks the trade off was lots of back problems. An Omnipotent God Designer could have let humans use their hands AND provided a robust, pain free vertical spine design.
@@sciencerules2825 Not just the spine. Our being upright causes problems for out major organs - compressing th elower ones with the weigh tof those above them. Think how our organs would hang suspended if we still went on all fours. Likewise our airways. Our nose and sinuses allow excess fluids and secretions to drain out of the body (espescially during infection). But our being upright instead causes them to drain down towards the throat and lungs. Hence humans are prone to chest infections. And just think how every human is one error away from choking to death every time we eat or drink anything. We totally rely on a little flap of flesh to block off food and drink going into our lungs, since "god's great design" is to have food, water and air all use the same pipe! And how about the absurd system of having our reproductive organs sit right next to our waste disposal system? This is a huge cause of infections, espescailly in women, and contributes greatly to birth fatalities before the advent of antiseptics and antibiotics. The list of ludicrous;t bad "design" in the human body (suposedly, god's greatest creation) is near endless. Terrible knee joints. Blind spots in the eyes. Multiple single points of failure like the heart. We can;t regenerate lost limbs. The human brain can't repair itself.
Keep up the great work, Calvin!
Of being a hypocrite?
@@therick363 How is Calvin a hypocrite?
@@strategywizard the title of this very video is him being a hypocrite. Evolution is a scientific theory. But he ignores that fact. So he’s being sneaky.
Hmm, maybe I should get some Cavin Klein undergarments.
Seem comfortable.
This Calvin, though...
Just seems quite tacky, y'know?
@@therick363 Evolution is a naturalistic speculation...it's not a Theory.
Calvin Smith always uses the same sneaky tactic he ALWAYS uses when he says, "No One has ever observed one kind of creature turning into another." Like that is proof that it can't happen. If you follow the theory of Evolution, then EVERY creature is in the process of turning into another kind of creature. Therefore, Every person has "seen one kind of creature turning into another."
Very few remain stagnant. Sharks and stromatolites are only two examples of a creature that has remained largely the same today as in the fossil record. But not all current versions of the shark exist in the fossil record. We don't know if stromatolites have changed over time. All we have is the structures they build and built, whose form appears the same, currently and in the fossil record. We can assume from the similarities that they are very similar creatures, past and present. But that is not proof that they are unchanged.
95% of the creatures in the fossil record have gone extinct. Did God wipe them all out in the flood? Or did they evolve into the current creatures we have today? And, why do so many of the current creatures not appear AT ALL in the fossil record? Were all of them saved from the flood? Not just the "two of each kind" from Noah's account.
IF as Calvin Smith states that "Nothing New is Created" by genetic mutation, then that means that Adam and Eve had all the genetic material for Down Syndrome, Cystic Fibrosis, Haeomophilia, and thousands of other genetic disorders in their genetic makeup. And in most people those traits are only suppressed.
Maybe the genetic mutation, to NOT have Cystic Fibrosis, is the "beneficial mutation" that Calvin Smith ignores.
That's because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers - all the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, and most of what you said just isn't true my friend. For example, the claim that "95% of the creatures in the fossil record have gone extinct" is a patently falsified assumption-ridden faith-claim, not science - here's the problem: Two worldviews, exact same evidence, two very different interpretations. Let's look at them side by side, the assumptions that undergird their conclusions, and which one actually better fits the evidence we see today: Common evidence) We have named about 250,000 fossil "species" in the fossil record. There are about 1.3 million "species" alive today.
Evolutionary Worldview)
The evolutionary worldview operates on a web of assumptions in how it *interprets* the fossil record, and based on these *assumptions* it *believes* that roughly only 2% of Species have been preserved. These assumptions include the *assumption-based* radiometric dating "ages," covering the *assumption-based interpretation* of about "30 million years" in the fossil record per species group, which encompasses all the layers in which animal fossils are discovered (covering what they *interpret* as "600 million years" total). 600M years total/30M years per species = 20 species groups. Based on this *assumption-based interpretation,* they conclude that there were about 20 species groups over time (ie. 20 times the species changed out completely). They *assume* based on evolutionary expectations that the number of species alive at any other time was much less than the 1.3 million alive today (because they *believe* a priori that simple single-celled organisms evolved and grew in complexity over time) estimated to be around 650,000 species at any other time. By this *assumption-based* logic, 650K species * 20 groups of species over time = 13 million species total in earth history. So 250K "species" in the fossil record out of 13 million total (ie. 250K/13M) results in the *heavily assumption-laden* conclusion that only 2% of species are still alive today.
Biblical Worldview)
Actually nearly 100% of all "species" God made have been preserved. This position rejects the radiometric dating evolutionary *Assumptions* as demonstrably inconsistent, unverifiable, and unreliable on a long time scale, and thus does not *interpret* the fossil record as a record of evolution over time. (Gould and Eldredge (evolutionists) also recognize that the fossil record does not show gradual evidence of evolution, but only stasis and sudden appearance of fully developed organisms... though they just modified the theory of evolution to keep it alive). The biblical worldview holds that God created every creature according to its "kind," defined generally by a creature's reproductive boundaries, with a capacity for diversification and environmental adaptation pre and post flood. Only representatives from each "kind" were taken onto the Ark, meaning all the rest of the diversified species within each "kind" died during the global flood. Then after the flood each "kind" of creature continued to speciate within its "kind" up to the modern state today - relatively few creatures have gone extinct, most notably the dinosaurs, as most other "kinds" have been preserved over time. While evolutionary *assumption-based interpretations* above *believe* that there were about 20 replacements of species over evolutionary time, the biblical worldview holds that there was only 1 replacement at the flood, and the pre-flood "species" died in the flood but representatives from their "kind" after the flood continued to speciate into new "species" only within their "kind" (dogs > dogs, finches > finches, etc.). Based on the animal fossils found buried in ash and other materials found in post-flood/upper layer fossils, Creation-proponents believe many of these fossils died in catastrophic geological events (volcano eruptions, etc.) post-flood.
Evolutionist Conclusion) 250K/13M = only 2% of all "species" over time still alive today. The fossil record contains about 98% of the total of all species that have ever lived, therefore evolution must be true because they all died off in the past. As Atheistic-Evolutionist scoffers claim: "Creationism has no explanation. 99% of God's created species dead? Impossible!" (Oldtinear, 18 February 2024).
Biblical Creation Conclusion) Using this line of reasoning above, Creation proponents expect that we have a nearly complete record of all species that ever lived, whether preserved as fossils or still alive today... which also explains the hundreds of living fossils we've discovered that look identical to their living counterparts.
Two worldviews, same evidence, two very different interpretations. *So how can we test which one is true, and which one is a biased mis-interpretation?*
One way to determine how good the fossil record is at preserving species is simply to *count how many living species are also known as fossils, regardless of whether the fossils were made before, during, or after the Flood. At least two studies have done that:*
*Evidence A)* In one study Björn Kurtén determined that *88% of the mammal species living in Europe today are also present in the fossil record in Europe,* and *99% are present in the fossil record somewhere on earth.* (B. Kurtén, Pleistocene Mammals of Europe (Chicago: Aldine, 1968)
*Evidence B)* In another study, James W. Valentine, in his PhD dissertation, found that *76.8% of the marine mollusk species currently living along the southern California and Baja California coast are also found in the fossil record.* (J. W. Valentine, “How Good Was the Fossil Record? Clues from the California Pleistocene,” Paleobiology 15 no. 2 (1989)
These findings seem to suggest that the Biblical Creation view is actually much closer to our observed reality - 88%, 99%, and 76.8% are much closer to the nearly 100% that Creation proponents claim - but these observations are MUCH further away from the *heavily assumption-laden* 2% that Evolutionists believe in. Once again, as Evolutionists are rewriting their belief system to include "Stasis" and "Sudden Appearance" (Gould) while admitting that evolutionary paleontologists simply "looked the other way" (Eldredge) at this problematic evidence, Biblical Creation's expectations are once again supported by the actual evidence and even secular scientists' observations.
Two worldviews, same evidence, two very different interpretations.
@@michaelg377 Michael why do you want people to think Christians are dishonest idiots?
@@samburns3329 Why are you ignoring the evidence and doubling down on your worldview assumptions without thinking? Again, the quoted evidence at the bottom of my post above suggests the biblical creation model more closely describes our observed reality than the atheistic evolutionary assumption that "98% of all species are dead in the fossil record," etc.
The question is: *Why do continue representing Atheism in such a staunchly willfully ignorant light?* Keep being you my friend, just stop lying to yourself.
@@michaelg377 Why do you C&P the same stupidity and dishonestly quote-mine endlessly? Why do you have no ethics or morals?
@@michaelg377 *Two worldviews, exact same evidence, two very different interpretations.* All interpretations aren't equally valid. The best interpretation is the one which explains ALL the evidence as a consilient unified whole. That is what evolutionary theory does. Creationists always demand each piece of evidence be interpreted *separately* and come with a different excuse for each piece, not caring their multiple "interpretations" often directly contradict one another.
This is the most insane off the wall ignorant comments section I've ever read
You seem new here. I've been calling AiG for trash for years. But it does not stop, it carries on and on and on. Life is not fair
@@RivaZA1 And some people are stupid and will never learn. YEC's and FE's are prime examples. But we will keep trying, and at the very least get some good laughs out of it
Thank you for the video. As a fundamentalist fundamentalist believer, I appreciate your information.
Though, after checking your website, I regret that subjects such as the literal 24 hour 6 days of 'creation' cannot be scripturally discussed, that this subject seems a taboo subject. I say this as a life long Christian.
Would you like to scripturally discuss it? Unfortunately there are half a dozen trolls who are targetting this video that just came out right now, so it might be hard to have a discussion, but I am knowledgeable on what Scripture says on this topic if you'd like to discuss.
@@michaelg377 No trolls here. We just don't like liars like Calvin, and I point out his lies often.
@@michaelg377the hypocrisy of you calling others trolls. Such blatant lying
@@michaelg377 my posts seem to disappear. How can a discussion take place on this limited forum.
@@michaelg377 I believe I just sent you an email. If not seen, check your spam folder.
Darn those facts and data. So sneaky.
Now that is cognitive dissonance at its finest!! 😎
I guess if your religion begins with *smart dirt*...
You're pretty much believe any foolish idea they throw at you 🤣
@@jimhughes1070 Your evidence is a 2,000 year old book that has been changed hundreds, if not thousands of times. We have thousands upon thousands of fossils, DNA evidence, embryonic development, etc, We have proof the earth is billions of years old which matches evolutionary evidence as well, and destroys YEC's position entirely. You can't explain how organisms disseminated after the "flood", you can't even explain how sedimentary layers would have formed in the manner they did after the "flood." And you have absolutely zero credible evidence for anything you claim. You are a hypocrite, and a liar, through and through.
Damn those facts, always perfectly describing reality, always changing to reflect that reality... 😂
So sneaky indeed- 😉
@@switchie1987
Been in here for a couple of days now, mate... And I still haven't read any facts from the "debunkers" 😎... It's been more like a tragic comedy set in
"INSULT CITY" 😭
Thanks again, Calvin! An excellent video explaining how the "sideshows" draw in a crowd! GOD is in control, and He is pulling down the tents of the charlatans! GOD BLESS!!!
Calvin is in total control of you. He lies in every video. Usually, like this one, you don't even have to look past the title to find the lie.
I agree, this is an excellent video. What really blows my mind is how many evolutionist trolls have actually *Done exactly what Calvin said evolutionists are doing in this video* just down below - conflating the observed reality of speciation ("microevolution") with the modern mythology of particles to man evolution ("macroevolution").
That's like accusing someone of murder, and then the defendant goes on an open killing spree in the courtroom for all to see. Well played. *Watch the Video, see for yourself.*
@@michaelg377 Calvin predicted people would call him on his lies and it happened. Why is that a surprise?
@@nathancook2852 so you guys don't even watch the videos, you just read the titles and go in the comments section to attack Calvin and everyone who likes his videos?
@@annieoaktree6774 its easy to predict that people will call you a liar when tell lies
So it's kinda like this small changes add up when it keeps on changing.
What?...
Thanks. I totally agree. If you say species A evolves to species B, following macroevolutionary changes need to happen- mostly simultaneous changes in many systems. Anatomy, biochemistry, physiology, biomechanics, cardiovascular, respiratory, Gut, genito urinary system, sexual and reproductory system, brain and nerve system, muscles, heamatology, immunology , skin, eyes/ hearing/ vestibular systems. You compare any close species and such MOUNTAIN of differences could be seen. Evolution based on random mutations need to explain at least most differences. If microevolution ( a change in one system) is a drop pf water, macroevolution is an ocean. You can not make an ocean by collecting a drop of water at a time.
_You can not make an ocean by collecting a drop of water at a time._ Actually you can. It will just take a long time.
_macroevolutionary changes need to happen- mostly simultaneous changes in many systems._ They do happen almost simultaneously. Evolution is happening in parallel across the entire population. In any one generation you get one animal with a mutation which slightly improves the cardio system. Another gets a mutation which slightly improves vision. Another a mutation which slightly improves respiration. Then as the animals mate all the beneficial mutations get mixed by sexual recombination and passed around until the whole population has all the beneficial mutations. That's why we say populations evolve over time, not individuals.
@@sciencerules2825 They can't comprehend how long 3+ Billion years actually is. And many of them refuse to try to comprehend it due to the "infallible' holy book....
Do you see what these atheists are doing here?:
*"Time is in fact the hero of the plot. . . . What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the “impossible” becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles"* (George Wald). From meaningless goo to meaningful and valuable you, just add time + chemicals + chance in a meaningless universe. *Time performs even the most incredibly anti-science miracles for the atheist.*
@@michaelg377 *Do you see what these atheists are doing here?* Correcting creationist lies with accurate scientific knowledge.
He should be jailed for those opening jokes.
*That's okay he told plenty hyperbolic screwball satire after that to make up for it.*
@@Pay-It_Forward Yes, he did mention some things Evilutionism Zealots say.
@@fjccommish *He told satire embellishments about evolutionary claims.*
@@fjccommish *Can you itemize any claims that were factual, which disagreed with evolution? I listened to it 3 times & didn't notice anything accurate.*
Calvin should just be jailed, period.
You just don't understand evolution - evolutionists
That’s correct.
It’s like me saying Christian’s believe Jesus is dead.
You would recognise instantly that I don’t understand Christianity.
Why does the demonstrated truth bother you so?
@@Moist._Robot no that's like saying evolutionists believe life came from primordial soup.
@@Bfielder93
Correct.
That would be a strawman.
@@Moist._Robot maybe in your case, it's very subjective
Loved the dad jokes
Hello there!
To you I ask a question,
What is a day to GOD? A being that i supiror to us, and is THE maker?
If time is the movement of Matter and matter is the stagnation of time, whose to say that the way the Lord would describe a day to us could be billions of years to us while also it could be one billionth of a second?
And another thing is is that it said Good made us from the earth, what if that means that good took something that looks closest to him from the earth and molded it into his imagebased on all of creation, is like an artist using a picture
I’m sorry my comment is messed up the comment started to delete itself randomly, and messed it up.
I think it was a bug so I apologize if it’s confusing and unfinished.
:(
Well, Scripture says *in context of His patience and coming Judgment* : "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." (2 Peter 3:8) That is specifically talking about His judgment of sin (2 Peter 3:7) and His patience towards us (2 Peter 3:9), and seems to answer your question concerning His perspective on time. Not to be confused with Genesis 1, which isn't about God's patience, but is a Hebrew historical narrative genre description of creation, which describes each "day" as having its own "evening and morning."
Oh cool thanks!
Hope you have a good day friend!
:D
@@michaelg377 Oh, so is *that* why Young Earth Creationists exist?
Certainly explains why y'all like to pick apart every bit of science you get thrown your way to misrepresent and twist what it actually says of reality- 😹
@@michaelg377If a day is like a thousand years to God, his naps must be epic. A quick 15-minute power nap would last about 10 years in human time.
There is no new information. Let's say you have three types of birds. They are all the same species from the same population. Some are big, small and in-between. Now the environment changed where certain conditions in the environment are now favoring the portion of the population that are large and over time as the environment continually favors this large bird it becomes a new species of large bird. That is evolution in a nutshell.
How do you explain the marmorkrebs (marbled) crayfish? This new species is known to have come into existence when the slough crayfish developed an extra chromosome. It hatched from a slough crayfish egg with that additional chromosome. I think that is the exact definition of new information.
_There is no new information._ Why doesn't the empirically observed formation of new genetic sequences producing new morphological traits count as new information?
@@sciencerules8525 Hear No Science, See No Science, Do No Science is their motto.
That is not new information that is a random mutation coming about by proteins being coded wrong.
@@andrewshear2927 Why don't new genetic sequences with new functionality count as new information? What would count as new genetic information in your mind?
Nice work. I honestly can't see how anyone with one brain cell could believe in the evolution mythology. Thanks for making it easier to see the truth.
You mean people with one brain cell tend to be creationists. I agree.
@@sciencerules2825 You must belong to the evolution religion and your one brain cell made you mistake what I said. I'll pray for you to gain wisdom.
@@I8thePizzaso you think using only insults is a good counter to a scientific theory?
How’s evolution a religion?
@@therick363 Sorry. Didn't mean to insult you. Evolution is a religion because it depends on faith and storytelling. There is no scientific proof that any animal turned into a completely different one and there's no scientific evidence that it ever happened in the past no matter how many millions or billions of years you want to suggest. Also, only a very strange cult would believe all life came from rocks, but you're free to believe what you want.
@@therick363 Didn't mean to insult you, but believing all life came from a rock is pretty strange to me.
Se você está com dificuldades, leia isto ~ Eu sei que sou jovem, mas gostaria apenas de dizer que, na 7ª série, eu estava em uum lugar muito sombrio. Não consegui sentir muita emoção e tive pensamentos de vingança e outras coisas. Mas Deus me salvou, me deu as pessoas da minha vida e se mostrou para mim. Mesmo nos meus dias mais sombrios, Ele estava lá comigo, Ele nunca me deixou. Um dia, enquanto estava na cama, comecei a orar com a mão voltada para o céu e senti algo segurando minha mão. Naquele exato momento eu soube que era Ele. Arrependo-me de todos pecados que cometi. Estou pronto para começar uma nova vida com Ele. Ainda há tempo de se arrepender, amar uns aos outros e acreditar em Cristo, pois Ele vai te perdoar❤️ Ele me ajudou nos momentos difíceis, Ele vai ajudar você também :) so reze!
You can leave out evolutionary by in the biology is there a biologist there an evolutionist
Lactose tolerance is an example of an additive mutation. People with lactose intolerance are unable to produce lactase, the enzyme needed to digest lactose, for very long, but a mutation caused lactase to be produced for our entire lives.
Retaining the ability to produce lactase is not generating a new ability. Gaining the ability to produce cellulase would be something quite remarkable.
@@pronewbofficial Retaining the ability to digest lactose through adulthood is most certainly a new ability. You guys will deny the daytime sky is blue in trying to push your creationist idiocy.
This is beautifully explained! Thank you.
Nope just misinformation
Calvin lies in every video. It really isn't that hard to find the lies either. Usually just start with the title.
@@Max012 And the evidence to support your position is...?
@@leroyj3627 Starting at 7 min. Calvin goes into a major lie, claiming evolution never produces new traits and only selects from pre-existing ones. The example of the peppered moth is a classic case where science discovered the specific mutation which produced the dark variety moth around 1819. Before that the dark form of the moth didn't exist. The dark mutation was so beneficial in the soot covered environment by the 1870's the dark form made up 95% of the moth population. That is just one of hundreds of lies Calvin has told about evolutionary biology in these videos.
@@leroyj3627 "The experiments beautifully demonstrate natural selection, or survival of the fittest - in action, but *they do not show evolution in progress,* for however the populations may alter in their content of light, intermediate, or dark forms, *all the moths remain from beginning to end Biston Betularia."*
(L. Harrison Matthews, Forward to 1971 Edition of Darwin's Origin of Species)
Where do you buy your straw?
Snakes do not have vocal cords. The larynx in snakes is small and lacks vocal cords, unlike in other vertebrates. Snakes are physically incapable of producing vocalizations in the way that mammals and many other animals do, due to the absence of vocal cords. Sound production in snakes, when it occurs, is achieved through alternative means such as hissing or vibrating their scales. This anatomical feature of snakes is consistent across species and is a fundamental aspect of their biology. The story in Bible about a talking snake is therefore a fable. There is no other way around.
The Bible does not list a "talking snake," first of all, it describes a Super-Natural entity either possessing or masquerading as a natural creature (a "serpent," possibly but not necessarily a "snake" - consider that it also seemed to have legs before it was cursed). You are making a logical category error by attributing modern naturalistic observations of modern day snakes to an event that was claimed to be a Supernaturally influenced event concerning a qualitatively different creature. Second, even with that - consider parrots, that you are an 'evolved ape," or that fish evolve into philosophers in your own belief system - it's really not that far off from your beliefs my mythologian friend. Fish don't evolve into philosophers, and puddles of chemicals don't fizz by chance into people, no matter how much *Time* you add to the pot - that's just not how "science" works.
*"But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong."* (1 Corinthians 1:27)
*"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them."* (Romans 1:18-19)
AIG talking about others using "sneaky tricks" to deceive is hilarious
I noticed unlike AIG you gave no examples….
@@stevenwhite8937 How about Calvin sitting in front of the green-screen phony science lab?
@@stevenwhite8937 Misrepresenting Zircon crystal rings.
Deliberately asking for rock samples from recent eruptions to be dated using decay chains that don't provide meaningful data in such short timescales.
In fact, a heck of a lot of their radiometric dating claims are deliberate misrepresentations and obfuscations.
Pretty much all of their attempts to scientifically prove the world is young involve some kind of wordplay or distortion of things.
AiG is a scam
@@moreplease998 1) What are your thoughts on the "4.5 billion year old" zircon's 500M year old date, and 5.5B year old date - which the scientists just threw out? They said "5.5B years is way too old be accurate" - which begs the question: *How do they know how old these things are before they date them?*
2) So, in other words, *they need to know how old those "rock samples" are before they date them? Can you see the problem...?* There's no obfuscation, you're just doubling down on some pretty embarrassingly obvious false assumptions my friend. Scientists dated an observed 10 year old lava dome sample from Mt St. Helens to be 350,000 years old - why?
*There is no time stamp on any of these materials - only an object with a quantity of two chemicals in it, that's all.* Everything else is pure assumption-based extrapolation.
The way radiometric dating works is that a parent isotope decays into a daughter isotope over time, and at that decay rate that we observe today we can calculate *how long it would have taken* for X amount of the daughter isotope to have decayed from the parent isotope. In order to accurately date something you need to know:
A) the original amount of the parent isotope
B) the original amount of the daughter isotope
C) that the rate of decay remained constant over the last X millions/billions of years
D) that the material remained in a closed system, unaffected by other influences which could throw off the results.
... *You can't verify ANY of these assumptions without a time machine.*
The reason those scientists were 4 orders of magnitude (!!!) off in their calculation on that 10-year old lava dome sample is because they *erroneously assumed that all of the argon in the material was the product of radioactive decay from potassium - when in reality the material just inherited additional argon as it solidified.* And their post-hoc excuse for their erroneous results is that it was "dated using decay chains that don't provide meaningful data in such short timescales" (ie. *"We need to know how old it is before we date it"* ...).
There is no time stamp - only a quantity of 2 chemicals, and a whole lot of assumptions.
Questions)
a) *If we can be so wrong dating an object that we can observe, then what does that tell us about dating objects from the Unobservable Past which we cannot observe or verify?*
b) What do you do when you have multiple different "ages" from multiple tests on the same material? Which ones do you throw out, and which ones do you keep?
@@stevenwhite8937like when creationists say “animals adapt, but will never change into another animal”?
Like when the creeps say, “evolution is change.”
Like when creationists ask, “which evolution are we talking about?”
Pick one.
Mr. Smith misrepresenting and spreading disinformation while trying to explain equivocation...
Evolution in general is change over time. We can talk about how Rock 'n Roll "evolved" from Rhythm and Blues, or how French "evolved" from Latin.
Biological evolution is defined as change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. This includes both "microevolution", which are the relatively small changes that we observe happening over relatively short periods of time, and "macroevolution", which concerns the accumulation of these smaller changes into more significant changes over longer periods of time. These are not different things, but the same thing over a different period of time, and Mr. Smith's attempt to pretend that these are different things is simply wrong, and frankly misleading.
Usually, the cut-off point between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is taken to be the species level, so whenever we observe a new species evolving from an existing species, we are observing macroevolution, whether Mr. Smith likes this or not. Because more significant changes take more time, the more spectacular changes that Mr. Smith doubts happened cannot be observed in real time. However, we can find ample evidence that these changes have indeed happened from studying the fossil record and genetics.
In this connection, Mr. Smith says, _"No one has ever observed one kind of creature turning into another."_
But of course this is a silly thing to say, because the whole premise of biological evolution is that organisms inherit the characteristics of their ancestors while diversifying and *_additionally_* becoming something new. This should not be controversial, nor should it be difficult to understand; we are human, but we are still mammals as well. Mr. Smith has been told this numerous times, and yet he gets it wrong again; either he is trying to set up a strawman argument, or he is equivocating on the meaning of the word "kind". Or both.
As for Mr. Smith's claims about mutations and natural selection, these have already been put to rest by the E. coli Long Term Evolution Experiment in which the genetic sequencing of successive generations demonstrated the *_fact_* that mutations indeed provided new functionality and were then more prevalent in subsequent populations, in accordance with the definition of biological evolution.
Mr. Smith's beetle example shows the depth of his misunderstanding of the modern scientific theory of evolution. It doesn't matter if the atrophied winged beetle *_would_* not thrive in a *_different_* environment according to Mr. Smith. If the fact is that the wingless mutation became dominant under its specific environmental circumstances, then by definition that mutation was beneficial in this situation. That is just the meaning of the word "beneficial" in this context. As an example of how wrong Mr. Smith is on this, consider that ants are related to wasps and bees, but lost their wings along the way. Would Mr. Smith like to argue that ants did not benefit from this change? One would hope not.
Fe's and YEC's - Hear No Science, See No Science, Do No Science.
@@nathancook2852flat earth motto wich I am scared of
I am always amazed at the parallels between religious flerfers and religious yeccies, and how vehemently the yeccies deny the similarities. Amazed and amused.
That sneaky tactic is called evidence as opposed to faith which is we tell you a story and you just believe it.
Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and that if you just wait a long enough *Time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people by chance? We are all Uncritically Indoctrinated into this atheistic origins mythology as young children today, it's just that no one ever talk about its many scientific problems or its embarrassing history of radical ad-hoc readjustment and debunked doctrines. *Scientific Theories are supposed to be Falsifiable, Religions are Not: Given its extensive history of radically ad-hoc readjusting itself every time it runs into problematic evidence, what would it take to "Falsify" the Theory of Evolution today?*
In 1982 a federal court ruled that Creation can't be taught in schools because "it is not falsifiable." Evolution has a long history of radically rewriting itself as it runs into more and more problems - what would it take to "falsify" Naturalistic Evolution? Over 500 Living Fossils? Debunked "Junk" DNA? Finding a 70M year extinct *allegedly transitioning evolutionary predecessor* still alive, unevolved, with no evidence of it ever evolving?* Discovering that many "vestigial" (leftover) organs actually have a normal function with no evidence of being leftovers at all, like the appendix? Finding "millions of years" old creatures with no signs of evolution? Fully developed vertebrate creatures in the Cambrian explosion? An Ankylosaurus fossil found where it's not supposed to be buried among sea creatures? Whale fossils deep inland in the United States? Trilobites found appearing suddenly and fully developed with complex eyes in the Cambrian - and in every fossil layer indicating they were buried rapidly? Maybe measurably young tissues in dinosaur fossils that look similar to 4000 year old mummies or the Tyrolean Ice Man? Early jawed placoderm fossils showing fully developed complex jaws - causing evolutionists to claim that they must have evolved, de-evolved, and then re-evolved those jaws to maintain their story of shark evolution? *What if scientists admitted that Human-Ape DNA is down from 99% "similar" to only 84% "similar" and admitted their bias in "humanizing" the ape genome?*
...or should we just reinterpret all of these problematic evidences to keep the belief in Atheistic/Naturalistic evolution alive, and why? We are all *uncritically indoctrinated* into this Atheistic-Naturalist religion of evolution in our public education system today... Should evolution be held to the same religious standard as Creationism?
All of the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, and if you understand "science" then you understand the implications of a competing explanation.
*"The evidence of God... has been clearly seen since the beginning in all that has been created, so they will have no excuse"* (Romans 1:20)
@@michaelg377shoosh liar
Jokes are often elaborate puns.
And, yes, terms a used in equivocating ways to advance their argument. Macro, they claim, simply crosses the boundaries of species. Not so--it goes well beyond that.
Jokes? Have what to do with fitness? Evolution fails again.
@@joefriday2275 If evolution had failed, we wouldn't be here.
@@nathancook2852 He means evolution failed to give him intelligence or honesty.
evolution is based on a hypothetical organism. not science.
H S, why did you lie and claim to have a PhD in "Evolution" from an Ivy League school?
@@sciencerules2825A knowledge and a degree are 2 different things. If he claimed to have a degree in a specific study and obviously he didn't. You're absolutely right. He shouldn't say that now. All the comments I've ever seen on here that I've actually seen. Have never said that if he is a liar produce the information. I'd like to know myself because even if he believes in creation as I do I don't defend lawyers. I'd like to know the truth and if you're lying to make him look bad. I want to know the truth. So I can make sure that you are posted everywhere. So I would no not to trust you so since you put it out there. Prove it show the evidence that he lied about having a degree in those particular study fields.
@@OurSavior-xr3yc
I also saw him claim he has a PHD in Evolution.
I also pointed out to him that Darwin’s book “Origins” never mentions humans in it so can’t possibly be racist.
A common creationist claim.
He then continued to call it racist.
He’s a liar that I don’t bother with anymore.
@@OurSavior-xr3ychey, Helen Keller is back! I thought you were on your death bed last time you were here looking for attention?
Creation is based on an actual insentient.
First off you need to define a kind, until you do that it is hard to determine what is one kind and what is another. Next we have observed macro evolution as that is just the formation of a new species, where micro evolution is just a change within a species.
*This has been requested for decades. Problem is they don't know enough about each Taxonomy (species, genus & family) to know where to draw the line. Each has very unique differences in chromosome counts & ploidy sets! Some things can very easily be crossed, hybrid or even interspecific hybrid. There are a few species that have multiple Chromosome & ploidy groups. Example [Tetraploid (60-Chromosome) & Hexaploid (90-Chromosome)]. And a sister species in the Genus [Hexaploid (90-Chromosome)] In which case interspecific hybrids are much easier than some same species crosses. (Diospyros) is such a Genus where things that look very different will hybrid & things that look near identical won't. Creationist don't understand these millions of unique variations & pretend such doesn't exist. There is so many things that will cross for just 1 generation, then are infertile. There is over (520K published genera Genus). Some things have dozens of species per Genus. Mammals avg slightly less than 5 species per genera. So Ken Ham would need to accurately define (520 thousand to 8.7 million (KIND) divisions, just for what is now living. 99% of life has gone extinct. Can you fathom Ken Ham or any of his employees or associates being able to do this?*
@Pay-It_Forward they should go to the nobal peace prize of they disproved evolution as it was made to expain the DIVERSITY of life
Family
iN GENESIS, THE EGYPTIONS CAUGHT UP WITH THE HEBREW AT MIGDON WHERE MOSES WAS TOLD TO RAISE HIS ARM TO PART THE SEA.
Exodus, but who cares. Moses is a proven myth.
@@fordprefect5304
I see the father of lies hasn't abandoned his favorite strategy 😭😂
"When all else fails, just straight up lie!"..." And then smoke another bowl for your reward" 🤣🤣😭😭
@@jimhughes1070 WOW, so you have evidence for Moses.
Please present it as no one else has done so.
🧚🧚♂🧚♀🧚♂🧚♀🧚🧚♂🧚♀🧚🧚♂🧚♀
Here are some fairies foe the Moses fairy tale.
@@fordprefect5304
I remember you... Silly children are so entertaining 😁... What comes to mind first is the millions of people roaming the Earth today who are direct descendants of those that received the law of Moses... From Moses... Corrupted as it might be after 3,000 years.
Tell me is there anything that you believe existed beyond last week? 😎
Have you ever run out of chronic or psilocybin?... Or have you just "always had a stash" 🤣🤣🤣
You know that disease is going to stick with you till you die right?...
Once you start lying about things you know nothing of... That shite just branches out into everything else.
Then you turn into my ex-wife! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@jimhughes1070 Hey big guy how are you coming along with that😂Moses 😂evidence ?
Yeah, I thought so. If you are going to call someone a liar, you Better know the facts.
😅🤣😂😅🤣😂😅🤣🙂 Who is laughing now?
You should, if you can, also consider showing the incredible mechanisms of chromsomes swapping segments for variety.
Lots and lots video on TH-cam explaining the "many" aspects and workings of a living cell... 👍..
@@jimhughes1070 I'm talking about explaining speciation from the creation point of view, i.e. not mutation but via the sophisticated mechanisms of chromosome crossover and how they happen at fixed gene splicing points. On this channel.
@@greatbriton8425
I suspected but I was missing a little information 🤣🎉... Bless you sir and thank you very much!! 🙏
«The SNEAKY Tactic Evolutionists Use to Convince People They’re Right«
In the case aig changes the title i post it here for the future !
Yes! The called a panda a "Panda Bear" in one and had to change it. They don't even do basic research.
@@nathancook2852 Pandas are bears. It was actually a Koala they called a Koala bear.
@@sciencerules2825 You are correct. Just bugs me when people say Panda bear because that isn't their name, and I was thinking of that.
@@nathancook2852 its was a koala!
@@luish1498 Yep, i misremembered because people call panda's panda bears as well. Still not the correct name, but they are at least a bear.
You know what theres no point arguing with this. This should be a self reflection for everyone. Not just a mindless and intellectually dishonest debate forum.
WTH? 😂🤣... Let me see if I got that right...
"I think the free flow of information should be shut down... I believe videos like this must be spreading misinformation... Because I believe in "smart dirt" 😎"...
Yeah, no! 🤣
@@jimhughes1070Well, this video is disseminating misinformation, as he was wrong about everything, so the only question that needs to be asked is if creationists have a mental defect that renders them incapable of learning, or do they lie intentionally?
@@dross4207 what did he get wrong?
@@YunYumSauce He misrepresented what evolution and biologists claim, and he misrepresented what evolution is.
@@dross4207 I read all the comments in this vid and see both sides. I’m not as well versed in evolution but I have studied it quite a bit. I have a couple q’s like is there actual evidence that species have evolved from bacteria to amphibians or is it more of an inference? Also, if we all came from common ancestors like from amphibian to reptile to mammals, do we have evidence for that as well? I’m just confused as to how bacteria could evolve into something like an elephant over a long period of time.
Wait a minute. Evolution and genetic change have been observed in both plants and animals? How can you say evolution doesn't exist?
We all observe biblical speciation within each creature's kind (dog>dog, finch>finch, bacteria>bacteria, horse>zorse, etc.), never even ONCE a change between kinds as evolution requires (fish>philosopher, dinosaurs>chickens, placoderm>shark, etc.). The former is scientific observation, the latter is a constantly radically ad-hoc rewritten atheistic origins mythology about the unobservable past. *"we see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the lapse of the ages"* (Charles Darwin)
*"we are condemned to live only for a few decades, and that's too slow, too small a time scale to see evolution going on"* (Richard Dawkins)
Whatever "evolution" is, at least we agree that it's not actually observable. We only observe diversification and environmental adaptation within each creature's kind ("microevolution"), everything else is pure atheistic/naturalistic storytelling that we keep having to rewrite about the unobservable past... and the reason you have to keep rewriting a "theory" is because it simply doesn't match reality.
All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, and that says something about the "evidence" evolutionists think they have.
Easy.
“In all of these efforts (to promote creationism) the creationists make abundant use of a simple tactic: They lie. They lie continually, they lie prodigiously, and they lie because they must.” -William J. Bennetta, _The Textbook Letters._
"I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves... *For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political."* (Aldous Huxley, "Ends and Means") Fish don't evolve into philosophers, no matter how much *Time* you add to the pot.
That's a modern constantly radically ad-hoc rewritten atheistic origins mythology (an Ideology) - that's just not how "science' (a methodology) works.
Snakes do not have vocal cords. The larynx in snakes is small and lacks vocal cords, unlike in other vertebrates. Snakes are physically incapable of producing vocalizations in the way that mammals and many other animals do, due to the absence of vocal cords. Sound production in snakes, when it occurs, is achieved through alternative means such as hissing or vibrating their scales. This anatomical feature of snakes is consistent across species and is a fundamental aspect of their biology. The story in Bible about a talking snake is therefore a fable. There is no other way around.
@@tobias4411 The Bible does not list a "talking snake," first of all, it describes a Super-Natural entity either possessing or masquerading as a natural creature (a "serpent," possibly but not necessarily a "snake" - consider that it also seemed to have legs before it was cursed). You are making a logical category error by attributing modern naturalistic observations of modern day snakes to an event that was claimed to be a Supernaturally influenced event concerning a qualitatively different creature. Second, even with that - consider parrots, that you are an 'evolved ape," or that fish evolve into philosophers in your own belief system - it's really not that far off from your beliefs my mythologian friend. Fish don't evolve into philosophers, and puddles of chemicals don't fizz by chance into people, no matter how much *Time* you add to the pot - that's just not how "science" works.
*"But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong."* (1 Corinthians 1:27)
*"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them."* (Romans 1:18-19)
This guys got incredible suits
The style is early Salvation Army.
Lovin it from Toronto Canada 🇨🇦
More sneaky tactics by theists attempting to prove god with useless pointless deflection, arguments, claims and assertions without any evidence.
That's because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just wait a really long *Time* then puddles of chemicals can fizz into people by chance. Let me ask you this... Charles Darwin met the gold standard of science (a methodology) by giving a testable hypothesis for his theory: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex *organ* existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down..." *How did male and female evolve?* Before you answer, consider that these are two separate, yet interdependent, precision tuned sets of organs that all have to be working just right or reproduction, life, and evolution fail.
For example:
The fallopian tubes are lined with millions of these little hairs that all wave the same direction, and their purpose is to guide the egg from the ovaries down into the uterus. If they stood still, laid flat, waved the wrong direction, or didn't exist - the egg would either die or it would implant in the fallopian tube thus killing the mother. Some of these are known medical conditions that prevent pregnancy - "Evolution" had to get these millions of hairs just right.... "by numerous, successive, slight modifications."
*Simultaneously* the sperm has a whip like rotor, a motor encasing, a bushing like material, a nutrient transfer system, and several other components that all have to be working *just right* or the sperm can't find the egg. Reproduction and life fails. "Evolution" had to get the interdependent parts of the sperm "just right" ... "by numerous, successive, slight modifications."
*Then* you have the placenta which does everything for the baby including keeping the mother's and baby's blood separate, the expanding and contracting uterus and cervix, the mechanism which only allows one sperm into the egg, and numerous other components that all had to be *designed* just right, or reproduction and life fails. "Evolution" had to *SIMULTANEOUSLY* get all of these just right "by numerous, successive, slight modifications."
Which gender evolved first, and how did it reproduce while the other hadn't evolved yet? And going backwards in time, which of these critical organs do you gradually reduce first "by numerous, successive, slight modifications" without causing reproduction to fail?
*"“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’"* (Matthew 19:4). Such *specified complexity* looks like the product of an Intelligent engineering mind, not the result of chance fizzing chemicals in a puddle. Puddles don't turn themselves into people no matter how much *time* you add to the mix.
@@michaelg377 Michael G the lying Godbot just never stops.
@@samburns3329 But you didn't answer the question. Just a question: *How did male and female evolve in accordance with Darwin's testable hypothesis (ie. "organs" by "numerous, successive, slight modifications")?*
Until you can answer this question, per Darwin, evolution is "absolutely break[ing] down..." ... keep in mind women today literally can't get pregnant because of minor issues like those above, and you need those interdependent organs to gradually develop by chance chemical reactions for no reason. What faith....
@@michaelg377more copy paste lying
FAITH is one of the most intellectually dishonest positions to hold, as it involves claiming facts without evidence and pretending to know things one doesn't actually know. In any other context, we would call this lying. Faith could only be more dishonest if practiced by religious apologists, who assert speculation without reason and defend it against all logic. Apologetics is essentially about making excuses to justify doctrinal errors and systematically dismissing or ignoring evidence that contradicts a priori beliefs, all in an effort to defend faith - even in instances where the apologist knows the belief to be untrue. As a result, they often resort to appeals to ignorance, asserting claims without any justification whatsoever.
That's because you put your FAITH in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just wait a long enough *Time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people by chance. You have FAITH every time you let a doctor operate on you, you allow someone to drive your car, etc. Even here, you are practicing your FAITH as an Apologist for the Atheistic origins mythology of particles to man evolution. We ONLY observe biblical speciation within each creature's kind (finch>finch, dog>dog, bacteria>bacteria), never even ONCE a change between kinds as the constantly radically ad-hoc rewritten atheistic origins mythology of particles to man macroevolution requires (fish>philosopher, dinosaur>chicken, placoderm>shark, etc.). It's just storytelling, and it has to constantly be rewritten because it simply does not match reality.
"FAITH is one of the most intellectually dishonest positions to hold, as it involves claiming facts without evidence and pretending to know things one doesn't actually know"
Consider your words, as you read the following.
*"we see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the lapse of the ages"* (Charles Darwin)
*"we are condemned to live only for a few decades, and that's too slow, too small a time scale to see evolution going on"* (Richard Dawkins)
All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, which A) says something about the "evidence" evolutionists think they have, and B) Scripture doesn't have to keep rewriting itself like atheistic particles to man evolution does.
Evolution is a constantly radically ad-hoc readjusted atheistic origins mythology (an Ideology) - that's just not how "science" (a methodology) works.
*"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"* (Romans 3:23)
@@michaelg377"..the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers".
Straw man fallacy. Evolution does not involve fish directly evolving into philosophers. Evolution occurs over millions of years and involves gradual changes in populations of organisms. There is no widely recognized modern mythology that includes fish evolving into philosophers. Our current scientific understanding of evolution and human origins does not support this claim. It's important to distinguish between scientific facts, mythology, and fictional concepts to avoid misunderstandings.
"We see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the long lapse of ages" (Charles Darwin)
He used this phrase to explain that evolutionary changes occur so slowly that they are not noticeable within a human lifetime. Only after a significant passage of time can we observe the cumulative effects of these changes.
The quote is part of Darwin's larger explanation of natural selection, where he describes it as a force constantly examining and preserving beneficial variations while discarding detrimental ones. This process works "silently and imperceptibly" over long periods, resulting in the adaptation of organisms to their environments.
@@tobias4411 What do you mean strawman - the number of steps you add in between is irrelevant, do you not believe humans have fish ancestry?
*"Human Ears Evolved from Ancient Fish Gills"* (Bjorn Carey, Live Science, 2006)
*"We are fish"* (P.Z. Myers, PhD, Associate Professor of Biology, University of Minnesota Morris)
*"That’s because we, and in fact all tetrapods (four-limbed vertebrates, many of which live on land), share a more recent common ancestor with the coelacanth and lungfish than we do with ray-finned fishes."* (evolution berkeley edu)
How is that not "fish evolving into philosophers"...?
It's important to distinguish between scientific facts, mythology, and fictional concepts to avoid misunderstandings. Science is a methodology - what you're talking about is a constantly radically ad-hoc rewritten atheistic origins mythology that fish evolve into philosophers (an Ideology) - not "science." The reason it has to keep being rewritten so often (evolutionists ironically call it "progress") is because it simply does not match reality. All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, which A) says something about the "evidence" evolutionists think they have, and B) Scripture doesn't have to keep rewriting itself as evolution does - as Atheistic-naturalists/evolutionists are rewriting their origins mythology and tacking on excuses for problematic evidences, all of the evidence just fits and is explainable in a biblical worldview just fine.
Let me ask you this... a century ago we taught our children the story of evolution as "the truth." Since then it has undergone numerous radical ad-hoc rewrites as it's run into more and more problematic evidence, and today we still teach it as "the truth." In another 30 years when we inevitably revise it again, it will still be "the truth."
*Which version was true, and which versions were the lies?*
@@michaelg377 Yes, humans do have fish ancestry. But the phrase "fish evolve into philosopher" can be considered a straw man fallacy because it oversimplifies and misrepresents the scientific understanding of evolution to make it easier to attack or ridicule.
Your last question raises important points about the nature of scientific knowledge and how it evolves. Scientific revisions are not the same as lies. They represent our improving understanding of the world as we gather more evidence and develop better tools for analysis. Remember that science is a self-correcting process. When new evidence contradicts old ideas, theories are revised or replaced. In science, "facts" are observable phenomena, while "theories" are explanations of those phenomena. The basic facts of evolution (e.g., that species change over time) remain constant, while our theories about the mechanisms of evolution may be refined. So yes, scientific concepts do change, but this is a strength, not a weakness. It shows that science is responsive to new evidence. These changes usually involve refinements or expansions of existing ideas rather than complete reversals. Good science education emphasizes both current understanding and the process of scientific inquiry. Students should learn that scientific knowledge is provisional and subject to revision based on new evidence. The core concept of evolution (descent with modification) has remained stable since Darwin. What has changed are details about mechanisms, rates, and specific evolutionary pathways. Science's willingness to revise ideas based on evidence is what makes it trustworthy, not less so. The goal is to progressively approach a more accurate understanding of reality.
@@tobias4411 What one "considers" is irrelevant in this case - you either believe that fish evolve into philosophers, or you do not. And you do, you just obfuscate the mythological nature of this origins mythology by adding countless steps in between and calling it 'science' (a methodology). The problem with the rest of your response is that this is a matter of competing worldviews over the same evidence - one which has an embarrassing history of radically ad-hoc rewriting itself as it runs into more and more problems, and another which explains all of the same evidence just fine but doesn't have to keep rewriting itself. Radical ad-hoc readjustment is a sign of a faulty worldview, it means it doesn't match reality - and you're justifying your FAITH in this constantly radically rewritten worldview.
There is another worldview that can explain all of this same evidence without the problem of radical ad-hoc readjustment. As evolutionists are increasingly admitting that we only see things like stasis, sudden appearance, fully developed organisms, morphological change in the fossil record is directionless, as ape-human similarity is reduced from 99% to 84% and evolutionists are admitting their bias in "humanizing the ape genome," etc. etc. etc. *they are corroborating longstanding Creationist observations and arguments.*
Science is a methodology, and science is great. What you're talking about is Uncritically Indoctrinating our children with a constantly radically ad-hoc rewritten atheistic origins mythology about the unobservable past (an Ideology). That's not science, that's something else.
*"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them."* (Romans 1:18-19)
"The goal is to progressively approach a more accurate understanding of reality."
Which, in your worldview, is the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers and that if you just wait a long enough *Time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people by chance - despite your origins mythology's embarrassing history of radical ad-hoc readjustment, the problem of hydrolysis which inhibits protein formation in water, etc. etc. etc. *That's not an "understanding of reality," that's forcing an Atheistic origins mythology onto reality despite science my friend.*
Dazed and confused.
This guy is jokes😂
This guy is a joke.
Fixed it for you.
@@Bomtombadi1 I meant it exactly as I said it.
@@ewganhoff he’s a complete joke, then
This channel should be renamed "The Misinformation Channel". What a joke!
Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just wait a long enough *Time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people by chance? Do you think that's how "science" (a methodology) works?
Let me ask you this... Charles Darwin met the gold standard of science (a methodology) by giving a testable hypothesis for his theory: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex *organ* existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down..." *How did male and female evolve?* Before you answer, consider that these are two separate, yet interdependent, precision tuned sets of organs that all have to be working just right or reproduction, life, and evolution fail.
For example:
The fallopian tubes are lined with millions of these little hairs that all wave the same direction, and their purpose is to guide the egg from the ovaries down into the uterus. If they stood still, laid flat, waved the wrong direction, or didn't exist - the egg would either die or it would implant in the fallopian tube thus killing the mother. Some of these are known medical conditions that prevent pregnancy - "Evolution" had to get these millions of hairs just right.... "by numerous, successive, slight modifications."
*Simultaneously* the sperm has a whip like rotor, a motor encasing, a bushing like material, a nutrient transfer system, and several other components that all have to be working *just right* or the sperm can't find the egg. Reproduction and life fails. "Evolution" had to get the interdependent parts of the sperm "just right" ... "by numerous, successive, slight modifications."
*Then* you have the placenta which does everything for the baby including keeping the mother's and baby's blood separate, the expanding and contracting uterus and cervix, the mechanism which only allows one sperm into the egg, and numerous other components that all had to be *designed* just right, or reproduction and life fails. "Evolution" had to *SIMULTANEOUSLY* get all of these just right "by numerous, successive, slight modifications."
Which gender evolved first, and how did it reproduce while the other hadn't evolved yet? And going backwards in time, which of these critical organs do you gradually reduce first "by numerous, successive, slight modifications" without causing reproduction to fail?
*"“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’"* (Matthew 19:4). Such *specified complexity* looks like the product of an Intelligent engineering mind, not the result of chance fizzing chemicals in a puddle. Puddles don't turn themselves into people no matter how much *time* you add to the mix.
@@michaelg377copy paste bs
@@michaelg377 copy pasta, the robot doesn't even think.
@@nathancook2852 His two brain cells aren't on speaking terms.
@@nathancook2852 Until you can rationally answer that question, per Darwin, evolution is "absolutely break[ing] down..." Something to think about.
“…It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong…The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor’s new clothes: *everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin’s predicted pattern, simply looked the other way.”* (Niles Eldredge, "The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982)
That last part is important: "everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin’s predicted pattern, simply looked the other way"
humor is built on erroneous assumptions.
equivocation :the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; prevarication. the bread and butter of apologist.
Logic, and evidence? JK but seriously, have you guys figured out the heat problem yet? No?
Nore have the figured out the mud problem.
@@nathancook2852
Lee Cronin offered his fine explanation... "It could have happened" 😎🤣
I call it the "faith of smart dirt" 🙏
Or blind faith if you prefer😂
What makes you think we have to figure everything out, or answer all of your questions? There's tons of evidence of a supernatural Creator, and evidence that topples bold and sweeping claims of evolution, abiogenesis, and the Big Bang. Can you even tell me what is the first law of thermodynamics, or what is the law of biogenesis? These aren't from the Bible, they are foundational scientific laws... empirical science.
@@OlegLankin I'll just answer that first question. If young-earth creationists want to act like they've science on their side, then they should try to resolve these scientific issues with their - if I'm going to be generous - hypothesis. Otherwise, everything they're saying can be dismissed.
@@HangrySaturn conveniently dodged my second question. Not to worry, you may also be dismissed by most who read your comments.
Rip the picture up and instead rely on the overwhelming amount of evidence we've gathered over the last hundred and sixty years to prove evolution happens , and it's not debatable.
We have more evidence to suggest evolution is true then we have to suggestngravity is true, but the apologists whose worldview would not be wrecked by admitting the scientific theory of gravity is true can't do the same with the scientific theory of evolution If they are to continue to take the bible literally
We certainly don't witness evolution. Gravity is witnessed every day.
What is the one strongest bit of evidence you have for evolution?
@@joefriday2275 The whole world witnessed the evolution of the SARS-CoV-2 virus into some 40 different and genetically unique strains in the last 4 years. Why do you have to lie about such simple facts?
@@joefriday2275 The fact that evolution is a scientific theory that no religious apologist has ever debunked is pretty good indication the evidence is solid and reliable. Instead of me.
Explaining the evidence.Why don't you go get a degree as an evolutionary biologist?And learn all the information and evidence for yourself?
I'm not saying a better explanation for the diversity of life couldn't be possible but I am saying, "god did it" ain't that better explanation.
@@RobertSmith-gx3mi Joefriday is a lonely old man who only posts lie filled rants just to get attention.
@@RobertSmith-gx3mi Like I always say. Evolution is the default for God deniers.
The vast majority of flat earthers are also hard right young earth creationists. It shows in the similar debate tactics. Tactic #1: Hand wave away any evidence you don't like. Tactic #2: Lie. Tactic #3 Lie some more to cover your previous lies.
Hard evidence for evolution is?
@@joefriday2275 as the OP says joey everyone just show evidence for evolution to you but you will just «Hand wave away any evidence you don't like.» and then liyng by say « thats not evidence» wich of course is a lie!
@@joefriday2275we all see how you lie lie lie
@@joefriday2275 We can walk upright. But you have already hand waved that one away in this very comment section. Just proved my point.
@@joefriday2275 You mean besides the strong consilience of 160+ years of positive scientific results from dozens of independent science disciplines like paleontology, genetics, geology, biology, astrophysics, comparative anatomy, radiometric dating, dendrochronology, 14C dating, biochemistry, etc.?
Humans have had gods for 100's of thousands of years. Nothing to do with putting hundreds of billions of galaxies in the sky that no human would see for millions of years.
Seems you figured it out... Right there on your porch! 🤣🤣😎
@@jimhughes1070 No internet on my balcony.
@@jimhughes1070 Ah, the rantings of a nutcase who so desperately fails to cling to his own thoughts for one second~
I know you creationists have the rest of the world living in your minds rent-free~
We drive you lot crazy, with all our evidence to back up our genuine knowledge of the Universe~
What does he think about science?
any science/scientist that conflits with his bible version is obviously wrong, so he decides to call them evolutionists
@@luish1498 That's because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, so anything that conflicts with your constantly radically ad-hoc readjusted atheistic origins mythology is obviously wrong, so you decide to ignore them because they believe in 'creation.' Tell me something... when all the right chemicals mixed by chance into all the necessary proteins required for life (already an Atheist miracle), and then into all the necessary cell components inside of a cell enclosure, as DNA programmed itself with mass quantities of instructions for building complex machines... *how did it overcome the problem of hydrolysis which inhibits protein formation in water?*
*"we've not made the RNA in a prebiotically relevant manner. It hydrolyzes too rapidly."* (Professor Saztech, Chicago, 2021)
[Regarding Abiogenesis] *"Chemistry is actually hard to get to work. The molecules precipitate. The molecules hydrolyze. The molecules decompose. And so it's very much a constraint that you have to deal with.. it's one g-d problem after another."* (Steve Benner, former Harvard Professor, Director of Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution, 2019)
"Even a single protein could not arrive at its native structure in biological real time because conformational space is far too vast": ~10^95 possible conformations for a chain of 100 residues, so that *"even a small protein that initiated folding by random search at the time of the big bang would still be thrashing about today."* (Peter Tompa and George D. Rose, "The Levinthal Paradox of the Interactome," Protein Science 20 (2011): 2074.)
@@michaelg377 Michael why do you hate God? Why do you keep dishonoring Him with your incessant copy&paste lying?
@@samburns3329 No lies, just science: *"we've not made the RNA in a prebiotically relevant manner. It hydrolyzes too rapidly."* (Professor Saztech, Chicago, 2021)
[Regarding Abiogenesis] *"Chemistry is actually hard to get to work. The molecules precipitate. The molecules hydrolyze. The molecules decompose. And so it's very much a constraint that you have to deal with.. it's one g-d problem after another."* (Steve Benner, former Harvard Professor, Director of Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution, 2019)
"Even a single protein could not arrive at its native structure in biological real time because conformational space is far too vast": ~10^95 possible conformations for a chain of 100 residues, so that *"even a small protein that initiated folding by random search at the time of the big bang would still be thrashing about today."* (Peter Tompa and George D. Rose, "The Levinthal Paradox of the Interactome," Protein Science 20 (2011): 2074.)
@@michaelg377 Lying Godbot just never stops.
All this time and money and still creationists can't find a flaw in evolution that creationism can fix.
"...can't find a flaw in evolution..."? I think pointing out that speciation or adaptability is not evolution is a pretty big flaw. Evolution is one thing changing into another through mutation. But all we've seen is speciation. Every recorded instance of "micro-evolution" is not evolution, it is adaptation or speciation. In the case of canines, being bred into different varieties is not evolution, it is speciation. In the case of moths that bred out certain colours, that is adaptation. Even Darwin's finches were an example of adaptation, not evolution. They are not the same. Evolution should be able to present dozens of taxonomical intermediaries between domains, kingdoms, phyla, or classes. But there are no such examples in the entire fossil record. None.
And creationism "fixes" that idea easily since everything was created according to its kind.
@@bigboreracing356No it isn’t. But funny how you think calling something a religion is an insult.
@@bigboreracing356 Trying to denigrate evolutionary science by calling it a religion only shows you think your own religion is worthless.
@@bigboreracing356 Well you made it pretty obvious you have no science education to speak up.
@@AHSears Just because you want to redefine the terms to make yourself feel better, that doesn't mean you know what you are talking about. All you have done is prove you don't understand science. Good job on that.
I'm favoured, Getting my own Truck has always been my Dream for my business. I just acquired 2 recently, earning $32K weekly has been really helpful. I can now give back to the locals in my community and also support Charity Organizations.
I'm genuinely curious to know how you earn that much weekly
Ms Elizabeth Marie Hawley has been of tremendous help and relevance to my household. The guaranteed flow of income at month's end has put lots of smiles on our faces
GOD bless you more abundantly for your generosity
I always appreciate God for his kindness upon my life
Her top notch guidance and expertise on digital market changed the game for me
When I was a kid, micro evolution was called adaptation
And now as an adult you are willfully ignorant.
You could call it tutti frutti jello and it would still be evolution.
Evolution is entirely dependent on an old Earth. From a creationists standpoint, I'm very sure that the Earth and the Universe were not created in six 24 hour periods, but It doesn't make sense to me that it took billions of years to make the Earth and it's in habitants. There is much evidence that current dating processes are circular. I'm quite certain that they are erroneous.
@@quernalt Then write up your "evidence" and have it peer-reviewed and published. You'll immediately become one of the most famous scientists in history. What's stopping you?
@@quernalt _Evolution is entirely dependent on an old Earth._ We *have* an old earth. That is a well verified scientific fact. Old Earth wasn't invented just to prop up evolution. That's an exceptionally dumb claim.
if evolution is real did a giraffe syart off with a short neck and through millions of years streched it's neck to reach tree leaves
More or less. The evolutionary ancestors of extant giraffes had shorter necks and looked more like extant okapis. Interestingly enough the most well supported hypothesis for the neck lengthening is sexual selection. Giraffes fight by hitting each other with their heads / necks. Ones which evolved longer necks had a physical advantage in winning the fights and getting mates. Reaching taller leaves on trees was a secondary benefit.
I'm surprised people still wrestle with this theory.I took it into consideration when I first learned it but after dissecting it in my mind for a while I realized it created more questions than answers.Its just as shallow as those atheists that claim that everything came from nothing.Its about time to come out with something new.
Ooooo so your personal incredulity and misrepresentation you think is okay? No
Evolution is a scientific theory.
Hardly any atheists suggest from nothing
How about dissecting the evidence? You obviously didn't do that. I love how all the fringe groups (YEC's, FE's, etc.) think they are smarter than everyone else. They even think they are smarter than experts in the field. Oh, shit, I can't refer too an expert, that would be "an appeal to authority fallacy."
"everything came from nothing" violates 1st Law of Thermodynamics
You “dissected it in your mind,” and found yourself asking too many questions. Heaven forbid you actually find out whether or not you asked the right questions; or were curious enough to overcome the intellectual laziness of “this is too hard,” to find out more … that’s just too much work, right?
@@globalcoupledancesme when chemicals actually help evolution also the big bang was made by a priest you can believe in Science and god at the same time
Given enough time and research, most evolutionists will conclude that there is a Creator.
The statistics say just the opposite. According to a 2019 Pew poll 98% of all scientists and 99.9% of scientists in the Life Sciences (biology, genetics, etc.) accept evolution as the best explanation for the history and diversity of life on Earth. There is also a large positive correlation between education level and acceptance of evolution.
Creator of what? The earth was formed by natural processes.
@@_TheSubZero_ EVERYTHING.
The natural processes didn't exist until the Creator started 'The machine'.
There is an almost impenetrable barrier, human Ego.
good one
5:26 no its only called micro by theists
Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just wait a really long *Time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people by chance? Let me ask you this, I'm still looking for a reasonable answer... Charles Darwin met the gold standard of science (a methodology) by giving a testable hypothesis for his theory: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex *organ* existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down..." *How did male and female evolve?* Before you answer, consider that these are two separate, yet interdependent, precision tuned sets of organs that all have to be working just right or reproduction, life, and evolution fail.
For example:
The fallopian tubes are lined with millions of these little hairs that all wave the same direction, and their purpose is to guide the egg from the ovaries down into the uterus. If they stood still, laid flat, waved the wrong direction, or didn't exist - the egg would either die or it would implant in the fallopian tube thus killing the mother. Some of these are known medical conditions that prevent pregnancy - "Evolution" had to get these millions of hairs just right.... "by numerous, successive, slight modifications."
*Simultaneously* the sperm has a whip like rotor, a motor encasing, a bushing like material, a nutrient transfer system, and several other components that all have to be working *just right* or the sperm can't find the egg. Reproduction and life fails. "Evolution" had to get the interdependent parts of the sperm "just right" ... "by numerous, successive, slight modifications."
*Then* you have the placenta which does everything for the baby including keeping the mother's and baby's blood separate, the expanding and contracting uterus and cervix, the mechanism which only allows one sperm into the egg, and numerous other components that all had to be *designed* just right, or reproduction and life fails. "Evolution" had to *SIMULTANEOUSLY* get all of these just right "by numerous, successive, slight modifications."
Which gender evolved first, and how did it reproduce while the other hadn't evolved yet? And going backwards in time, which of these critical organs do you gradually reduce first "by numerous, successive, slight modifications" without causing reproduction to fail?
*"“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’"* (Matthew 19:4). Such *specified complexity* looks like the product of an Intelligent engineering mind, not the result of chance fizzing chemicals in a puddle. Puddles don't turn themselves into people no matter how much *time* you add to the mix.
Just ignore Michael's straw man argument and misrepresentation. He oversimplifies evolution by claiming, 'You believe in a modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers.' He has been corrected several times about this in another video, yet he continues to use such an argument. His integrity is also compromised, as he systematically lies and quote-mines both scientists and commenters. His faith in a delusional god is so strong that evidence no longer matters to him. It's very sad indeed.
@@michaelg377 *Let me ask you this, I'm still looking for a reasonable answer... Charles Darwin met the gold standard of science (a methodology) by giving a testable hypothesis for his theory: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down..."*
And thus far, creationists have yet to actually provide such an example.
*How did male and female evolve? Before you answer, consider that these are two separate, yet interdependent, precision tuned sets of organs that all have to be working just right or reproduction, life, and evolution fail.*
Male and female are the two binary sexes we typically see in sexually-reproductive organisms. There _are_ other ways to go about it; fungi with what might as well be hundreds of different sexes come to mind. All sexual reproduction requires is that two parent cells come together to produce a new offspring. You don't even need distinct sexes for that, as shown in plenty of eukaryotic microbes. And if you check to animals which _do_ have distinct sexes, you'll see that the most primitive lineages are often true hermaphrodites, simply producing both sperm and eggs.
*For example:*
Your examples can all be summed up as "this is too complex for me to understand, therefor God." It's literally the exact same sort of irreducible complexity nonsense that was debunked in a court of law as a matter of public record _and_ spectacle almost two decades ago.
*Which gender evolved first, and how did it reproduce while the other hadn't evolved yet? And going backwards in time, which of these critical organs do you gradually reduce first "by numerous, successive, slight modifications" without causing reproduction to fail?*
See what I mean?
@@burnttoast2790 You are wasting your time. michael is the worst of them, other than Calvin of course. He just keeps a google doc of quote mines that he drops in and often don't even match the convrsation.
@@burnttoast2790 You didn't answer the question my friend. Per Darwin's testable hypothesis, you need to explain the critical *Organs* in these two separate, yet interdependent systems "by numerous, successive, slight modifications" - anyone can tell a mythology that says "well there was fungi... hermaphrodites... and then there was male and female, they *Had* to evolve..." etc. Also, I'm not giving an *irreducible complexity* argument, I'm just asking you to give a reasonable answer for your own belief system.
*Which gender evolved first, and how did it reproduce while the other hadn't evolved yet? Going backwards in time, which of these critical organs do you gradually reduce first "by numerous, successive, slight modifications" - keeping in mind that women today literally cannot get pregnant for known minor medical issues with these organs?*
Until you can reasonably answer this question, per Darwin, evolution is "absolutely break[ing] down..." I know that won't sway you, because your modern atheistic origins story doesn't actually depend on evidence, Darwin, science, or anything other than your desire to explain our origins without God - but nonetheless, per Darwin, evolution is breaking down.
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex *organ* existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down..." (Darwin) *How did male and female evolve?*
Adaptation is different than evolution
No, they are the same thing. Trying to claim otherwise does not make it so.
@@nathancook2852 I didn't try to claim. I claimed. Claiming they are the same does not make them the same as well.
Adaptation is a form of evolution. What you are claiming makes no sense, like saying "bears are different than mammals".
@@janailtongoncalvesdesouza4160
There is no barrier between microevolution and macroevolution. They are just two sides of the same coin. They are both evolution. A lot of small scale things are going to make a big scale thing. A lot of bricks make a house. You accept 2+2=4 but not 2+2+2+2+2=10?
That would be the case if adaptations brought something new to existence, which was never the case. They are different claims. Make something to adapt forever and it will create any new useful information in their DNA.
Evolution suggests from simple to complex, from worst to good and that is not what is observed.What we see is the opposite
Wrong. Evolution can include complex to simply too and what is "good" and "bad" is completely subjective. Fopr example, would you say that having eyes and then losing them is good or bad? Ah, but what if you (as a species) got trappe din some permanently dark caves? Then eyes become a liability, and so losing them is good.
@@richardgregory3684 Such as, ya know, cave fish, which, as you know, have done exactly as you described! Not creating the eyes also saves time, energy, and resources to put into more useful features.
No, it is to better survival
Creationists want to think this because it allows them an out. Evidence doesn't suggest this at all. Most changes are neutral and have neither a positive nor negative effect. If an organism develops a negative trait, it is likely to die off and not mate, so that trait doesn't get passed along. The opposite is true for positive traits. But this isn't always the case, and sometimes a trait can be positive for while, and them become a disadvantage again. Ask the peppered moths of England that lived during the industrial revolution about this. (That was a turn of phrase. Only creationists think former living creatures can be raised from the dead and that humans can have a full blown conversation with another species.) Evolution is random, it was never "suggested" to be otherwise, and it itself does not "suggest" simple to complex.
"The experiments beautifully demonstrate natural selection, or survival of the fittest - in action, but *they do not show evolution in progress,* for however the populations may alter in their content of light, intermediate, or dark forms, *all the moths remain from beginning to end Biston Betularia."* (L. Harrison Matthews, Forward to 1971 Edition of Darwin's Origin of Species)
The truth is that the difference between apologists and real scientists is that when a real scientist is caught intentionally useing fallacies to force the conclusion, there career is over. When a Christion apologists is caught intentionally useing fallacies to force a conclusion, its called defending the faith. Apologists are the evil ones here.
Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers? I disagree that evolutionists' careers are over when they use fallacies to force their conclusions/presuppositions - even when they are wrong we just radically rewrite the atheistic origins story of evolution, no problem.
*"we see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the lapse of the ages"* (Charles Darwin)
*"we are condemned to live only for a few decades, and that's too slow, too small a time scale to see evolution going on"* (Richard Dawkins) ...at least we agree it's not observable.
Notice how @@michaelg377 doesn't really address my post. Instead, he puts forward a strawman. Again, this type of behavior would not be tolerated in a formal academic setting. I will say it again. Apologists are the evil ones here.
@@badatpseudoscience What do you mean strawman, do you not believe that humans have fish ancestry? That's a staple doctrine of evolution..?
*"Human Ears Evolved from Ancient Fish Gills"* (Bjorn Carey, Live Science, 2006)
*"We are fish"* (P.Z. Myers, PhD, Associate Professor of Biology, University of Minnesota Morris)
*"That’s because we, and in fact all tetrapods (four-limbed vertebrates, many of which live on land), share a more recent common ancestor with the coelacanth and lungfish than we do with ray-finned fishes."* (evolution berkeley edu)
It's easy to just call the other side "evil," cry unsubstantiated "strawmen," and pretend you're on the higher ground with statements like "would not be tolerated in a formal academic setting" - it's another thing entirely to recognize that what your opponent is saying actually accurately describes your evolutionary belief system.
Science is a methodology. What you're talking about is an Ideology, not "science."
@@badatpseudoscience Michael G is a proven serial liar. His science knowledge begins and ends with what he can copy and paste from creation websites. The guy's never had an original thought in his life.
@@sciencerules2825 Science is a methodology, what you're talking about is a constantly radically ad-hoc rewritten atheistic origins mythology, not 'science' my friend.
Let's ask you this again, since you haven't rationally answered yet... Charles Darwin met the gold standard of science (a methodology) by giving a testable hypothesis for his theory: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex *organ* existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down..." *How did male and female evolve?* Before you answer, consider that these are two separate, yet interdependent, precision tuned sets of organs that all have to be working just right or reproduction, life, and evolution fail - and women literally cannot get pregnant today because of some of known minor medical conditions with just one of them.
For example:
The fallopian tubes are lined with millions of these little hairs that all wave the same direction, and their purpose is to guide the egg from the ovaries down into the uterus. If they stood still, laid flat, waved the wrong direction, or didn't exist - the egg would either die or it would implant in the fallopian tube thus killing the mother. Some of these are known medical conditions that prevent pregnancy - "Evolution" had to get these millions of hairs just right.... "by numerous, successive, slight modifications."
*Simultaneously* the sperm has a whip like rotor, a motor encasing, a bushing like material, a nutrient transfer system, and several other components that all have to be working *just right* or the sperm can't find the egg. Reproduction and life fails. "Evolution" had to get the interdependent parts of the sperm "just right" ... "by numerous, successive, slight modifications."
*Then* you have the placenta which does everything for the baby including keeping the mother's and baby's blood separate, the expanding and contracting uterus and cervix, the mechanism which only allows one sperm into the egg, and numerous other components that all had to be *designed* just right, or reproduction and life fails. "Evolution" had to *SIMULTANEOUSLY* get all of these just right "by numerous, successive, slight modifications."
Which gender evolved first, and how did it reproduce while the other hadn't evolved yet? And going backwards in time, which of these critical organs do you gradually reduce first "by numerous, successive, slight modifications" without causing reproduction to fail?
*"“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’"* (Matthew 19:4). Such *specified complexity* looks like the product of an Intelligent engineering mind, not the result of chance fizzing chemicals in a puddle. Puddles don't turn themselves into people no matter how much *time* you add to the mix.
Still waiting on you all to explain why our tails reabsorb into our bodies in utero. And why a few very rare people are still born with them.
It's not a tail, only evolutionists are confused by that. Despite it's unfortunate name "tail bone," it is and always has been just a coccyx - which is an important connection point for tendons and ligaments. Evolutionists are only reading their evolutionary presuppositions onto the evidence (ie. circular reasoning and confirmation bias). Evolutionists once called the appendix a "leftover" vestigial organ as well, and today we know it actually has an important purpose.
Great Answers in Genesis article on this if you want to know more: "The Human Tail and Other Tales of Evolution." It's just Atheistic-Naturalistic storytelling, and all of the best evidences for it can also be explained by Genesis 1-12.
@@michaelg377 Are you really as scientifically ignorant as you project? You're ignorant enough to not know vestigial doesn't mean *useless* , it means having lost or been degraded from its *original function.* The human appendix is certainly vestigial as is the human coccyx.
@@apoliticalobserver2741 There is no evidence of the appendix, the coccyx, or otherwise as being "vestigial" - they are just normal organs. The rest is just evolutionary storytelling my friend.
*"I mean the stories, the narratives about change over time. How the dinosaurs became extinct, how the mammals evolved, where man came from. These seem to me to be little more than story telling."* (Colin Patterson Sr., Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London)
@@michaelg377 You really are a scientific ignoramus. Go find a biology book, have someone read the biological definition of vestigial to you. Here, I'll help you. This is from the U. California Berkeley Biology Department.
"A vestigial structure is a feature that a species inherited from an ancestor but that is now less elaborate and functional than in the ancestor."
@@michaelg377 Here's another definition from LibreTexts: Biology
"vestigial structure: Genetically determined structures or attributes that have lost most or all of their ancestral function in a given species."
Monkey lost the tail with subsequent genetic change? Then changed monkey seek a sunsuit to wear.
There is no sneaky tactic we use to trick people about evolution. Evolution is the change in characteristics of a species over several generations by the process of natural selection. Let's take the Dinosaurs as an example. Dinosaurs first appeared in the Traissic and later they evolved in the subsequent periods into the forms we are used to, like T Rex and Triceratops. Now, if you wanted to disprove it you would have to show the Dinosaurs that we have in the Jurassic and Createceous are also in the Traissic. That has not happened.
How do evolutionists explain new information?
Since natural selection can only cull, today’s evolutionary theorists rely on mutations (random copying mistakes in the reproductive process) to create the raw material on which natural selection can then operate. But that is a separate issue. It has been shown convincingly that observed mutations do not add information, and that mutation is seriously hampered on theoretical grounds in this area.
One of the world’s leading information scientists, Dr Werner Gitt from Germany’s Federal Institute of Physics and Technology in Braunschweig, says, ‘There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.’ His challenge to scientifically falsify this statement HAS REMAINED UNANSWERED since first published. Even those mutations which give a survival benefit are seen to be losses of information, not creating the sorely needed new material upon which natural selection can then go to work.
Step out the echo chamber and learn some actual science.
@@jwc713 So now you just blatantly lie. New information is added via mutation all the time. Hell, the marmorkrebs crayfish (or marbled crayfish) is known to have fully spectated from a slough crayfish egg after a mutation made it a triploid. I"ll explain that to you because I know you won't look it up. A slough crayfish laid an egg, and what come out of it was a marmorkrebs crayfish, a completely new species. It happened because of a mutation that added a third chromosome to cells with the new marmorkrebs crayfish. This is also an example of "evolution in the present day", just like humans still not having fully lost our tails yet. Did you know, that even you, grew a tail in utero and it had to be reabsorbed and repurposed by your body. Unless you are one of the few who's body didn't actually reabsorb it and you were born with a small tail. This is why the coccyx is nicknamed the tailbone. Because, wait for it, our TAIL attaches there.
@@jwc713_learn some actual science_
Why don’t creationists do that?
@@nathancook2852 Ahh, nathan the troll is babbling and lying yet again. Are the checks sent weekly or fortnightly? I lifted my post from a science professor, you fraud.
@jwc713 - 1/64 of all mutatins add new information
Strawman upon strawman upon strawman, yup, very convincing, LOL!!!
Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers?
@@michaelg377 Are you seriously this utterly ignorant to reality? Wow!!!
@@philipgrobler7253 What do you mean "ignorant to reality," do you not believe that humans have fish ancestry? That's a staple doctrine of evolution...?
*"Human Ears Evolved from Ancient Fish Gills"* (Bjorn Carey, Live Science, 2006)
*"We are fish"* (P.Z. Myers, PhD, Associate Professor of Biology, University of Minnesota Morris)
*"That’s because we, and in fact all tetrapods (four-limbed vertebrates, many of which live on land), share a more recent common ancestor with the coelacanth and lungfish than we do with ray-finned fishes."* (evolution berkeley edu)
@@michaelg377 Your brain is simply incapable of seeing the bigger picture, don't worry, I understand. Seems like this running around in circles by theists while failing to address the core issues regarding the glaring failures of religion(s) is not going to end anytime soon.
@@philipgrobler7253 And yet now you realize that I was accurately representing your mythology which very much holds that fish evolve into philosophers. We observe biblical speciation within each creature's kind (dog>dog, finch>finch, bacteria>bacteria) never even ONCE a change between kinds as atheistic evolution requires (fish>philosopher, dinosaur>chicken, placoderm>shark, etc.). The former is scientific observation, the latter is a constantly radically ad-hoc rewritten atheistic origins mythology - that's just not how "science" (a methodology) works my friend. Let me ask you this... *How do you get from meaningless goo to meaningful and valuable you just by adding time + chemicals + chance in a meaningless universe?*
I notice that *for some reason you live in contrast to the atheistic "we're all just chemicals" belief system, but perfectly in line with everything the God you reject said about you instead as a valuable human being made in His image and likeness - why do you do that?* That is powerful evidence you can see in yourself that God created you, and that you're not just "meaningless evolved protoplasm" in a meaningless chemical universe that doesn't care about you, and I love that He put that into you so you can see clear evidence in yourself that He exists.
God said you are a meaningful and valuable human being made in His image and likeness (Genesis 1:27), with a purpose and a unique capacity for "dominion" over creation as you sit here typing this (Genesis 1:26), morality and a sense of justice (Genesis 9:6), a sense of dignity and respect towards others (James 3:10), a capacity for free will rational thinking and decision making (Genesis 2:16), and a conscience which reflects the principles of His law (Romans 2:15), among other things. These are observable qualities that we all observe in you, and being made in God's image and likeness makes perfect sense of that.
How do you explain these qualities of the image and likeness of God in you from your own worldview? For example, *is "rape" always wrong in your worldview, or is it sometimes morally permissible - and why?* Where does that come from in your worldview? Animals do it all the time, it's "normal" - it's "natural" - and we're just "evolved animals," right? Chemical reactions destroy each other all the time, it's "normal" - it's "natural" - and who cares - we're "just chemicals," right? What's the difference...?
*"They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them."* (Romans 2:15)
It's not my belief in God that's weird. It's yours, as evidenced by your own internally inconsistent behavior and self-contradiction.
The. Tricks of satan!
Clavin knows satan doesn't exist and that evolution is true. Why do you think he looks so smug in his videos? He knows you all will never, ever check what he claims.
Evolutionists are are concrete thinkers and creationist are abstract thinkers.
Meaning, Evolutionist ken easily bee fooled buy Ed -v dents present ted two dim.
Scientists are honest enough to follow and accept what the evidence shows. Creationists are dishonest hand-wavers who run from science they can't explain and which they feel threatened by.
Creationists are brainwashed not to think about anything except what their cult leader tells them too think.
Look at the audience of AiG, all fooled
@@globalcoupledances You go wing two use a audience and claim day are isle Creationist?
Isle so, every one Ken bee fooled,but inn different ways. Some Kent bee fooled width emo Shawn's, or bee cause day trust two much.
Concrete thinkers are ceceptible two neo darwinism dan abstract thinkers.
Why? concrete thinkers bee leave what day sea present Ted two dim width images.
Example - If someone said, land any moles evolved inn two whales, hear the images and any moles two prove the transition. Abstract thinker minds dye sect the whale a gnat toe mii down and watch the hole transition inn their minds,Knot just the out side imagine day sea. Alf stir dye sect ting, abstract thinkers wood say it's impossible four it two survive the transition.
Concrete thinkers wood say, prove this Kent happen, day are very similar looking,but their minds did ant dye sect whales, the images is enough and Moore inn pour tent Dan some one tell Lin dim the whale wood ant survive bee cause of their a gnat toe mii. Day Kent sea the a gnat toe mii dying during the process inn their heads
Bee cause Their minds fowl low what day sea inn front of dim. Isle so, day trust a position Moore Dan the information.
Example concrete thinker:
Where's the peer viewed Ed -v dent. Meaning,day reel lye own a position confirmation Moore Dan the Ed -v dent.
Day sea scientist as none corrupt able holy man telling the truth two the world.
Two us, scientist is a job width a chain of command.Meaning, hoos ever at the top control the subordinates. Meaning day are extensions of the pea pole filling the pockets.
Concrete bee leaves day wood ant lye four any knee reasons, but abstract nose day wood if day had a good reason.
@@globalcoupledances 🤦 aye Kent explain inn detail bee cause the platform take downs. Did you sea my respawns bee four the take down? Some say day Ken sea it inn their notifications
Thanks for your work.
His work of being a hypocrite?
@@therick363 his work to expose a fallacy.
@@rolandgerard6064 By depending almost exclusively on them? Calvin's favorites are the false dichotomies, appeal to incredulity and the strawman. He employs these in just about every single video.
@@razark9 ad hominem attacks do not refute his arguments and many sources are available for audi alteram partem obviously.
@@rolandgerard6064 Where was the ad homs? It's hypocritical given that most of these propaganda videos use ad homs and distortions of reality in their titles and taglines, always to make scientists/science look nefarious. Are you calling Calvin out for this? No, of course not.
There's no such thing as an ''evolutionist''. There are people who understand/accept science and then there are creationists and flat earthers.
Science is a methodology, what you're talking about is an often untestable, unfalsifiable, constantly radically ad-hoc readjusted (ie. rewritten) atheistic origins mythology (an Ideology) - it is indisputably not "scientific," you're just confusing the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers with a methodology for measuring natural phenomena. Here are a few examples of radical ad-hoc rewrites in recent evolutionary history - examples abound: *Discovering fossilized soft tissues in early armored fish, the predecessors to modern jawed creatures like sharks, showing that they actually had fully developed and complex jaws from the beginning - so evolutionists claim they evolved those jaws, must have de-evolved them, and then evolved them back to maintain their story?*
Evolutionists *Believe* that jawless creatures evolved into jawed creatures, and believe that certain ancient armored fish were the evolutionary predecessors to modern jawed fish, sharks, etc. However, they discovered placoderm fossils with preserved soft tissues showing that they had fully developed and complex jaws - not the soft early less developed jaws they expected which "present an anatomy that differs radically from the shark model" of evolution. *Now they theorize that these placoderms evolved fully developed complex jaws with more advanced modern muscle connection points, the muscles then disappeared in later descendents, and then they "re-evolved" later.* Meanwhile, while evolution is rewriting itself and adding side stories to sustain itself, it seems those fish had everything they needed from the very beginning of their existence, almost like they were deliberately created and engineered from the start.
*Falsifying and rewriting a 70 year old assumption on allegedly higher oxygen concentrations producing a mass evolution of oceanic fauna:* "No, oxygen didn't catalyze the swift blossoming of Earth's first multicellular organisms. The result *defies a 70-year-old assumption* about what caused an explosion of oceanic fauna hundreds of millions of years ago" (University of Copenhagen Faculty of Science, Sciencedaily, 2023)
*Falsifying and rewriting the story of human evolution over time - again:*
"In an evolutionary eyeblink, our species has gone from hunting and gathering to living in complex societies. *We need to rethink the story* of this monumental transition…
"Their most prevalent narrative describes a sort of trap: once people started farming, there was no way back from a cascade of increasing social complexity that led inexorably to hierarchy, inequality and environmental destruction. This bleak view of civilisation’s rise has long held sway. However, *the more societies we look at, the more it falls to pieces. Confronted with inconvenient evidence, we are being forced to retell our own origin story.* In doing so, we are also rethinking what a society can be..."
“Now, *growing evidence suggests it is a fiction...”*
“It *misrepresents hunter-gatherer societies,* which turn out to be far more variable and complex than we thought...
[There] are *dramatic examples of hunter-gatherers acting in unexpectedly sophisticated ways.”*
(Marshall, "The Civilization Myth: How new discoveries are rewriting human history," Newscientist, 2023)
*Discovering lignin in algae that wasn't supposed to be there, and consequently that the SAME material had to evolve TWICE in two entirely separate evolutionary trees by chance...:*
"Because monolignol [lignin chemical] synthesis is exceptionally complex, it seems unlikely that Calliarthron and terrestrial plants evolved monolignol biosynthesis and polymerization completely independently." (ie. Scientists discovered that the algae Calliarthron contained lignin - something that wasn't supposed to exist, and this necessitate that it evolved twice, separately, in completely different creatures according to evolutionary thinking). (Martone, "Discovery of lignin in seaweed reveals convergent evolution of cell-wall architecture," Current Biology, 2009)
Related to this:
"The pathways, enzymes and genes that go into making this stuff are pretty complicated, so *to come up with all those separately would be really, really amazing. Anything is possible, but that would be one h_ll of a coincidence."* (Professor Mark Denny) ("Discovery of Land Plant Characteristic in Seaweed May be Evolutionary Curve Ball," UBC science news, 2009).
*All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12,* except it doesn't have to keep getting rewritten as we discover more and more problematic scientific evidence. That's a problem for Atheistic-Naturalistic evolution.
@@michaelg377" Discovering fossilized soft tissues in early armored fish, the predecessors to modern jawed creatures like sharks, showing that they actually had fully developed and complex jaws from the beginning - so evolutionists claim they evolved those jaws, must have de-evolved them, and then evolved them back to maintain their story?" No, this is wrong. It shows they had jaws earlier than previously though, not from the beginning. Multiple sources stat this. Stop lying. You cannot account for their age anyway.
More quote mining: Falsifying and rewriting a 70 year old assumption on allegedly higher oxygen concentrations producing a mass evolution of oceanic fauna: "No, oxygen didn't catalyze the swift blossoming of Earth's first multicellular organisms. The result defies a 70-year-old assumption about what caused an explosion of oceanic fauna hundreds of millions of years ago" (University of Copenhagen Faculty of Science, Sciencedaily, 2023) Just keep reading and you will find "We know that animals and humans must be able to maintain low concentrations of oxygen in order to control their stem cells, and in so doing, develop slowly and sustainably. With too much oxygen, the cells will develop, and in the worst case, mutate wildly and perish. It is far from inconceivable that this mechanism applied back then," concludes Christian J. Bjerrum. Again, why wouldn't we update what we think with when we get new information.
This is multiple times I have caught you quote mining. I am not bothering with your quotes anymore. Plus, I am not subscribed to New Scientists, so I can't find your sure quote mine there.
@@nathancook2852 Sure, which means they had to evolve those jaws, de-evolve them, and then re-evolve them - all just to sustain your story of shark evolution. And for your second comment, *Radical ad-hoc readjustment is a sign of a faulty worldview - it means it's not predictive except for circular reasoning - it's not a matter of 'why wouldn't we update what we think with.. new information?" it's a matter of "at what point do you abandon a worldview that has to constantly be radically rewritten?*
Another popular lie that is still being promulgated is our "99% similarity to apes." Here are a few examples of what scientists say on that today:
*“the percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 84.38%” and “4.06% had no alignment to the chimp assembly.”* (Richard Buggs, PhD, University of London's specialist in evolutionary genomics).
"The higher-quality human genome assemblies have often been used to guide the final stages of nonhuman genome projects, including the order and orientation of sequence contigs and, perhaps more importantly, the annotation of genes. *This bias has effectively “humanized” other ape genome assemblies."* (Kronenberg, Z. N. et al. 2018. High-resolution comparative analysis of great ape genomes. Science. 360 (6393).
[Regarding Human-Chimp DNA similarity]: "There is a 13.3% difference in sections of our immune systems when insertions and deletions are considered." (Anzai, et. a., "Comparative Sequencing of Human and Chimpanzee MHC Class 1 Regions Unveils Insertions/Deletions as the Major Path to Genomic Divergence," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100, no. 13 (2003).
"The chimpanzee genome was 12% larger than the human genome... gene copy numbers revealed a 6.4% difference" (Jeffery Demuth, et al., "the Evolution of Mammalian Gene Families," 2006).
[Regarding Human-Chimp DNA similarity]: "There is a 17.4% difference in gene expression in the cerebral cortex" (Jon Cohen, "Relative Differences: the Myth of 1%" Science 316, no. 5833, 2007).
...but this mythology is still popular in children's textbooks, we are all *Uncritically Indoctrinated* into this modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, apes evolve into people, and that you are a distant cousin to that banana you're eating. Unfortunately, time and scientific advancement are not proving very friendly to some of these staple doctrines of modern atheistic evolution.
@@michaelg377 Science is indeed a methodology, but evolution isn't unfalsfiable nor untestable. Creationism is. That's why evolution is accepted as scientific globally whereas creation is only preached about on TH-cam. There's no belief needed. What you're doing is copy+pasting the mother of all gish gallops and strawmen and cramming your religious beliefs in there as an ''alternative'', once again showing creationists refusal to engage in honest, good faith discussions.
@@razark9Science is creating a new battery.
Evolution is drawing colorful feathers on T-rex.
Amen!
Sneaky tactics? It's an autoantonym not equivocation if we're going with your words ? So the evolutionist isn't trying to deceive you its your book of stories that's the deceiver?