As I watched this 57mins video, I found myself lifting my hand and worshipping the great God of glory! This video is simply declaring His mighty works. I am totally in awe of our Lord God. How could there be no God. It doesn't even make sense to my mind. How great thou art oh Lord
Live by Faith and not by sight for Faith is evidence of things that are unseen, things that are hoped for!!! Blessed are those who believe without doubt or seeing HALLELUJAH!!!
that is a foolish comment. You are basically telling people to disregard what they see for something that might not exist. One should only believe things that they can see as that is a fact.
I used to watch Ken Ham many years ago when he debated between evolution and creationism. I over the years have became detached from God and Jesus. And have recently found my love again for God. It took a jarring event though that God used to wake me up again, God does work in mysterious ways. After finding God again I'm starting to feel better and better every single day. Things are brighter and more clear. Ken Ham's message is very powerful. I wasn't an Atheist per-say, but I was lost. I don't know how Atheists have the strength, it isn't a good existence.
@@ngc-fo5te "The long and short of it is that I became convinced that atheism implies amorality; and since I am an atheist, I must therefore embrace amorality... The religious fundamentalists are correct: without God, there is no morality. But they are incorrect, I still believe, about there being a God. Hence, I believe, there is no morality." ~ Joel Marks, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the University of New Haven. *'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 doesn’t mean the word of God is not real if the Earth isn’t older than 6000 years. It means that human beings kept better records and oral traditions than we thought possible before. The Catholic Church wants you to believe that the world is only 6000 years old for whatever reason. Maybe to ignore the ancient archaeology around the world which is getting increasingly harder to ignore the more intelligent human beings become. Forget, carbon dating. Do you think you have more than 200 ancestor to Adam and eve? If so, that means the world is order than 6000 years. The institution of marriage itself is absolutely older than 6000 years. 😂
@@michaelg377 I don't understand what you mean by, 'without God there is no morality'. There are billions of people in the world who do not worship the Christian God, are they all running around raping and killing each other? Some of the countries with the lowest crime rates in the world, such as Australia, New Zealand, France, and many more, predominately identify as atheist; all they're all running around raping and killing each other? Morality is subjective, it does not come from a book or a god.
I have deeply studied all of this over 4 decades and even tried to disprove it, but i have come to the exact same conclusions that this man has. He has expressed perfectly, what i have also discovered and that is that thru logic, what we are taught in the instititions makes no sense, but the bible actually does. I remember drilling thru all this stuff and even using dogs to explain how breeds are created and how our genes are distributed, and then how race came about thru isolation and inbreeding after the confusing of the languages, and then telling others about it. They listened like someone had blown their brains out!!! And now here it is for others to finally hear and understand for themselves. Someone else took it and dressed it up for mass understanding. This happens ALOT to me and it gives me such a thrill to know that God has used me in this way... It never gets tired... ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
As Darwin was preaching that certain races were less evolved than other races (an unfortunate logical consequence of atheistic evolution), Scripture has always said that all human beings descended from the same Adam and Eve, and there is only one "race" - the human "race," and all are created equally as image bearers of God. The concept of "race" as we use it today didn't even exist until relatively recently in history when European landlords wanted to distinguish between their farm hands based on physical appearance - it's a completely arbitrary concept, not real "science." Race is best described as the product of gene-pooling and environmental adaptation among isolated people groups, not particles to man evolution.
@@JB-yb4wn life is much better when you are enlightened to truth. There is peace in no longer having to search endlessly. No amount of pseudo intellectual, smarty pants, clever bone, sarcasm. Nor any amount of sexual gratification, wealth, or mind bending psychedelic. Or ancient knowledge or teaching. Can come close knowing God. You just have to be brave enough, to ask. And if you do. Well. That's the real red pill.
We do not affirm His existence because we have doubt, just like you did affirm the existence of your friends because you doubt they exist, but because you are grateful they do. Did you ever tell your friend "I am so glad you are here." So do you have doubt they exist?
@@adamokornrajh3874 we were given free will but we already know from Christian Doctrine that we will be divided, we will not stand in unity. Which is exactly why our different races were created by us. There is only one race, the Human race. God made us unique because why would we want to look like every other person? That would be pretty bleak. Going back to my original point, different religions, teachings that contradict the Bible are designed to separate and confuse us. As finite beings we can’t comprehend something outside of our own world. We can’t comprehend time nor space which does not exist. Yet we still create our own time…
@@AmbientVibesASMR I agree with you on the fact that other religions were created by satan to confuse and divide us, but I don't understand what you mean by creating our own time?
@@adamokornrajh3874 Time does not exist. The explanation won’t be short but I hope you understand! Humans everywhere use spatial metaphors to think about time, but the specifics differ from culture to culture. Even alone in our thoughts, we think of time as space, leaning on brain areas known to play a role in spatial understanding. Culture plays a large role in determining which metaphors we use. The direction of the written word has an especially strong influence. In the 19th century, the physicist Ludwig Boltzmann wrote: “For the universe, the two directions of time are indistinguishable, just as in space there is no up and down.” Boltzmann’s view departed from time as an absolute in itself, a constant of the natural order of the universe. He implied that there is no objective direction of time, and that we invent it according to our perception, just as we call the direction towards the centre of the earth “down.” TIME AS AN ILLUSION The great revolution in our idea of time began with Albert Einstein.( A Religious Non-Believer) In his general relativity he included time as another dimension in the deformable fabric of the universe that explains gravity, and in special relativity time also became elastic, dependent on the position and velocity of the observer, so that the concept of “now” became meaningless. Decades later, in a letter of condolence to the family of his friend Michele Besso, who had died shortly before, Einstein wrote that for physicists “the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”
@@donjacobs6753 then tell me the laws of God and the penalty for breaking them for starters. Then tell me why God allowed Adam and Eve to sin and after that if you are God explain all the evil in this world?
Sorry to comment so late after the post. Always been strong Christian (so I think), recently had a couple questions. You answered them with your words exactly.
@Tbone I always find it funny when people who are not religious comment on these videos. You that bored or are you trying to convince yourself of something?
Thank you so much for this video! I’m almost 11 and science text books have been messing with my head and I’ve been having a hard time with my faith. Thank you so much Ken Ham!
For your own sake, watch videos discussing logical fallacies. Most of Ken Ham’s arguments rely on them. If you truly wish to see how creationism holds up under scrutiny, watch Ham debate Bill Nye. Seriously, it’s an enlightening experience to see how dishonest his stance has to be in order to justify his belief.
@@damonirvine8910 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? I do agree with one of your points - do watch that debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye - it's Bill's false assumptions that caused him to do as poorly as he did. Ironically, *Time* is actually working in favor of Creation, and increasingly against Evolution. For example: *“…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: "Paleontologists... obstinately refusing to yield Darwin’s predicted pattern, simply looked the other way.”
@@damonirvine8910 indeed, and a book I believe it’s called ‘Stealing from God: why atheists need God to make their case’ and some other ones from that author, it’s always around half truths and lies towards Scripture, don’t be afraid child the truth prevails and it’s mostly hypocritical arguments and just goes in circle, by their fruits we know them, it’s all spoken in the Bible that such men had do their works, and we have ours to do too, let us keep walking on that narrow path that God has put us in. He’s risen, He lives and loves, they forgot that it’s not because they reject and turn their faces away from someone that they stopped existing: they only ‘don’t exist to them’, yet we pray for them and ofc for all but the sin that leads to death as it’s stated in the book of John. God bless brothers, I also was one that had doubt and there are different things and problems but God clarifies everything, not everyone wants to serve but some want to be their own lord and gods of their lives, as Jesus said he who has ears let him hear.
Me to. Cause truth of anything seems to be handed down generation to generation. Look at politics. Handed down generation to generation. Oh my grandparents and parents believed in this. So this must be the right!! Wrong
Great lecture. Can't wait until my daughter is old enough to watch it and understand. Not only is it a great Biblical teaching but makes science learning so much easier and accurate.
How wonderful that you will teach your daughter the truth! Andy Stanley has thrown out the Old Testament. He has brought himself under God's curse. Revelation 22:18-19. We are not to change God's eternal word. Yet many honor modern bibles which lie, change who God is, and continually challenge God and His word!!! by asking, Did God say? Come on, really? God said He preserved His word. Psalm 12:6-7. Most modern bibles do not. In other words they are not admitting that God has a standard, His inspired word. His word is quick (alive) and quickens (gives life). His word is eternal. Most of the modern bibles have at least one out and out lie. NKJB lies in Exodus 6:3. They began to call on the name of the Lord in Genesis 4:26. Others quote Jesus telling his brothers, i am not going to the feast. John 7:8. (Is he saying he is going to break the law of Moses?) He waits and then goes. Liar! BLASPHEMY . Jesus simply said, not going now, not yet. He waits and then goes. No problem, no lie. And blatantly they mock Jesus and unashamedly, constantly, with each change ask, Did God say? "All things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that was made. " John 1:3. Clearly He is the Creator. Their Jesus was but a vessel. "Made through him." Did God say Mark 11:26? Absolutely. It is an essential part of our walk with God. A verse that makes us tremble was added????? Did God say? Acts 15:34? It shows God's divine providence. Silas was there when Paul needed him for a journey. Obviously Silas remained there. BRAZENLY, they change or remove a word that gives the believers true power! Matthew 12:31 and Mark 9:29! Some spiritual warfare needs prayer and fasting! Did God say eleven (11) times in the New Testament the word damnation, eternal burning? Yes. But not in theirs! Did God say? Did God give three witnesses to that truth? Mark 9:44, 46, 48. They however only have v48. The other two they ask, Did God say? This is important because we need to know the truth and those who preach Annialism, we cease to exist, are easily proven wrong with these verses. Jesus is God and Jesus is Man. Hebrews supports this with four verses, 3:3, 7:24, 8:3 and 10:12: "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sin for ever, sat down at rhe right hand of God; v10:12. They do not use the clarifying words 'this man' at all. Again, Did God say? Every change they make is an insult to God and His word. God said He would curse those who add to or take from His word. Revelation 22:18-19. In the Old Testament those who honored a false prophet received the reward of that prophet. So the Alexandrian translators, the bible societies the publishers, the promoters, sellers and those who teach from them (showing those ear tickling bibles as God's word) or honor them will be held responsible. If done ignorantly, repent. God will not be mocked. This happened when the inspired Antioch manuscripts called the Textus Receptus were replaced by the Alexandrian manuscripts called the Codex B or the Vaticanus from the Vatican basement, and the Sianiticus from a monestary. They do not agree with each other and the latter has about 30 changes per page. Obviously inspired by their spiritual father who brings conflict, frustration, despair and DOUBT. King James Bible online Helpful tool: Noah Webster 1828 Dictionary online: This dictionary has civil and spiritual definitions. Look up: Repent, Regeneration, Believe, Faith Redemption, Perfect Conversation, Prevent, Propitiation, Suppliers: Churchkjb.com Localchurchbiblepublishers.com Sources: Adullum Films -Tares Among the Wheat Sequel video. Books: The Revision Revised and The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, both by William Burgon. Dean Burgon lived during the time of Wescott and Hort. Book: Look What's Missing by David Daniels Chick.com. If interested an old video called The Forbidden Book video. It has some American History also.
You have a lot more learning to do if you think they accurately represent science. They use inductive reasoning, which is where you have your answer and you look for evidence to support it and omit the rest. Science doesn't like that because it's not a good way for finding out what is true. You need deductive reasoning. You look at the evidence and see where it leads you, then double check and have others double check for peer review. They got a lot of stuff false just within the first few min and when you start with false information, it will only lead to false information.
@@sadistksuffring1537 instead of criticizing, why don't you point out what is false? Your "science" uses inductive reasoning as well, just take a look at how many assumptions have to be made in order for c-14, dendocronology, archeomagnetic dating and so on. If we pick up the most famous one, carbon 14 for instance, why can't we date a dinosaur fossil using this technique when there are still carbon in the bones?
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence from multiple fields of science, including genetics, paleontology, embryology, and comparative anatomy. The similarities in DNA sequences and developmental patterns between different species provide strong evidence for common ancestry and the gradual process of evolution over millions of years. Additionally, the observation of natural selection in action, as well as the numerous documented instances of speciation, provide further evidence for evolution. For example, the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria and development of new species of animals on isolated islands, have been well documented. But hey, let’s instead believe some illiterate and superstitious goat herders who, over 2000 years ago, had a higher level of understanding of our world and universe than we do today. I don't believe God would want you to be that naive. You have been given free will, please use it to educate yourself.
This video is so good. I see a lot of mockers and scoffers in the comments, but I haven't seen one comment that can disprove anything Mr. Ham is saying. The religion of atheism requires plenty of blind faith, much more blind faith than Christianity does. The difference is they are putting their faith into the fallible opinions of men, rather than in the perfect word of God.
atheism is the absent of religion. it doesnt make sense what you´re saying. Atheism do not pray or follow a set of rules in the name of atheism. Being an atheist is similar to be ab "individual person" why you may ask? two atheist are just doing their own thing. Religious people are forced to follow what i would call a communistic world view "if you dont follow the rules the consequenses can be severe" sounds like a dictator to me. Thats not freedom You can be an atheist and deny every scientific discoveries there is outthere. You can be an atheist and deny evolution. Religion can be dangerous because i am 100% sure that you have never have come across a situation where the bible is wrong which makes you and any other religious person closed minded. non believers can also be wrong aswell but we arent closed minded since we follow the evidence. in a nutshell if god can be proven tommorow i would not be religious because religion is hope and hope isnt facts. religion will cancel itself since it would be facts
Buddy, this dude did not bring hardly any valid receipts or sources whatsoever, even his alleged friend that is a scientist and a creationist who apparently has some method of dating that could place the Earth in the young earth creationist territory he still didn't name the person or cited any study they did. Not only that but if you actually knew the science or anyting remotely connected to the material reality of what this man is talking about, then you would be able to recognize the subtle strawmanning of science as well as the quiet dishonesty that bleeds through their unrecognized bias.
The whole time issue (a day is like a thousand years) can be solved with day 3 & 4. He creates trees on day 3. He creates the Sun on day 4 (millions of years later???).
Yeah that doesn't make sense Though I do wonder why God chose to create the sun on day 3 instead of day 1 Because I'm sure some people probably would use that as a technicality that the first two days didn't exist
2 Peter 3:8 King James Version 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
What a beautiful explanation of skin shade, so color of skin shouldn’t matter at all! What does matter is the quality of the persons standards, the morality of each individual. As believers in Jesus we should be most concerned about those two things, and how we as individuals keep his commandments! Love to all!
Very true. And this information includes complex instructions for building things like your eyes with its millions of cells and a concave light-refracting lens that bends light just right so that you can see... and they say 'it's just chemicals." It's incredible.
@@ThomasKundera Well, first you need to get information from non-information - out of a chemical puddle. This information needs to then grow into instructions for building things like your concave light refracting lens that bends light just right, 137M light sensitive cells, 40M nerve endings, and precise muscles that auto-focus this complex optical system 100,000 times a day. Then once you've solve that information/instructions problem for building this complex masterpiece of engineering, you can move on to the chemicals and physics involved in this engineering masterpiece - but first you need to account for the instructions for it from non-information in a lifeless information-less chemical universe. How do you do that?
@@ThomasKundera So you admit that your chemical DNA is programmed with information (instructions) to build this complex machine including a concave light-refracting lens that bends light just right so your 137M light sensitive cells can process this input and turn it into a signal so you can "see"? Because the intelligent origin of information was the point of my post. So far so good my friend - right?
@@ThomasKundera " the intelligent origin of information was the point of my post." And evolution is what put that information there." Okay, so DNA contains information. We observe that every example of information elsewhere always has an intelligent source - every book has an author, every program a programmer, the words on this screen came from you as the intelligent source. So take an early living cell, and go back in time to the first "creature" or "bacteria" or whatever it was that contained DNA with "information" - How did that "information" in that first DNA/information filled cell get created out of chemicals in a puddle without an intelligent source? Two worldviews, same evidence, two very different interpretations. Evidence: DNA contains information. Evidence: Every *other* example of information in existence always ultimately has an intelligent source. Biblical Creation Conclusion: Therefore, *consistently interpreted,* the information and instructions in DNA also had an Intelligent Source (God). Atheistic Naturalist Conclusion: "Evolution [an unintelligent source] is what put that information there." Can you please explain?
@@ThomasKundera You just made another logical fallacy, *begging the question* of an unintelligent source for early DNA. Read above carefully, I'll repost here for you side by side, maybe it will help: "take an early living cell, and *go back in time to the first "creature" or "bacteria" or whatever it was that contained DNA with "information" - How did that "information" in that first DNA/information filled cell get created out of chemicals in a puddle* without an intelligent source?" You said "Do you suggest that *a mutation in DNA* is caused by intelligence?" - *That depends on whether that information in DNA originally came from an Intelligent Source or not, right? So back on topic, with the first instance of information in DNA, in the first bacteria, cell, etc. - where did that information come from?* You can get information from other information ("mutations in DNA," etc.) - but you need to get *information from non-information* without an Intelligent Source. By way of a rough analogy, if a bunch of pages were ripped out of several books and thrown into the trash, it's possible that those pages could just happen to fall together into a certain order in a "new" book. That "new" book was not formed by an intelligent source - but *all of the information in it still came from an Intelligent Source (the original authors).* You need to account for the "author" that gets you from information-less chemicals to information-full DNA, not from one information-filled cell to another mutated information-filled cell. Does that help?
Thanks for a very informative view, using basic understandable language and logic to describe the comparisons between science and Christianity. which at the end proves the existence of God and the work of His hands and that the evolution and other theories are just theories and nothing else. Thanks for a great video.
@@YerdauitYerlanulya theory is an interpretation of facts to form a conclusion. That’s why theories change, and can be wrong. We can interpret the facts incorrectly or we can discover new data that changes the picture. It’s the same reason we can get wildly different politics when interpreting data incorrectly or not getting the full picture. The addition of data changes theories rapidly. For example, recently the JWT found that galaxies and heavy elements are found fully formed far further than we ever could have predicted they could be according to the conclusions and theories that we currently understood. This wildly changes the possibilities of the Big Bang, the process of the creation of our universe, and the timeline associated with it.
Understandable language and logic are important, but do you knwo what else is important? Sources. He has not proven that God was a witness to anything, he has not proven that God is capable of inspiring anyone and that he did. We know the history of the eiffel tower, because we have primary sources of people who left physical evidence with blueprints, and newspapers.
@@Quartz512_ So, you believe only in that you can see and obtain information from blueprints? Well, I have news for you, there is a blueprint for the existence of God namely the bible. If you take the time to understand the building of the Eifel tower, you might find it more interesting to read the blueprint of God, the bibile KJV. You, are His creation. Look around you at nature, and not man-made structures, and you will realize the power of God. He alone has the power to life and existence, and He created it.There is only one God and His Son, Jesus Christ. Trust and believe in them and you might be with Them when Jesus comes collect the saved. It is not to late for you to confess and repent of your sins and accept Jesus Christ into your life.
@@Quartz512_ Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers? Throughout Scripture we have 66 books written by 40 authors, including 27 books written by 8 of them plus their amanuenses which all corroborate the same claims - that's enough eyewitness/secondary witness evidence to sink a modern court case. We also have demonstrable proof of supernatural phenomena through fulfilled prophecy documented in the Bible, such as the prophecy in Daniel 9 which accurately predicted the rebuilding of Jerusalem, coming of someone meeting all the qualifications of the Jewish Messiah, execution of said Messiah in a specifically curse-worthy manner, and then destruction of the 2nd temple and Jerusalem (AD 70), all in that order and on a specific timeline that just happens to line up with the year that Jesus was crucified. *Fulfilled Prophecy in the Biblical Texts* Among other things. *Accurately telling the future with such precise detail is either extremely incredible chance, or it's a supernatural phenomenon. This is evidence of God's divine intervention in mankind through Scripture, and is therefore evidence that supports His inspiration of this text.* These specific prophecies came to be because God is sovereign over all of it, and His prophecies are always accurate. BTW we can prove this prophecy above was made hundreds of years before this specific timeline of events occurred based on tangible manuscript evidence that we have in hand that predates Jesus' time on earth (Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint, etc.). *Science in the Bible* Also consider the many hints of scientific truths throughout, yet undiscovered by secular man at the time they were written. The human authors wrote that God put the stars in the Heavens, and Scripture goes on to say that they are countless (Jeremiah 33:22, etc.) while Ptolemy only catalogued 1100 observable stars in his time. Likewise, years before Pythagoras is attributed with discovering a round earth, and while the rest of the world believed it was flat and/or on the back of an animal with wind blowing from four corners, Isaiah suspiciously wrote that God "sits above the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22) and Job wrote that God "hangs the earth on nothing" (Job 26:7) both showing signs of countercultural and 3-dimensional thought. *It's almost like these prophets of God suspiciously had glimpses of a scientific truth we didn't figure out for centuries.* Then of course there's how Matthew Maury discovered ocean currents based on his understanding of Psalm 8:8, the Bible's descriptions matching the hydrologic cycle which we didn't figure out until relatively recently (Amos 9:6, Ecclesiastes 1:7, Psalm 135:7, Ecclesiastes 11:3, etc.), that blood is the source of life (Leviticus 17:11) while other cultures were practicing bloodletting to try to stop disease, hygiene laws requiring running water (Leviticus 15:13) while even up to the 1800s doctors would wash their hands in a still basin of water leaving invisible germs and causing countless infections and deaths as a result... Among countless other examples. These hints at modern scientific truths throughout Scripture make sense if they were revealed to us from the all-knowing God who created the entire universe including the laws of nature (Jeremiah 33:25) and time, space, and matter themselves (Genesis 1:1). *They make sense if Scripture was inspired by God - literally "God-breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16).* But if the Bible is false, then it's very odd that all these prophets seem to have gotten modern science right on so many points millennia before modern science figured these things out. *"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"* (2 Timothy 3:16)
@@dumyjobby because mostly science fail to understand or no clue for them wirh regard to Biblical truths & realities which are truly manifest in the world as well in the outer space. If you need examples, I can give enough examples. Do you need?
@@dumyjobby Can science ( You ) answer the questions asked by God in the Bible book of Job 38 chapter? " Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm. He said: 2 - “Who is this that obscures my plans with words without knowledge? 3 - Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. 31- " Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades? Can you loosen Orion’s belt ? 32 - " Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons or lead out the Bear with its cubs " ? 33 - " Do you know the laws of the heavens? Can you set up God’s dominion over the earth? " 34 - “Can you raise your voice to the cloud and cover yourself with a flood of water? " 35 - "Do you send the lightning bolts on their way? Do they report to you, ‘Here we are’? " 36 " - Who gives the ibis wisdom or gives the rooster understanding? " 37" - Who has the wisdom to count the clouds? "
Yeah, it's clear alright, in that whenever something cannot be explained, it's explained by being god. Never mind truly looking for the cause of anything, as it's just god. But then which of the thousands of gods that have been brought forth by man should one believe? For some crazy reason it's the one from the bible. As if that fairy tale carries any more weight that any other religion.
So according to The cosmologist the big bang theory is currently the accepted theory of the beginning of the universe up to now .....but apparently there are a few other theories The steady state theory where matter was always.there. mult universe theory..but for now The universe started from a single point in spacoe expansion from a single Atom so where did the atom come from you can't have something out of of nothings
@@soultraveller5027 - Funny how you go from saying "steady state theory where matter was always there" to then saying "so where did the atom come from you can't have something out of of nothings". Well, if the steady state theory is correct, then that atom was always there!
@@soultraveller5027 The old chestnut, "nothing" as scientist use it is not the same as ordinary people understand. Nothing is a state of energy that equals zero then that fluctuated which then became something hence everything created (in a simplistic sense). I also pose a chestnut question, you can't believe that the universe came from nothing, but you believe god can or that he has always been there?. So why could that not be possible with the universe?. God is unnecessary baggage that need not be added. You are hypocritical of your own reasoning.
Right, the massive lie of millions of years to create a fossil is just that. Plus the only way to create a fossil is by rapid burial. What could bury a fish with another fish halfway down its throat. Only a huge wave of sediment from a huge flood.
Might also be good to add that not only could the voulcanos done this but today if you pour hot steel into way it explodes upwards and for that reason the molds at steel factory’s are inspected before use so no one dies
There’s an old saying, there are no atheists in a fox hole. An atheist just doesn’t want to acknowledge there is a God, because then they have to answer to him.
You are correct, and I've heard several former Atheists admit this myself. Their belief in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers and that puddles of chemicals can fizz themselves into people is just a smokescreen... they are not swayed by the fact that they actually believe they are distant cousin to a banana. Their disbelief is a heart issue. *"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")
@@Oldtinear And yet you have no way to disprove this. You've clearly never witnessed any military training or actual combat veterans if that's what you think my friend - that idiom exists for a reason. As a proponent of the "we're all meaningless evolved protoplasm" belief system (atheistic evolution), do you agree with Huxley?: *"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")
I have been really blessed with this teaching. explained all the doubts i had about my own concern regarding the history of mankind and the creation of the world. And most importantly the existence of our living God the Father.
If you were a common person 500yr ago, then you never read a Bible because there were no Bible! Therefore you wasn't going around having these stupid arguments. Good night.
This guy never showed anything about science that proved the bible was right, he just poked a bunch of holes in science which is totally reasonable as science is just theory based upon earlier theories, no scientist knows 100% of anything but the point is to continue to explore and understand.
Ahh ...now I understand scientific explanation of "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...All things were made by him."
An evolutionist believes the theory that a 14 year old boy named Charles Darwin came up with. He thought “the world looks old, therefore it must be old” And we use a child’s theory as our proof of history, JUST BECAUSE HIS FAMILY WERE CULT ELITISTS, aka Freemasons. His family was neighbors with Thomas Jefferson’s family, and William bartrams family. You gonna believe a book that is historically accurate and a book that we tell time from (2022 years after Jesus was born) OVER a 14 year olds random idea/theory LOL I CAN TELL WHO IS AND ISNT WELL READ HERE. WHO IS INDOCTRINATED AND WHO ACTUALLY LOOKS FOR INFORMATION
@Atheistme nice saying. Unfortunately for you it means absolutely nothing to a believer in Christ. Try quoting the bible. You may get more of a response.
@Atheistme "that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." So like atheistic abiogenesis, the many Atheistic Super-Natural solutions to the beginning of the universe, Oort clouds to explain away measurably young comets, an early greenhouse gas atmosphere to explain away the fact that earth would have been frozen solid 3.5B years ago (faint young sun paradox), dark matter, dark energy, dynamos to explain away measurably young magnetic fields on other planets, and macro-evolution...? *Should we hold your own atheistic worldview to the same standard...?*
A higher life form coming to earth, dropping off much lower life forms is like talking a domesticated dog, cat, gator, gerbil dropping them into the Amazon, Death Valley, the moon and expecting them to become what we are to day.
Honestly you know what I think God is? I think in all of reality and creation, there are only really 2 things, the mother and the father, and they need each other for life to continue existing, so woman asked man what it would take to prove she loved him and he said you would have to show me and let me feel your love when I'm my strongest or weakest, when Im good to you or I'm cruel to you, when I am the infinitely best to you or infinitely the worst as in when I kill you, you will always show me your love and beauty. Woman said I can do that, and what would it take for you to deserve that love? And man said well I suppose for every slight against you, I will see that it is damaging that beauty, and so I will punish myself as a way to clean you up to show you that no matter what we do to each other we will always need each other and you will always be beautiful for me and I will always work to prove to you that you have that beauty to give, and the two of them made the agreement and that is what all of life is. God is the love between the man and the woman, the light and the darkness, the sick and the healthy, the weak and the strong, literally two halves of every conceivable coin possible and the two of them just create the world together feeding off of each other just to make an interesting and exciting world to live it together and experience every conceivable moment together across all of time.
Guys. I have no believed for so long. I turned 28 this year. And I suddenly wanted to grow plants. I never wanted to, but then I began to plant seeds in my back yard. And then, one day, I decided to listen to the Bible on an audio book. I have denied, I have questioned for more than 10 years. In the last two weeks, I have been shown so many answers to so many questions that i had, and I didnt search for them - they came to me. I did not search this video. It showed up on my feed. Two days ago I said, but what about the dinosaurs, and yesterday a video on my feed was from this channel about dinosaurs and gave me a whole new perspective of history. I am blown away. I dont feel worthy of our Father giving me any sort of sign. I have denied him for a long time. Now. i live with this immense fear in my soul, this deep deep fear of his judgement. I pray that he may forgive me for I was wrong. He is real. He is in all of us. I feel brand new. I feel as though this year he came to me to change my life in a positive way. And to guide me to live a better life. I seriously can not explain why I turned to the Bible. I NEVER read. Ever. And now Im practically done listening to the entire Bible. Please, pray for my soul that i may be forgiven in the after life.
My friend, you ask Jesus into your heart. Confess your sins to Him, and He will forgive you right now! He will send The Holy Spirit to guide you. All that you have to do is believe by faith! Jesus Christ suffered and died for all of our sins. While we were still sinners! And He rose from the dead because death could not hold Him! He has gone to Heaven to prepare a house for you and me! Some days are easier to believe than others, because we live in a world of sin. But Christ has overcome the World. And we will too! Take heart my friend!
fast and forest bathe... rely on Christian quotes to bring you hope...unplug from your ego and stress for a day...embrace silence...thats all it takes..bless you and your family💗👑💗👑💗👑💗👑💯☝
12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? 13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray. The lord is with you brother
Faith is incredibly inconsistent in proving anything. If I’m at a crossroads with two paths, and flip a coin on which path to take. Then I have faith that my path was correct that would be incredibly arbitrary. Now let’s make a crossroad with one thousand paths. I decided to pick a random path with the faith that the one I chose was correct. Would that make me anything but delusional? So basically yeah it’s blind faith.
I have a question In modern terms we consider " a day" a 24 hr period that the earth on its axis, with respect to the sun. The Sun , Moon, and stars were not created until the 4th day. But in the beginning, there was " light , that was called day, and " Darkness that was called "night"How can " A 24/7 period be determined? I do not doubt the creation simply confused about the timeline.
There is no confusion. God set the timeline of a day then. The same day we've always used is the same day He created. How is this known? Even the aborigine people in the middle of the bush who can't speak and know no other, know how long a day is. God ingrained this information into our beings. The creation only took the time the Bible claims. In order for it to have a moveable meaning behind those words used, God would have to be lying. God cannot tell a lie. Let God be true and every man a liar. You see, the devil Is as a ROARING LION IN YOUR EARS! Whereas God is a still small voice in the heart of the saved man. Confusion and doubt are what the devil always desires us to have. God is not the author of confusion. The folks who have an issue with God creating all things in an instant (even though He's all-powerful, all-knowing, ever-capable so on and so forth) have a serious issue with coming to terms with the Word of God. Read the Authorized Word and believe it.
@@angelamccrackin5243I don’t think it’s responsible or productive to tell someone not to let anyone tell them anything, without actually knowing, especially coming from a believer about God. The only reliable person (or any person) who was there was God and although sometimes He does speak to us in parables and poetry, He also doesn’t lie. You have to jump through some serious hoops to say that what the Bible teaches is not a week worth of days of creation. I’d never give that advice to myself. I’d never say to myself “never let anyone tell you anything different than you already think”. It’s just bad advice. Instead, anything anyone is trying to tell you, ask them to justify it. “Why do you believe that”, and “why should I believe that” are good starting points.
@@artax7664 i thought about what you said and you are correct. I dont know these things for sure and I made a mistake in declaring it to be truth. I dont want anyone to get frustrated with not knowing and turn away....
@@Mwilson8581 Um... Dude, are you okay? I mean, you can accept a 1 in 10^40,000 probability for even the universe to be calibrated, let alone having life exist, but you're just fine with the 2^256 probability of your encryption being broken in a single calculation.
@Lukephil Brecht There is a one out of 1 chance of it happening. And yes i'm okay. Probability is not a sound argument against something happening or for something happening. The chances are astronomical everyday, that you do the things in the order that you do them. Of course I am okay, I accept reality.
This is a matter of competing worldviews over the exact same evidence, and you have to evaluate the worldviews. For example, *if sediments have been accumulating on the ocean floor for 3+ billion years, then the sediment on the sea floor should be several miles deep* ...but the thickness of these sediments is only about 1300 feet deep. Approximately 20 billion tons of dirt and rock debris are eroded from the continents and deposited into the sea every year, mostly near the continents. Approximately 1 billion tons of sediment are removed every year through tectonic movement (1-2 inches per year), resulting in a net gain of approximately 19 billion tons of sediment every year. At this rate, it would take about 12 million years (under *atheistic Uniformitarian Naturalist assumptions)* for all of this sediment to accumulate - not 3-4 *Billion* years. This measurable evidence makes sense from a biblical creation perspective which holds that most of these sediments were rapidly deposited a little over 4000 years ago in the global flood. The evidence just fits. Atheistic-Naturalists, however, have to invoke one of several rescuing devices to circumvent this problematic evidence, all of which are problematic themselves. Some claim *"it must have accumulated at a slower rate in the past"* - but the sediments on the continental shelves suggest they were deposited much *Faster* than today's rates. For example, the layering and patterns of the grain sizes in these sediments are the same as those produced by undersea landslides, when turbidity currents flow rapidly across continental shelves and the sediments then settle in thick layers over vast areas. *There is also no evidence of a large amount of sediment being subducted under the mantle.* Two worldviews, same evidence, two very different interpretations. Biblical creation proponents "scientifically" accept this evidence at face value of a recent global flood and a young creation - the evidence simply fits. Atheistic-Naturalists have to invoke a rescuing device to unscientificially *circumvent this problematic evidence in order to preserve their atheistic version of our origins.* Which worldview is really behaving more "scientifically" at this point, the one that accepts the evidence (biblical creation) or the one that has to invoke yet another rescuing device to sustain their belief system (atheistic-Naturalists)? We are all indoctrinated into atheistic-Naturalism (evolution, etc.) today in our public education system. Atheistic-Naturalists do the same thing with the Faint Young Sun Paradox which suggests earth would have been frozen when life was supposed to create itself 3.5 billion years ago (various unsubstantiated theories), young 100,000 year old maximum comets in our allegedly "14 billion year old" universe (fabricated Oort Clouds), young soft tissues in allegedly "65+ million year old" dinosaur fossils that appear similar to 4000 year old mummies and the Tyrolean ice man (preservative rescuing devices), the fact that the moon would have been touching the earth 1.5 billion years ago based on calculations concerning the effects of tidal recession on the moon (usually miscalculated and/or ignored), etc. *Is this really how "Science" is supposed to work?* Two worldviews, same evidence, two very different interpretations.
@@adelinomorte7421 Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers? I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say, God "created" ("Bara", past tense) the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1), and then He looked at all He had "made" ("Asah" - past tense) and saw that it was good (Genesis 1:31) - He finished His creation. My point above was very simple, the sediment off the coasts does not fit a "billions of years" worldview, but it makes sense in a young earth worldview with a catastrophic global flood. This is a matter of competing worldviews over the exact same evidence. For example: *What are your thoughts on the Faint Young Sun Paradox?* Scientists observe that our sun is slowly warming up as hydrogen fuses into helium, and at this observed rate, 3.5B years ago our sun would have been 30% fainter and earth would have been frozen solid as a result (if it was really billions of years old). The problem is that atheistic-evolutionists believe that 3.5B years ago chemicals fizzed by chance in a puddle to form all the necessary proteins required for life - in what would have been a global, dead, frozen environment - hence the "paradox." *How do you handle this observable evidence?* A) Biblical Creation proponents happily accept this measurable scientific evidence - it's not a "paradox" at all because the earth isn't billions of years old, and life didn't create itself by chance from a puddle of chemicals, we were intentionally created. This makes sense because there is zero evidence that our earth was ever frozen solid as it should have been if it was really billions of years old, and also zero evidence of an early greenhouse gas atmosphere or other atheistic miracle warming effect to help sustain the atheistic belief in abiogenesis. B) Atheistic-Naturalists (evolutionists, etc.) however have a problem, because you need billions of years of deep time to make it seem less implausible that chemicals can fizz into people, and that life atheistically created itself. So you have to invoke some kind of a miracle warming effect with no evidence like an early alleged greenhouse gas atmosphere, or various implausible celestial phenomena. Not only do these excuses have zero evidence, but they are also incredibly implausible - because if you did have an early greenhouse gas atmosphere 3.5B years ago, you have to believe that it countered the faint young sun's temperature just right (not too hot like Venus, yet not cold like Mars) and it had to dissipate in perfect inverse proportion to the gradual warming of the sun over time - *all just to make atheistic abiogenesis and early evolution seem less scientifically problematic.* Two worldviews, same evidences, two very different interpretations. Which one is being more "scientific," the one that just accepts the evidence, or the one that has to fabricate implausible and evidence-less excuses to *circumvent this problematic scientific evidence and sustain their already scientifically-problematic belief that puddles can fizz into people?* Any thoughts? *All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12.* *"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)
@@Oldtinear That's because you believe in the modern mythology that nothing created everything accidentally with mathematical precision for no reason. I just don't have enough Faith to believe that a puddle of chemicals can fizz into a person, no matter how much *Time* you add to the mix. And I don't use the word "mythology" lightly, I say that because it a constantly rewritten atheistic origins story as it continuously makes evidence-less claims *about the unobservable past* and encounters evidence that contradicts its claims and expectations. That's not how "science" works. *"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) *What are your thoughts on the fact that planets and moons in our solar system, including our own Earth, show measurable evidence of being 'young,' not billions of years old?* Magnetic fields on planets in our solar system are measurably young based on data collected through probes we've deployed over the last few decades, and on a billions of years time scale you start to have a lot of problems with them. Creation scientists actually predicted this accurately - the evidence just fits a biblical worldview. We also observe tiny geologically active celestial objects which shouldn't be if billions of years old - like Pluto, Enceladus, Europa, and even our own Moon. There's no way the icy dwarf planet should still be geologically active with active nitrogen flows after 4.5 Billion years - scientists recognize this. Enceladus is spewing out material via a giant geyser, which is not sustainable on a billions of years time scale - secularists have an excuse for this, but that excuse doesn't apply to these other objects which are likewise geologically active - they are observably young. Even our moon was recently observed to be geologically active, including evidence of recent tectonic activity. Examples abound. *"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). These evidences (among many others) make sense in a biblical worldview - they look young because they simply are young. Right alongside measurably young comets in our solar system, measurably young tissues found in dinosaur fossils, the faint young sun paradox which causes a lot of problems for early atheistic abiogenesis and evolution, and the sedimentation off the coasts which would have only taken 12 million years to accumulate (assuming atheistic naturalist standards), among many others. In contrast, Atheistic-Naturalists like yourself have to invoke a number of various excuses to *circumvent these problematic young evidences and sustain your modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers and puddles can fizz into people if you just add enough Time.* Meanwhile, *All 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)
@@Oldtinear You just ignored a LOT of scientific evidence above that militates against your mythology my friend. None of those young objects in our solar system should exist if your mythology was true, that's why you have to make *unsubstantiated evidence-less excuses for all of them* to sustain your belief system. *All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12,* and if you understand "science" (a methodology) then you understand the implications of a competing explanation. *"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 know it's not observable as science (a methodology) requires. It's just *constantly changing storytelling about the unobservable past.* *"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."* (Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission) Your words: *"Science is about testing. If you cannot test it, it ain't science.* Biologists could come up with many hypotheses for how sexual reproduction evolved. *But they could not test them."* (Oldtinear, 6 Jan 2024). *So if you can't test, observe, or produce evidence for alleged Male and Female evolution in the unobservable past, then it's not Science. So what is it? Atheistic Faith?* It's not that you're lying - at least this time, you've been caught in a lie before - it's more that you are stuck in a "strong delusion" (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12) and are literally incapable of understanding (1 Corinthians 2:14). *"But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."* (1 Corinthians 2:14)
@@Oldtinear That's an ad-hominem fallacy - you're attacking the person rather than the argument because you don't have a rational argument to offer. And it's not an appeal to authority fallacy, it's just recognition that even educated scientists recognize that evolution is a mythology, a worldview bias, a religion - not "science" (a methodology). *Does it concern you that we indoctrinated generations of children in schools with the Piltdown man as scientific fact, reviewed by evolutionists, with doctoral theses written on it for years? Those Expert Evolutionary Scientists were duped by a prankster's fraud - if even PhD holding Evolutionists can be so easily fooled, what else could they be wrong about?* *"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.) *"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."* (Sir Fred Hoyle, British Astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University) *"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)
I think its the best lecture for not only the believers but also for the non-believers. It is needed to make more scientific lecture of the same type. It will be a good answers to those who criticize the Bible's teachings. Thank you so much for uploading this wonderful message.
Professor ... aren't you having to believe the Catholic Church as the "sole" earthly authority needed to write and publish the Bible? Knowing what epistles & gospels belonged and which did not? You, nor any Protestant, Evangelical, Baptist, Lutheran, Calvinist or 7th Day Adventist were in existance. You and they and the other 20,000-40,000 differing Christian denominations were yet to exist, much less play any part at all, having to do with God, His Son, and the complete understanding of the Almighty's plan for our Salvation? The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (established by Jesus Christ) needed to be (100%) under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Truth)! In order for the Bible to be absolutely true, the CC needed to be absolutley "true." Is it possible, otherwise? Could the early church, have misunderstood Jesus, taught heresy, but yet knew enough to formulate & produce the (73 books) fully canonized Bible, that you need for your "sole rule of faith" ... you & every individual Protestant, with the authority to proclaim what it means? Even when all of you disagree? Isn't this the height of hypocrisy? *How can you make any sense of this way of thinking & believing?*
@@gabepettinicchio7454 My friend, the Modern Catholic Church also was not in existence - you have many practices and even a modern canon that was not the same as the canon of the original early one true church, and even up to AD 1534 (Cardinal Cajetan, etc.) Modern Catholic leaders rejected apocryphal books from the canon. It wasn't always so clear-cut and "traditional" as Catholics insist... Let me ask you this: Scripture says *"One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind."* (Romans 14:5) - As a Catholic, what does *"let every man be fully convinced in his own mind"* mean to you? What if your church was teaching you something that was false, hypothetically speaking? *How would you know?* How could you know? Is there a way for you to know, as a Catholic? *"Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."* (Acts 17:11) Just as the Bereans questioned Paul's teachings and were considered *"of more noble character"* for doing so, I would "examine the Scriptures every day to see if what [the Catholic Church] said was true." But since you believe the Catholic Church is the "sole earthly authority" to interpret Scripture, how would you know if they were lying...? And you should know that Protestants are overwhelmingly united on the essential doctrines of Scripture (who is God, who is the Trinity, what is the Gospel, etc.) - it's on mostly minor secondary issues where we have disagreements. Besides, *Catholicism has many denominations:* The Latin Church, Coptic, Ethiopian, Maronite, Syrian, Armenian, Chaldean, Byzantine, Greek, Macedonian, Romanian, Russian, Slavic, etc. *So, if Protestantism is not true because of denominations, then it also means that Catholicism is not true because of its denominations. Do they, like Protestants, share the same core doctrines, and that excuses their differences?* Can we abandon the double standard...?
@@michaelg377 You: "My friend, the Modern Catholic Church also was not in existence - you have many practices and even a modern canon that was not the same as the canon of the original early one true church, and even up to AD 1534 (Cardinal Cajetan, etc.) Modern Catholic leaders rejected apocryphal books from the canon. It wasn't always so clear-cut and "traditional" as Catholics insist... Let me ask you this: Scripture says "One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind." (Romans 14:5) - As a Catholic, what does "let every man be fully convinced in his own mind" mean to you?" *Me: Then you are calling Jesus Christ a nut-case & deceiving liar, for stating that His church would never fall to the gates of hell. He also said that he would have to leave, but that he would send the "Spirit of Truth" ... and that it would guide the church to all truth, until the end of the world. I remind you that he also said that their was so much more for them to know, and that he hadn't the time. So, did he somehow give them all the rest? If so, how would he do that. Catholics believe that all ceased after the death of the last apostle (John), so in what way could they grow in the knowledge that the lord required of them? Answer: The Spirit of Truth, not by adding on to what Jesus had already taught them, but by furthering their understanding of it. Therefore the "true church" is still with us, if one believes Jesus Christ is a God of his word. Is he? And where is his church that is still with us?* *You are mistaken, in claiming the so-called Apocryphal books, were not part of the original canon, as stated by the church councils held in the late 4th & early 5th Centuries. Remember, Jerome questioned them. Anyway, please share the "unbias" link that supports your claim.* *You should be aware that that there were the Hebrew OT & the Greek Septuagint OT. The deuterocanonical books were present in the "Greek" but not the Hebrew. As I mentioned in my last comment, Jesus & his apostles quoted (in the NT) the OT roughly 300 times. Roughly 200 of those quotes were from the Greek Septuagint, including the reference of "the mother & the 7 brothers" found in 2 Maccabees of your "Apocryphal" books.* *Which "modern" Catholic leader's did not believe in the deuterocanonical books? I'm not saying that there were none, but would like their names and positions they held. If they existed that proves nothing. Many priests leave for Protestantism and many Prot. minister's leave to become Catholic. As a side note, Luther took away these 7+ books and also wanted James, Revelation and a few other books removed from the canon, but his followers would not allow it. He even called James, "the book of straw" and said it should be tossed into the fire.* *In Romans 14:5 ... you left out the rest of the passage: "He who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. He also who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; while he who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.” --- Who was Paul speaking to and about what? --- He was dealing with the infamous “Judaizers,” that are defined in Acts 15:1-2. So, I do not understand your point.* ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You: "What if your church was teaching you something that was false, hypothetically speaking? How would you know? How could you know? Is there a way for you to know, as a Catholic?" Me: *Yes, I believe I answer this in my comment above.* Of course, this pertains to the truths of "faith & morals." Individual men of Holy Orders, can and do sometimes error. I would also read the "Catachism of the Catholic Church." It's all there, and availabe on-line* www.usccb.org/sites/default/files/flipbooks/catechism/ How would you know if your cgurch is correct? In fact how would you know the Ninle is the true word of God? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- You: "And you should know that Protestants are overwhelmingly united on the essential doctrines of Scripture (who is God, who is the Trinity, what is the Gospel, etc.) - it's on mostly minor secondary issues where we have disagreements. Besides, Catholicism has many denominations: The Latin Church, Coptic, Ethiopian, Maronite, Syrian, Armenian, Chaldean, Byzantine, Greek, Macedonian, Romanian, Russian, Slavic, etc. So, if Protestantism is not true because of denominations, then it also means that Catholicism is not true because of its denominations. Do they, like Protestants, share the same core doctrines, and that excuses their differences? Can we abandon the double standard...?" Me: *That's nonsense. If they were united enough then they wouldn't be seperated ... would they? Luther believed in the Eucharist, he honored the Blessed Mother, as well as many other Catholic teachings, including the Catholic Doctrine of "The Trinity!" Then other's such as Calvin who left Luther for his own views on, free will vs God's will. Then Zwingli left because he decided to reject the Eucharist ... and so on. We're at 20-40000 different Protestant denoms, and counting. Is that what Jesus wanted? No, he was correct in telling Peter ... "the devil wishes to sift you as wheat ... and he did!" even in spite of the Lord saying that he has prayed for them (apostles) to all remain one* *If you want any Scriptural truth, just ask and I will gladly add them.* *You make mention of other Catholic denoms. Also, false. They are rights or sects, all 23 of them, are united with the pope in Rome. All, believing and teaching the exact same things w/the same readings at Mass, every day, as they share the same Liturgical Calender, in every country on Earth! They only differ, because of locality & culture, meaning wearing different colored garments as well as differing styles, again due to localities, and not differing in the teachings of faith & morals from the "Roman Right" ... or the "Western Church." We're all entirely ... One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic as Christ left it and the Spirit continues to lead it!!!*
Geological and Hydrological Impossibilities Volume of Water: The story describes a flood that covers all the mountains under the entire heavens (Genesis 7:19-20). For this to happen, the volume of water needed would be vastly more than exists in the Earth's hydrosphere. There is no plausible source for such an immense amount of water. Water Distribution: Even if there were enough water, its distribution would defy the laws of physics. Water seeks its own level, and a flood of this magnitude would require a completely different planetary topography and gravitational dynamics than what we observe. Sediment Layers: Geological records show that sedimentary layers have formed over millions of years. These layers contain fossils and other evidence of gradual deposition, which contradicts the idea of a single, year-long flood depositing all the Earth's sediment. Biological and Ecological Issues Species Survival: The Ark story implies that all terrestrial animal species were saved on the Ark. There are millions of species of land animals, many with specific habitat and dietary needs. It's logistically impossible to gather, house, and care for this diversity of life on a single vessel for an extended period. Genetic Bottleneck: A global flood would cause an extreme genetic bottleneck, drastically reducing genetic diversity. This would lead to inbreeding and increased susceptibility to disease and genetic disorders, threatening the survival of species rather than ensuring it. Post-Flood Ecosystems: The story does not account for how ecosystems would be restored after such a cataclysmic event. Most plants would not survive a year underwater, and the ecological interdependencies would be irreparably disrupted. Logistical and Structural Challenges Ark Construction: The dimensions of the Ark (300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, 30 cubits high) are impractical for ancient construction techniques. The largest wooden ships historically built were much smaller and often suffered from structural weaknesses. Animal Care: Managing the care, feeding, and waste disposal for thousands of animals for a year would require more resources and manpower than described. Additionally, many species have very specific environmental needs that could not be met on the Ark. Feasibility of Repopulation: After the flood, the rapid repopulation and spread of animal species to their respective habitats across the globe, crossing oceans and continents, is biologically implausible. Historical and Mythological Context Ancient Flood Myths: The Noah's Ark story shares similarities with other ancient flood myths, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh from Mesopotamia. These myths likely arose from localized flood events that were catastrophic to early human settlements but not global in scale. Lack of Archaeological Evidence: There is no archaeological evidence supporting a global flood. Ancient civilizations in Egypt, China, and Mesopotamia show continuous habitation and development through the period when the flood supposedly occurred. Chronological Discrepancies: The timing of the flood as described in the Bible does not align with known historical timelines of ancient civilizations. These civilizations show uninterrupted cultural and technological progress during the supposed time of the flood. Conclusion on the flood From a secular, scientific standpoint, the story of Noah's Ark and the global flood contains numerous impossibilities and contradictions. The required volume of water, geological evidence, biological logistics, and lack of archaeological support all point to the conclusion that the story is a myth rather than a historical event. Understanding this narrative as part of ancient mythological traditions provides a more coherent explanation of its origins and cultural significance.
*"This text is 100% likely to be AI Generated"* (Quillbot)... *Yes, you should "think for yourself" my friend.* Also you're wrong. For example: Quantity of water) Mars has no liquid water, but scientists believe it was once covered in liquid water because of its canyons and other features. Earth is 70% covered in liquid water (!) and has similar features, marine fossils on the highest mountain tops, whale fossils deep inland in the Unites States, Ankylosaurus fossils found buried where they're not supposed to be among marine creatures, entire stacks of layered solid rock - bent at a 90 degree angle with no signs of breakage (because they were wet) - but secularists insist "there's no way there could have been a global flood." *Why the double standard?* You should research what the biblical creation worldview actually believes on this point my friend, it is actually perfectly plausible and there is a great amount of evidence that supports it if you can see beyond your Atheistic-Naturalist blinders. There are many problems with the secular origins mythology today, you just have to be able and willing to conduct an honest critical self-assessment of your worldview and see what the other side's *actual arguments and evidences* really are. In the meantime, here's another one for consideration that I hope you will find interesting *which contradicts several of your claims above:* *Did you know that the secular 4000-5000 year old Chinese language suspiciously contains uniquely biblical imagery in some of its characters?* How did it get in there? For example, the Character for "boat" consists of the characters "vessel" " *eight* " and "people," suspiciously matching Noah's family of 8 on the ark. The character for "flood" consists of "water" and "total", and the character for "total" is made up of "together," " *eight* ," and "earth," again suspiciously matching Noah's flood. The character for "To create" consists of "speak" "dust" "life" "walk" suspiciously matching how God spoke life into existence and formed man from the dust of the ground. The character for "devil" consists of the characters "secret" "man" "garden" "alive" , and the character for "tempter" consists of "devil" "two trees" and "cover," suspiciously matching the description of Satan in the Garden of Eden. The character for "Garden" includes "dust" "breath" "two persons" "enclosure" again suspiciously matching the account of God creating Adam and Eve from the dust in the Garden of Eden. The character for "happiness" includes "God" and "sheep" reflecting God's desire throughout the Bible to be with His sheep. The character "forbidden/to warn" includes "God" and "Two Trees" suspiciously matching the two trees God put in the Garden of Eden to give man a free will choice between good and evil (among other things). Some argue that the Bible is just a "Bronze age" copy of other ancient mythologies, but that doesn't make sense. There are dozens of these Chinese characters with specifically biblical imagery, and I have yet to see an ancient copycat legend that has these same details. *The birth of the Chinese language suspiciously lines up with the time the Bible says the Tower of Babel incident occurred, and it would make sense if this imagery entered their language because the early Chinese people were simply familiar with the biblical account of creation and the biblical flood.* If you deny that though, then how do you explain this? Christian missionaries didn't exist until millennia after the Chinese language began. As a related finding, some ancient Chinese writings and pottery depict cultural parallels between the ancient Chinese and ancient Hebrew people concerning animal sacrifices... food for thought. In addition, there are thousands of global flood legends all around the world, including 300+ Native American global flood legends which were developed in geographic isolation of Judeo-Christian influences, many of which specifically corroborate the biblical Noahic flood account, but not the other Mesopotamian flood myths. All of these geographically isolated people on separate continents suspiciously also had a knowledge of dinosaur-like creatures, and they also suspiciously had the same taste in architecture (ziggurats) all around the world. All of this evidence makes sense if these people descended from the same common people from the Tower of Babel incident after the biblical Noahic Flood. Otherwise this is all very strange and seems to contradict the secular narrative of human origins at many points. Blessings to you and yours.
@@Oldtinear That's because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and that if you just wait a long enough *time* then puddles of chemicals can fizz into people - and that's quite a bit of "science" you just ignored above my friend. Your words: *"If you cannot test it, it ain't science."* (Oldtinear, 20 December 2023). ""We can speculate [regarding early evolution], but *any speculations could not be tested, so we will never know"* (Oldtinear, 30 September 2023) "the first life-forms which developed this feature *left no trace of themselves* 2 billion years ago." (Oldtinear, 30 September 2023) Thank you for those powerful arguments against Evolution - now you can know, *from your own words,* that your own belief system *"...is not testable - it is nothing to do with science. It is a fundamentalist religious belief."* (Oldtinear, 20 December 2023) Do you hold yourself to your own standard though...? Science is a methodology, what you're talking about is an Atheistic Ideology. No one here has a problem with "science" (a methodology), it's your Unscientific Atheistic mythology that says you are a fish, cousin to a cockroach, a brother to cancer cells and leprosy, and that we are all just "meaningless evolved protoplasm in a meaningless amoral chemical universe" that is the problem. You are so much more than you believe you are. *"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."* (Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research)
@@bioof4NGL writing essays about why people don’t believe in something is… normal. Wasn’t the Declaration of Independence literally an essay as to why the 13 Colonies shouldn’t be ruled by England?
@@darthtyranous4514 I think the bigger issue above is that our friend "think 4 yourself" was using AI to "think 4 him" instead, and it was regurgitating shallow researched arguments and false information from the internet in a confirmed 100% AI generated "essay." Among other things, this shows the negligible role that "science," "evidence," "logic," and "thinking for yourself" actually plays in the atheistic worldview - it's an effort to suppress God, and it has nothing to do with logic, evidence, reason, or "thinking." Consider this: *“…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 is an evolutionist claiming that evolutionary paleontologists were deliberately ignoring evidence and acting on bias and groupthink - what are your thoughts on that?
@@Oldtinear Actually he didn't, and the evidence I provided above refuted many of his major points. The problem with AI is that it uses the internet as its source of information, so by relying solely on AI to answer any question means *operating on the assumption that "just because it's on the internet means it's true."* Think for yourself my friend. What are your thoughts on the evidence above that you ignored as well? And what are your thoughts on the evolutionist admitting that evolutionary paleontologists are deliberately ignoring obvious evidence and engaging in biased groupthink? "Think-4-Yourself's post listed a series of factors which destroyed the silly myth of the flood. You cannot come within a mile of rebutting them, so you make a fuss about AI and hope nobody notices your empty-handedness." That series of epithet fallacies and strawman misrepresentations of what happened above is 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. It's classic apriorism, an Invincible Ignorance fallacy - there is no mountain of evidence that can convince a scoffer like yourself to honestly consider that you might be wrong. "You toss words such as 'meaningless' about, but *meaningful social behaviour has a natural explanation."* (Oldtinear, 19 May 2024) "'How do you get from meaningless goo to meaningful and valuable you just by adding time + chemicals + chance in a meaningless universe? 'The natural origin of life (abiogenesis) *is a hypothesis in progress. When we know more, I will get back to you."* (Oldtinear, 19 May 2024) *How do you know it has a "natural" explanation if you can't explain it "naturally"...?*
God is the creator of ALL things seen and unseen. Science is merely man giving names to the things and processes of God's creation. Then man in his arrogance, manipulates that which God created and claims himself to be God.
@Just me "Science is figuring out how things work" Exactly what I said, observing God's creation and naming it (describing it with words). "Humility" separates you from Wisdom.
@@byteme9718 in denial (absence) of the True God. Man sees his existence as supreme and worships his own knowledge (science). Knowledge void of Wisdom = Death
@@meismonke5543 I will attempt one last time to open your eyes, you may not be ready today, but someday you will see. Science does not exist in opposition to the Creator. He made you in his image, meaning you have self-awareness, a conscience, emotion, and reason. All of the universe he created as a purpose for you, nothing is accidental or random. It is foolish to observe the complexity of life and not recognize the intelligent design. Cause and Effect. I will pray for you.
I remember when Mt. St. Helens erupted. Scientists "carbon dated" trees after the eruption and the reading said they were millions of years older than everyone knew them to be!
@@pup1008 What are your thoughts on the observed 10-year old samples taken from a lava dome at Mt. St. Helens that were K-Ar dated to be 300,000 years old? In order to accurately "date" something, you need to know the original amount of the parent isotope, the original amount of the daughter isotope, that the rate of decay remained constant, and that the material was in a closed system unaffected by other influences which could throw off the results - *we can't verify any of these Assumptions without a time machine.* Why were the samples from this lava dome so far off? Because the scientists *incorrectly assumed* that all of the Argon was the product of radioactive decay of Potassium, but the material inherited additional Argon as it solidified, so they incorrectly dated a 10-year old object to be 300,000 years old based on their false assumptions. If objects that we observe can be so incorrectly dated, what does that tell you about dating objects that we cannot observe, from the Unobservable Past? Other items for consideration include young Carbon-14 found inside of allegedly "billions of years old" diamonds, young soft tissues and intact cells found inside a growing number of allegedly "65 million year old" dinosaur fossils which appear similar to 4000 year old mummies and the Tyrolean Ice Man, snail shells dated to be 26,000 years old in the 1980s, and numerous measurements taken from samples of past historically documented volcanic eruptions (Mt. Etna, etc.) which are WAY off compared to what documented history shows. ...but without this atheistic "flavour of geographically and culturally ordained god" (Naturalism and its underlying assumptions), you don't have "billions of years." Without "billions of years," your already implausible belief that chemicals fizzed into people by chance just by adding *Time* falls apart. You need a Creator. *"It is appointed for a man to die once, then comes Judgment"* (Hebrews 9:27)
@dumyjobby no, just a fact you cannot accept. This was general news at the time, until all of a sudden it wasn't. You can say whatever you want, but I actually lived this.
The Lord Jesus Christ has delivered me from drug addiction, homelessness, abusive relationships, evil spirits (yes they're real) , sexual immorality, swearing, lying, stealing, laziness.. and even more. I give all the glory to Him. All praise and worship belong to God. He is real. He is bigger than any problem you face. He will meet you where you are at. Even right now. (Romans 10:13) For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Currently I'm experiencing a demonic attack. But I am standing on The Word of God which says I have authority over devils and we are commanded by Christ Jesus to drive/cast them out. So I'm will continue to drive them out in The Name of Jesus Christ. Friends I implore you to do the same. The devil doesn't want us thinking it's real. We have authority over it! All of them. Keep strong in The Lord. Jesus Christ is LORD to the glory of God The Father. I bless every reader of this comment in The Name of Jesus Christ
@@stephenlaing2152 His children will have the opportunity to decide for themselves if they get to be presented with the information, and also, it is not really any of your business, now is it....
@@curesmithnethe would never show his children something that challenged his own preferential world view lol trust me i grew up with very ignorant religious parents who were purposely ignorant to anything outside of there “comfort zone”.
@@curesmithnet he would never show his children something that challenged his own preferential world view lol trust me i grew up with very ignorant religious parents who were purposely ignorant to anything outside of there “comfort zone”.
Ken Ham: There is no new information. Genes get rearranged but they're still the same genes. Also Ken Ham at 27:09: Mutations: changes in our genes occurred. 🤦♀
Mutation or deformity is not new information. It's a corruption of the information that changes what should be there originally. Say the order should be abcdefg and a mutation comes along and eliminates a letter or makes the sequence acbedfg. It seems you may have confused create with change. A mutation doesn't create anything new no more than a man takes wood and carves it into whatever his heart desires. A new shape or form has been achieved but it is still just wood.
All the information is before your eyes it's just you. You're on the road and there is no fork in it. It is choice. To let the physics explain who and what you are or somebody that's making a guess, their opinion of misunderstood information. Only pure facts matter there are no wrong answers only correct. The Human Condition is what you make it, for yourself. If you do not adhere to the scale of physics you'll never understand this. For this is where language is derived from. Also music. It is of scale, it can go up or down but it is unscalable in it's Mass. The physics within it, is the answer. Physics started when someone asked, what am I. Around a campfire. From there it led to philosophies which are all over the world, and just a repetition of itself. For there must be balance, or there would be none. Meaning if it can't hold it shape it won't exist/ no Foundation to it. So what you see the cosmos yourself everything is in balance, or it would not exist in the first place. Just Like Music it has to be in balance for you to enjoy/ hear it in the first place. It's just an understanding of the balance in, the presence of you in the first place. Understanding this will lead you to a compendium of understanding of all things. For the math it does not lie.
@@cynthiaayers7696 not hatred just rational disbelief. You might not believe that, for example, a Bigfoot exists. That doesn't mean you hate the idea of Bigfoot. You just haven't been able to find any good evidence for it.
@@ChiefCedricJohnson Good to see that you are wise. GOD Bless you & all who seek HIM, all that are lost return your Creator Almighty GOD. Shalom🙏 Deuteronomy 30:15-20 New American Standard Bible Choose Life 15 “See, I have placed before you today life and [a]happiness, and death and [b]adversity, 16 in that I am commanding you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, so that you may live and become numerous, and that the Lord your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to take possession of it. 17 But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but allow yourself to be led astray and you worship other gods and serve them, 18 I declare to you today that you will certainly perish. You will not prolong your days in the land where you are crossing the Jordan to enter [c]and take possession of it. 19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have placed before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your [d]descendants, 20 by loving the Lord your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding close to Him; for [e]this is your life and the length of your days, [f]so that you may live in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.”
Science agrees that there has been floods in the past, there's deserts that used to be under water and so on. But all the continents user to be one super continent at one point. We know this because of archeological findings like fossils of the same species being found on different continents and other geological findings. Not to mention the current movement of the continents. A few floods in the past does not confirm gods existence. In fact the pole ices are melting right now and will cause landmasses to get under the sea level. These events happen on a geoactive planet. But to make a further argument. The epic of Gilgamesh is a text written around 2000 BC, (long before the bible). And it has a flood myth which is very very similar to the story of Noah.. Including building a ship and taking animals onboard "The gods sent a flood to destroy the human race, but one god, Ea spoke to a reed fence giving instructions on how to build a suitable boat. Uta-napishti heard the words of Ea, and saved himself, his family and all living things. The flood was upon the earth for six days and seven nights." Is it coincident? I think not.. Most likely this story was carried on from mouth to ear, gradually changing and eventually tailored to fit into the Old Testament. It makes the most sense.
No it's not. Creationists like ken Ham deny evolution but they rely on the theory of evolution to support the claim of the flood. People who believe there was a flood and an arc need to be institutionalized. It's a belief founded in ignorance and denying science.
@@HaveAHuff That's just not true my friend. For example, *if sediments have been accumulating on the ocean floor for 3+ billion years, then the sediment on the sea floor should be several miles deep* ...but the thickness of these sediments is only about 1300 feet deep. Approximately 20 billion tons of dirt and rock debris are eroded from the continents and deposited into the sea every year, mostly near the continents. Approximately 1 billion tons of sediment are removed every year through tectonic movement (1-2 inches per year), resulting in a net gain of approximately 19 billion tons of sediment every year. At this rate, it would take about 12 million years (assuming atheistic-Naturalist assumptions) for all of this sediment to accumulate - not 3-4 *Billion* years. This measurable evidence makes sense from a biblical creation perspective which holds that most of these sediments were rapidly deposited a little over 4000 years ago in the global flood. The evidence just fits. Atheistic-Naturalists, however, have to invoke one of several rescuing devices to circumvent this problematic evidence, all of which are problematic themselves. Some claim *"it must have accumulated at a slower rate in the past"* - but the sediments on the continental shelves suggest they were deposited much *Faster* than today's rates. For example, the layering and patterns of the grain sizes in these sediments are the same as those produced by undersea landslides, when turbidity currents flow rapidly across continental shelves and the sediments then settle in thick layers over vast areas. *There is also no evidence of a large amount of sediment being subducted under the mantle.* Two worldviews, same evidence, two very different interpretations. Biblical creation proponents "scientifically" accept this evidence at face value of a recent global flood and a young creation - the evidence simply fits. Atheistic-Naturalists have to invoke a rescuing device to unscientificially *circumvent this problematic evidence in order to preserve their atheistic version of our origins.* Which worldview is really behaving more "scientifically" at this point, the one that accepts the evidence (biblical creation) or the one that has to invoke yet another rescuing device to sustain their belief system (atheistic-Naturalists)? We are all indoctrinated into atheistic-Naturalism (evolution, etc.) today in our public education system. Atheistic-Naturalists do the same thing with the Faint Young Sun Paradox which suggests earth should have been frozen when life was supposed to create itself 3.5 billion years ago (various unsubstantiated theories), young 100,000 year old maximum comets in our allegedly "14 billion year old" universe (fabricated Oort Clouds), young soft tissues in allegedly "65+ million year old" dinosaur fossils that appear similar to 4000 year old mummies and the Tyrolean ice man (preservative rescuing devices), the fact that the moon would have been touching the earth 1.5 billion years ago based on calculations concerning the effects of tidal recession on the moon (usually miscalculated and/or ignored), etc. Is this really how "Science" is supposed to work?
@@michaelg377 I'm not reading any of that. There are 16000000 species that would have had to be on the arc. Creationists acknowledge there's no way a vessel that size could have been constructed by a man and his family. They assert there were only 1000-4000 species, depending who you ask. Which means everything had to evolve from those species. The entire world view is a contradiction. Even most people who believe in your god don't believe the flood happened. It's simply illogical.
Enjoyed this video. I appreciate the discussion on evolution. I've watched several other speakers discuss the complexity of DNA and protein strands. The ecological impact of the eruption of Mt. St. Helen's had some new information for me. Keep up the good work.
@@pup1008 With respect, given your misunderstandings and inability to explain your own worldview beliefs from our prior discussions... have you? “…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 in particular 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.”* This is an evolutionist admitting that evolutionary paleontologists are ignoring the evidence. What are your thoughts on that? All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12.
@@Oldtinear *He absolutely is an evolutionist - that's exactly why that statement is so significant.* - and he said flat out that evolutionary paleontologists are ignoring obvious evidence. The fossil record most definitely is not evidence for evolution, it's time to abandon that obvious lie my friend - you've been misled, it's just groupthink and "simply looking the other way": Again: *"...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) This is an evolutionist admitting that evolutionary paleontologists are ignoring the evidence in the fossil record, and maintaining their stories DESPITE the evidence. What are your thoughts on that? Here are a couple more: *"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded... The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time... Some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record... have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."* (D. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50, no 1 (1979), 25) 2 things we observe in the fossil record: *“Stasis.* Most species represent no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. *“Sudden Appearance.* In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed.” (Stephen Gould, "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change," 1985) ...it seems no mountain of evidence could ever convince an evolutionist who is so blindly devoted to his faith.
Genes are amazing. My kids are 4 years apart. My son was born with perfectly olive skin, though he is white And he tans perfectly and never burns, my daughter however, is pale and I have to put sunscreen on her. Their skin is so different!
How I love God and God's perfect creation. He is so magnificent, His creation was created in an utterly perfect balance from sub atomic particles here on our tiny earth to the red giant stars throughout the unmeasurable universe.
@@rogerandjoan4329 I didn’t miss your point when you said you love to mock theists . By doing that you scorn Almighty God , your creator ! How hateful is that and how clever are you , son of dust ?
@@malcolmscrivener8750 It’s a good thing that there’s astute gents like yourself around to have god’s back. Atheists only mock real actors. I can understand though why you think we mock god since you’re accustomed to confounding reality with mythology.
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* then puddles of chemicals can fizz into people? They're not saying that "science can't be trusted," they're saying that your interpretations of the evidence are necessarily *Assumption* based and if you have false *Assumptions* then you are going to misinterpret the information. 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) is 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)
@@Oldtinear My friend, you just said it yourself - if the laws of nature break down as demonstrated above, then clearly something Super-Natural (beyond "nature,' beyond those laws) must exist. No "inventing" required - that's why even the Atheist has to make up *Infinite, Eternal, Self-existent/Pre-existent, etc.* phenomena to sustain your "natural" belief system (examples above). *The only way for nature to create itself is if nature is Pre-existent - like God.* This refutes "naturalism" at its foundation - but it makes sense in a biblical worldview. "Have you any more evidence that YOUR superhero exists than the comic book characters do?" - Yes - for example, even you live in accordance with Him rather than your own worldview that says we are all "just chemicals" or "meaningless evolved protoplasm" in a meaningless amoral chemical universe that doesn't care. It's weird, 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 respect towards others (James 3:10), 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)
@@Oldtinear That's because you don't have a rational response. Thank you for your substance-less response though, that is all the response that is needed from you. In the meantime, if you feel rational, please revisit the above, I would love to hear your answers to those questions you ignored. *How do you get from meaningless goo to meaningful and valuable you just by adding time + chemicals + chance in a meaningless universe?*
@@Oldtinear I asked *How do you get from meaningless goo to meaningful and valuable you just by adding time + chemicals + chance in a meaningless universe?* Your silence is all that people need to see. And I did answer you, you're just not listening - Reposted for your reconsideration: Yes - for example, *even you live in accordance with Him rather than your own worldview* that says we are all "just chemicals" or "meaningless evolved protoplasm" in a meaningless amoral chemical universe that doesn't care. It's weird, 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 respect towards others (James 3:10), 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) *How do you get from meaningless goo to meaningful and valuable you just by adding time + chemicals + chance in a meaningless universe?*
The discovery of dinosaurs living 250 million years ago and finding insects in sap over 400 million years old blows the Genesis creation story out of the water.
@@joejohnson8656 People who do not question the bible are the ones missing a ton. Answer this: Why would the god that created the universe kill Aarons two sons for the menial infraction of not preparing the alter properly for people to donate gold? Time for you to read the bible
Can I ask you a related question about it? DNA contains mass quantities of ordered, sequenced, encoded information, including instructions for building complex machines like your eyes. Every observable example of information in existence always has an original intelligent source: every book has an author, every program has a programmer, the words on this screen came from you... Therefore, *if consistently interpreted,* the information in DNA likewise had an intelligent source (God). *How do you handle this observable evidence?*
@@michaelg377 Quote :"Can I ask you a related question about it? DNA contains mass quantities of ordered, sequenced, encoded information, including instructions for building complex machines like your eyes." no it does not. It is more like a recipe, less like computer code. The best evidenmce is that we can read dna, know what it does, what the information means, and yet can´t just make an eye. There is a lot more to this. Quote :"Every observable example of information in existence always has an original intelligent source" that is a lie, but nice try. WE know for a fact that DNA changes via positive mutations, neuitral mutations and negative mutations, all 3 are clearly infiormation (you just admitted that) and all are clearly the result of random mutations. Quote :"Therefore, if consistently interpreted, the information in DNA likewise had an intelligent source (God). How do you handle this observable evidence?" ah you are saying this is proof odin exists , or did you mean zeus ??
@@daftwulli6145 With respect my friend, everything you just said is incorrect on nearly all counts. You say "no it does not. It is more like a recipe, less like computer code." Please consider the following: *"Genes are information. They are coded information. It even looks like computer information. A chromosome is a great long computer tape. It's linear. It runs one dimensional. [It's] digital code. It's not binary, it's quaternary, but apart from that it's just the same as computer tape. It's read in sequence. It's copied and pasted from one part of the organism to another in just the same way as a computer programmer would copy and paste. So biology has turned into computer science..."* - Richard Dawkins, DNA : The Greatest Discovery in Modern Science. *What are your thoughts on this? Do you disagree with Richard Dawkins?* "Every observable example of information in existence always has an original intelligent source" that is a lie, but nice try. WE know for a fact that DNA changes via positive mutations, neuitral mutations and negative mutations, all 3 are clearly infiormation (you just admitted that) and all are clearly the result of random mutations." No, "Mutations' doesn't explain how you get *ordered, sequenced, encoded instructions for building complex machines like your eyes* out of meaningless informationless chemicals. We have never once observed information create itself out of non-information without an Intelligent Source - on the contrary, *we ONLY ever observe information coming from an original intelligent source.* Why would you insist on an interpretation IN CONTRAST to ALL the rest of the observable evidence? My friend, you're *begging the question (a logical fallacy)* of atheistic-naturalism and atheistic-abiogenesis here. Every single observable example of information that we have always has an intelligent source, like those 3 examples I offered above (book authors, computer programmers, the words on this screen from you, etc.). If this is truly a "lie" as you assert, *can you name one example of information in existence that doesn't have an original intelligent source? Just One?* ""Therefore, if consistently interpreted, the information in DNA likewise had an intelligent source (God). How do you handle this observable evidence?" ah you are saying this is proof odin exists , or did you mean zeus ??" In essence you're not wrong on this, this evidence *by itself* only points to the fact that DNA logically had an Intelligent Source; it doesn't necessarily identify who that source was. Are you suggesting that you believe in Odin or Zeus, or perhaps Aliens like Richard Dawkins proposed as a "Possibility" in this video? In any case, that's a different conversation - A) DNA contains information, B) information observably always has an intelligent source, therefore C) *if consistently interpreted* the information in DNA likewise had an intelligent source. *How do you handle this observable evidence?* *"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)
@@froginabucket7294 No, I'm asking a question - the fact that you see it as a "statement" is significant though. This is a linear, logical, evidence-based argument. What are your thoughts? A) DNA contains information, B) information observably always has an intelligent source, therefore C) if consistently interpreted the information in DNA likewise had an intelligent source. *How do you handle this observable evidence?*
One example of a genetic process that can increase the information in a genome is gene duplication followed by divergence. This process occurs when a section of DNA is duplicated, resulting in multiple copies of a particular gene or set of genes within an organism's genome. Gene duplication can arise through various mechanisms, such as errors during DNA replication or recombination events. Once a gene is duplicated, one copy remains functional, carrying out its original role in the organism, while the other copy is free to acquire new functions through mutations without disrupting the essential functions of the original gene. Over time, the duplicated gene can accumulate mutations that alter its sequence and functionality, leading to the formation of a new gene with a distinct function. This process is known as gene divergence or subfunctionalization. Through gene divergence, the duplicated genes can take on different roles or specialize in performing slightly different functions within the organism. This increases the genetic information by adding a new gene variant with a unique function to the genome. An example of this process can be observed in the evolution of the globin gene family, which includes genes responsible for producing hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying protein in vertebrates. Gene duplication events in the ancestral genome resulted in the formation of multiple copies of the globin gene. These duplicated genes then diverged over time, leading to the development of different globin genes with distinct roles. In humans, for instance, gene duplication events resulted in the formation of several globin genes, including those responsible for the production of different types of hemoglobin: fetal hemoglobin, adult hemoglobin, and myoglobin. Each of these genes has undergone divergence, acquiring specific mutations that allow them to perform their unique functions in different stages of development or in different tissues. This process of gene duplication and divergence has played a significant role in the evolution of new genes and the expansion of gene families throughout the history of life on Earth. It has allowed organisms to acquire new functions, adapt to different environments, and increase the complexity and diversity of their genomes, ultimately contributing to the richness of life forms we observe today.
Other processes, such as mutation, recombination, horizontal gene transfer, and genomic rearrangements, can also contribute to the generation of new genetic information. Mutation, for instance, introduces changes in the DNA sequence, which can lead to the formation of new alleles or novel gene variants. Recombination, the exchange of genetic material between chromosomes, can result in new combinations of genetic information. Horizontal gene transfer, the transfer of genetic material between different species, can introduce entirely new genes into a genome. Furthermore, natural selection acts as the driving force that determines which genetic variations are advantageous and thus more likely to persist in a population. Beneficial mutations that increase an organism's fitness, such as providing a new function or improving an existing one, can be positively selected for, leading to their preservation and spread in a population over time. Overall, these mechanisms, combined with natural selection, provide a comprehensive understanding of how genetic information can increase in a genome over generations. The claims against evolution that suggest information cannot be increased are based on misunderstandings of the processes involved and ignore the substantial evidence supporting the accumulation of new genetic information through evolutionary mechanisms.
😂lol gene duplication is not increasing information or generating new information? Apart from A, T, G, C how many new bases could be formed and entirely new generic code could be created? Can you answer that?
@@SpikeSpiegel-hk7tr do you want for us to hate this video? I don't even use the word hate in my life. So I know for sure I don't hate this video. You are just making assumptions. This video is a example of confirmation bias, and this fact doesn't make me hate it. 😄😉
@@mariayudelkamercadogarcia4500ahteist do hate this video just look at the comments, they just say not true go read a book and repeat the same things the video went over
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* then puddles of chemicals can fizz into people? I agree with your screen name, you do have to "think for yourself." 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? Women literally cannot get pregnant today because of known medical issues with these organs... *"“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.
@@Oldtinear Why? How many PhD creationist technical papers do you suppose a PhD evolutionist had to evaluate in their secular public education? But how many PhD evolutionist technical papers do you suppose PhD creationists had to evaluate in their education? One side lives in a bubble (evolution), and the other side has to evaluate both worldviews (biblical creation). We are all *uncritically indoctrinated* into this religion of atheistic-Naturalism (evolution) today in our public education system, and the phenomena of groupthink and atheistic censorship of the alternatives are used to keep this uncritical indoctrination going. *Wouldn't it be better to consider both worldviews with an open mind, rather than living in a bubble?*
@@Oldtinear Actually, you should know that PhD Creation Scientists who get a secular education have to study ONLY Naturalistic-Evolutionist technical papers in their education, and in addition they also study and publish their own Creation technical papers - like Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, for example. In contrast, Atheistic-Naturalists (evolutionists) who get a PhD education ONLY ever read items within their closed-minded naturalistic bubble. It's groupthink. Consider the following example: *“…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 particularly important: *"Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin’s predicted pattern, simply looked the other way.”*
@@michaelg377 I've given you a chance to prove your flavor of god is real Michael in a highly respected academic forum but you just *_run, run, run?_* Make the same offer to me for my chance to prove your "God of the Gaps" fallacy is total nonsense & I'll bite your hand off! Do you even care what truth is?
@@pup1008 No my friend, that's because you have your own "Atheism of the Gaps" - we've actually discussed this already: the question is *why do YOU follow My 'flavor' of God instead of your own "we're all just chemicals worldview?"* For some reason you live in contrast to the atheistic "we're all just chemicals in a meaningless universe" 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 meaning, value, 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 (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 - from your meaningless chemical accident universe that doesn't care? 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) This is a test called existential viability (ie. can you live your worldview out in reality) - it's a big problem for an atheistic chemical accident in a meaningless universe worldview, but even Atheists live perfectly in line with the image and likeness specifically of the "flavor of God" of Scripture - it's weird, right? Put differently: *How do you get from meaningless goo to meaningful and valuable you just by adding time + chemicals + chance in a meaningless universe?* Any thoughts?
@johnnynotenglish9751 I don't know if this was meant in a mean / sexist way, or, if it is a joke I am misunderstanding, but regardless, that is no way for one to conduct themselves, and, no way to treat another person. To the recipient of the presumed insult, I sympathize with having to put up with this level of incivility.
@johnnynotenglish9751 Then show us how smart you are by telling how creation happened on its own. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
Atheists, Mao, Stalin, Marx, Lenin, Pol Pot, and Mussolini were such peaceful atheists. And then there's Margaret Sanger, who is responsible for creating the largest human killing machine in history... Planned Parenthood. Such peaceful people. They wouldn't hurt a fly, but keep human beings away from them.
@@miztor7797 That's the Roman Catholic Church. That's another animal. The RCC persecuted many Christians throughout the centuries (i.e. Foxe's Book of Martyrs, etc.).
No. Some people are blue, and others are red. Those are not the same color. Did you vote for Trump with Obama or Biden as the VP or vice versa? Obviously not. DUH!
@@rademilosavljevic5754 he is absolutely un-scientific, he just poked some valid holes in science, but never really proved anything within the bible. He just put forth his theory of how things could have happened like they were described in the bible. There is a difference between proving something actually happened and simply stating a possibility of how things may have happened.
Psalms 139:16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. This is talking about DNA!!!
@@byteme9718 Impossible. Random chance cannot even make an amino acid (millers experiment was a failure) let alone a protein. Anyway DNA was designed by an intelligence far above anything man could ever dream of. A book cannot write itself it has to have an author.
Deoxyribonucleic acid, that dna. Every single persons dna is different. So if this is gods signature he must have some amount of personalities. Do you ever read what you write. Try reading a proper non fiction .book you will learn more
i WILL SHARE THIS WITH AS MANY PEOPLE AS i CAN! THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER! WE NEED TO SHARE THE GOOD NEWS AND THE TRUTH! PEACE BE WITH YOU ALL!
The Best concise explanations of aspects of creation I’ve seen thus far. Explanation of the East Asian eye shape was omitted; which most likely originated with Eve. Thank you.
As an atheist i don’t hate this video. But if just confirms the evidence for a god i have heard a thousand time before and i could argue every point this charlatan has made.
Sounds like you hate Ken Ham as much as you hate Almighty God , your holy and righteous creator . You will answer to Him when He decides to end the life He gave you on His earth . The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom . Don’t be a godless fool ! Salvation is of the Lord . TULIP
@@t-bonewtfi don’t, that’s correct. What I tried to say in the comment was “ I don’t have to watch the video because I know I doesn’t prove god so it’s a waste of my time” sorry for the confusion lol
This is the best video that Ken has ever come up with. I just wish he would slow it down a little bit and not try to cram everything into 1 hour. Love you Ken! ,😊
"Of all the things I value most of all I look upon my Earth And feel the warmth And know that it is good" Spiral Architect, Black Sabbath (70s Psychedelic Blues Christian Rock Band)
You believe what you believe and that's all that matters is what you believe in no matter your religion the human mind is a pretty powerful thing with the right beliefs
*"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me"* (John 14:6) *"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) *"The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord"* (Romans 6:23)
@Just me I don't have "to DEMONSTRATE the truth of it," because you're doing it for me my atheist friend. *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 purpose and a capacity for "dominion" over creation (Genesis 1:26), morality and a sense of justice (Genesis 9:6), a sense of respect towards others (James 3:10), 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. I know you don't believe in God though - so how do you explain these observable qualities in you from your own atheistic "we're just chemical reactions" worldview? "Do you believe meaningless chemicals fizzed together in a puddle, and somehow "human beings are valuable"? Or do you believe that chemicals evolved, and somehow "rape is wrong"? Animals do it all the time, and chemicals destroy each other all the time... and the atheistic worldview holds that we are evolved animals, and just chemicals... 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)
@Just me Evolving as a "social species" doesn't explain how you get from meaningless goo to valuable you from meaningless godless chemical reactions my friend. You didn't rationally answer this problem the first time, and you haven't rationally answered it here either. Meanwhile, you're living perfectly in line with the image of the God you reject as a meaningful and valuable human being (Genesis 1:27) with a purpose and capacity for "dominion" over creation (Genesis 1:26) morality and a sense of justice (Genesis 9:6) a sense of respect for other human beings (James 3:10) and a conscience that reflects the principles of His laws (Romans 2:15) - and you reject this image just as He said you would (2 Timothy 3:5). In case this is lost on you, you are ironically living perfectly in line with the God you reject, and perfectly in contrast to your own atheistic assertions - and that is powerful evidence you can see in yourself that the God you reject exists, that He created you, and that He loved you enough to make you specially in His image and likeness. *"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) *"But God showed His love for us by sending His Son to die for us while we were still sinners"* (Romans 2:15)
@Just me "Social species need to care about others in their tribe for survival." Why does "evolution" care about your survival in this chemical reaction universe? Did "Nature" or "evolution" determine that the chemical puddle we evolved from was somehow "important" and that it needed to "survive" and develop "advantages" so that it would be able to adapt and survive? Why does "evolution" or "nature" care about your survival at all...?
It is the best explanation that i have ever heard in my entire life. It can solidify my faith in God like a diamond and can never be swayed by atheist scientific theories ever again.
This is a great lesson that children as well as adults can understand. The great thing about the videos is that we can keep watching them. It actually help me understand many things and I am a Christian nurse. Thank you. And God bless you.
can’t believe this has been on youtube for 6 years. i would have bet some real money that they would have taken something like this down by now. thank God it’s still up 💛💛💛
@@justacatfish2405 not really. half of this is a misunderstanding of science the other half is blind faith. but even then they haven't really said anything damaging or offensive aside from the last part about gay marriage.
Yet the transformation in people’s lives, freedom from addictions and promiscuous behaviors, LGBT lifestyles, supernatural healings and restoration provides irrevocable proof.
I had read the book, “It couldn’t just happen" which was very helpful. THIS video REALLY explains in depth, but in easy to understand language, the answers to questions many of us have had. When confronted with the Ark account, I didn’t understand, but would rationalize it in my mind by thinking that God may have made it so the animals hibernated, or (being God) he made it so the animals didn’t need to eat or poo while on the Ark…things like that. Now I can explain the truth in ways that both I and others can understand. Thank you, Ken Ham! Thank you, God, for everything you have and continue to do for us! Thank you, God, for being there for us in good times and bad.
Ohhh. So God used to be magic and help people survive catastrophic events?!?! What's going on with starving children?! How about.... ya know..... hurricanes?!! Couldn't God just intercede and help a brother out?! Or is he no longer magic?! Lost his touch?
@Michelle Blackburn Sleeping?! Even if that were true. You saw where the Ark allegedly landed, yeah?! So, after the flood and they crashed.... how did Kangaroos get all the way to Australia?! Or...... how would he have gone and retrieved the Roos in the first place?! And even if he did.... why would they go back... travelling across multiple continents and across the ocean....??! Does that make sense?!
@@ericchin739 I respect your right not to believe in God. After all, He gave us free will so we could choose to live our lives and believe what we want. I do not denigrate you or your beliefs; I ask that you afford those of us who believe in God the same courtesy.
The reason you believe in God is because deep down you hate the fact that you had to move out of your parents house, that is what I believe makes people go after God.
This is a great message for those who are willing to listen to the evidence and critically assess their own worldview assumptions. We're all uncritically indoctrinated into the theory of evolution today, and most people don't know how to think for themselves as a result.
@@michaelg377 Most people have never been educated in advanced biology, but indoctrinated by churches. From European perspective ist looks like one of the US-problems.
@@travisbicklepopsicle Science is a methodology. What you're talking about is an Ideology. We are all forced to learn the theory of evolution in our public education system from a very young age, and it's even pushed in our childrens' cartoons - we never talk about the problems and scientific difficulties it encounters like getting information from non-information, the changing story of the Coelacanth, debunked Junk DNA, the Faint Young Sun Paradox which suggests our earth would have been frozen solid when life was supposed to atheistically create itself from a puddle, "billions of years" without ever considering the unverifiable assumptions that go into radiometric dating - *time* performs the Atheist's miracles. Science is great, but science is *limited* to measuring physical natural phenomena. It can't account for anything immaterial, like the laws of logic which exist outside of our chemical bodies and yet all of "nature" has to obey, or the metaphysical mathematically precise laws of physics which all of material nature has to follow for some reason. It also can't explain anything outside of the laws of nature - so consider this: The 1st law of thermodynamics doesn't allow energy to come from nothing "naturally." The 2nd law (entropy) says energy is always being converted into an unusable form, so energy can't just exist forever because on an eternal past time-scale it would all be used up. So if our universe couldn't have a beginning from nothing, and if it couldn't have just existed forever, then *how do you "naturally" explain the beginning of our universe?* You can't, not without invoking some kind of a Super-Natural phenomenon. Science breaks down at this point, among others. Have you ever wondered why atheists have to invoke such wild sci-fi sounding theories to sustain their "natural" belief system? *Infinite* unobservable alternate universes, an *eternal self-existent* singularity, alternate *unobservable metaphysical* laws of nature, *pre-existent* phenomena... you have to attribute Super-Natural qualities of God to "nature" to "naturally" explain our origins, it doesn't make sense. *The only way for "nature" to create itself is if "nature" is pre-existent... like God.* *"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."* (Romans 1:20)
The only time I have been speechless in my life was when my brains ran out my ears listening to a Christian argue that god is real. If you feel you need to prove your deity's real it's not.
That assumes that the side denying the argument is being rational and the side making the argument is not - which is simply not the case. Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just add *time* puddles can fizz themselves into people?
@martinmunnelly5532 Thanks for sharing. Am not religiously inclined but would happily prefer listening in to a Catholic service or two rather than swallowing MR Ham's snakeoil
@Elliot sadly, I don't really go deep into religious conversation. I don't believe and don't really have enough knowledge on it. Plus, I'm more focused on other things. Religion is accepted, not being told.
@Just me You're begging the question of atheism. If God did guide him there, then what you're saying is false. Or, alternatively, maybe He even used that YT algorithm for His purposes. Do you have perfect knowledge of everything in the universe, everything in existence? If not, then the best you can rationally say is "I don't *think* God led you to this video." Likewise, if you're honest, as an atheist the best you can say is "I don't *think* that God exists" - thus logically, you're not an atheist - you're an agnostic. Honest atheists are agnostics, not atheist.
@Just me " " He even used that YT algorithm for His purposes" - Baseless assertion!" Again, do you have perfect knowledge of everything in existence in the universe? No? Then you can't rationally say that possibility is false - the best you can *rationally* say is "I *think* that is false." Right? Are you being rational? ""as an atheist the best you can say is "I don't think that God exists"" - Which is what atheism IS. Agnosticism relates to KNOWLEDGE." Oh, so in your knowledge you are an agnostic? You just don't know, that means there is a possibility that God exists in your worldview?
@Just me That ignores evidence of existential reality though. Again, you live perfectly in line with everything God said about you as a valuable human being made in His image and likeness (see above), and perfectly in contrast to your own "meaningless evolved protoplasm" atheistic worldview - and that is *clear evidence* you can see in yourself. *If you're an atheist (God doesn't exist) or an agnostic (you "just don't know") then why are you living perfectly in line with the God you reject?* You're just throwing that evidence out because it doesn't point to the conclusion that you want to be believe in. *"If a man so much as looks at another woman with lustful intentions, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart"* (Matthew 5:28) *"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"* (Romans 3:23)
@Just me The fact that you say you're an atheist (doesn't believe in God) and agnostic (just "doesn't know") but then you choose to live perfectly in line with everything Scripture says about the image and likeness of God in you is powerful evidence you can see in yourself that your atheistic and agnostic worldview are false biases, and that He exists and created you. I'm showing you existential evidence you can see in yourself my friend. You say "I don't know if there is a god or not but I don't BELIEVE in one," meanwhile you choose to perfectly corroborate God's existence while living in contrast to your own "chemical reaction" version of our origins. It's a beautiful thing if you honestly think about why you do the things you do as an atheist. *"So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."* (Genesis 1:27) *"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"* (Romans 3:23) *"But God showed His love for us by sending His Son to die for us while we were still sinners"* (Romans 5:8) *"Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God"* (John 1:12) When you say "God... places ZERO value on human beings" what are your thoughts on these verses above? He made you in His image and likeness, you rebelled against Him, and He paid your fine in His own blood in your place for free because He loves you, and just for "receiving Him" He offers you eternal life and to bring you in as one of His own children. How do you reconcile your statement ("ZERO value on human beings") with these four verses?
Young earth Creationists: "Samson had magical hair of super strength, Adam and Eve were made from clay and inbred, donkeys talked, snakes talked, virgins had babies, dinosaurs rode on noahs ark. People were raised from the dead using magical powers. Women should be silent in the church. " Also Creationists: " The fossil record, evolutionary biology, geologic column, deep time, distant starlight are lies and part of a global conspiracy against my beliefs of a literal interpretation of a religious book written in the bronze age"
Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, that puddles of chemicals can fizz into people if you just add time, that you are literally related to a banana, a cockroach, and a worm? That you were also made from clay and inbred - by accident? Nothing created everything accidentally with mathematical precision for no reason...? That you have the same amount of value as a dirt clod on the side of the road, which likewise evolved by natural processes just like you in this meaningless universe that doesn't care...? With respect, you have some very basic misconceptions about what Scripture actually says, not to mention the many incredible issues in your own worldview. Let me ask you something... Charles Darwin met the gold standard of science (a methodology) by giving a testable hypothesis for his theory, saying "if an *organ* were discovered which could not possibly be explained 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 Evolution is an OBSERVED FACT Descent with modification HAPPENS Why are you denying REALITY? Is it because all you have left to defend your deluded nonsense is LIES?
@@captaingaza2389 *All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12,* and literally the ONLY thing we observe is biblical speciation within each creature's kind (finches > finches, dogs > dogs, bacteria > bacteria...) never even ONCE a change between kinds (Fish > Philosopher, Coelacanth > Tetrapod, Dinosaur > Chicken...). You didn't answer the question above, and that's important: *How did male and female evolve?* Until you can rationally answer this question, per Darwin, evolution is "absolutely breaking down..." *Did you know that the Theory of Evolution (and atheistic-Naturalism in general) shares characteristics of a religion?* In 1982 in a federal court in Arkansas it was ruled that Creationism can't be taught in schools because "it is not falsifiable." With its history of rewriting itself every time we discover a new problem with it, what would it take to "falsify" evolution today? Hundreds of Living fossils? Allegedly millions of year extinct creatures still alive today? Finding fully developed vertebrates in the Cambrian explosion? Discovering that numerous allegedly "vestigial" organs actually have a purpose? Finding an alleged 70 million year extinct evolutionary predecessor to land-dwelling tetrapods still alive today with no signs of evolution? Young soft tissues in a growing number of dinosaur fossils that appear similar to 4000 year old mummies and the Tyrolean ice man? An ankylosaurus buried among sea creatures in a place where it's not supposed to be, or the Trilobite showing up in the Cambrian and in all other layers with some incredibly complex eyes - showing up suddenly and fully developed in the lowest layers of the fossil record? *Did you know that secular scientists recently debunked evolutionist claims of "junk DNA"?* ....or do we just reinterpret all of this evidence against evolution to sustain this naturalistic (atheistic) origins story? Should we hold evolution to the same *religious* standard? *"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.
@@michaelg377 Nope Male and female sexes evolved from mutations in hermaphroditic ancestors If you read more than one book this wouldn’t be such a pathetic question It seems you have little to no knowledge on evolution, so what do you decide to do instead? Tell LIES, lots and lots of LIES!!! Creationists can no longer defend their deluded beliefs honestly which is simply a reflection that their ideology and theology is bankrupt of any truth.
@@captaingaza2389 That's because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers. You just ignored a LOT of scientific evidence above my friend. You also didn't answer the question, Darwin's testable hypothesis concerns the *organs* - anyone can tell a story that says "hermaphrodites turned into male and female" but that doesn't explain these two separate, precision tuned systems with numerous single points of failure "by numerous, successive, slight modifications" that all have to be "just right" or reproduction, life, and evolution fail. *"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded... The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time... Some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record... have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."* (D. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50, no 1 (1979), 25) What are your thoughts on some of those scientific evidences above? Those are examples of problems with evolution, and many specifically concerning how evolution has failed to be predictive (as scientific theories are supposed to be) and so we just rewrote the belief system instead. You believe in "evidence," don't you...? About a century ago we taught evolution as "the truth." Since then it has undergone numerous radical ad-hoc readjustments as we've discovered more and more problems with it, 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 ones are the lies?*
There is so much misinformation it's actually tiring to listen to. They just keep saying incorrect things without explanation like please stop. I guess the title is pretty accurate.
@@juvenalgutierrez9843 How about the part about information, macro evolution has been observed countless times which actually does add information. How about birth defects, those are just mutations that have gone wrong which also add new information and if a birth defect gives someone a survival advantage that new information will survive. Also how has the Bible been confirmed to be historically accurate? Is it just because a lot of people were inspired by God to write the Bible? As you could say that with almost all Religions and they can't all be true. How about misrepresenting the view of Richard Dawkins, saying he believes we came from an alien planet, no he just said that is a possibility but life had to start somehow. Also they completely misrepresent what is needed for life to form, as this pastor has no understanding of the theory of evolution which I could go into but I really can not be bothered right now.
@@Jon99ay My friend, that's because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers. We are all uncritically indoctrinated into this mythology as young children today, so it's no wonder there's so much confusion... *All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12* without evolution, and if you understand science (a methodology) you understand the implications of a competing explanation. Charles Darwin gave a testable hypothesis for his theory, saying *"if an organ were discovered which could not possibly be explained by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down..."* ... *If evolution is true, then how did male and female evolve?* Before you answer, consider that we're talking about *two separate, yet interdependent sets of organs* that had to evolve "by numerous, successive, slight modifications" (Darwin) and which are precision tuned with numerous single-points of failure. 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, life, and evolution to fail?
@@michaelg377 I guess it is convenient for you to ask me how exactly the male and female sexes evolved as this happened so long ago that we don't really know exactly how it split in the first place but it will have been for sure a slow progress from countless of small changes over time. I can tell you a reasonable explanation as to why the sexes evolved, and that is for a species to have a male and a female sex where one reserves the task to fertilize and the other to create a copy with those genes is beneficial evolutionarily speaking. This is especially true the larger the species become as the cost of being able to fertilize and copy yourself becomes greater. This is why almost all hermaphrodites (species that are both male and female) are small insects like earthworms, although there are some fish species that have this trait as well. So as to how theoretically this split can occur is in species that are both male and female, mutations occur and they happen all the time. all that needs to happen to start this split is that there needs to be a mutation that makes some portion of the seeds for further reproductions more suitable for either the male's or the female's task in reproduction. This can come at the cost of being worse in the task of the other sex. Either way it goes the next generation of those more capable of the task of either the male or the female task in reproduction is more likely to reproduce than those not with this given mutation. And over time over countless of more mutations we can start to see how it is possible for a species to completely split into male and female as those species that have this split are more likely to reproduce. Now as for your comments on the placenta, blood separation and the other stuff regarding how detailed and well put together this is. This is just a pure appeal to complexity, just because it's very complex and you don't understand how evolution could bring these things about does not mean it could not have happened. Your comment on how "evolution had to SIMULTANEOUSLY get all of these just right" for life not to fail shows your ignorance of this subject as firstly this is not really true as there are still many flaws with the human body and a bunch of other species and just to mention one that we have left behind from evolution. Wisdom teeth are a massive problem for a big portion of our population and the reason this is the case is that over the last few thousand centuries humans evolved to have smaller jaws. This is because we have lost the need for our big strong jaws as our ancestors learned how to cook meat with fire, and that makes it easier to chew, swallow and digest, but still we have these teeth left for our smaller jaws and there is not enough space for them. Additionally we know that more than 99% of species that have ever lived on this planet are extinct we and other species are just what is left. Saying the evolution had to get all these things simultaneously just right as if this is an unbelievable thing shows your disregard for the bias we have. We are the ones that survived when evolution which is actually just random mutations doesn't get it right, either the individual within the species containing any bad mutation/s will either not manage to reproduce or their offspring will not be able to reproduce or just the species can go extinct. We live in a harsh world, which we now as humans have a hard time seeing with our modern life comforts but in nature only the fittest survive and only the fittest manage to reproduce. Which means our ancestors over millions of generations have mostly been the ones that have been the most successful in surviving and reproducing. Which can easily explain why we are so well "designed". Anyway I guess I am not going to convince you of anything today as you are deeply convinced of your nonsense and you just copy paste these ridiculous responses everywhere, not really sure what the goal of that is... Just wanted to type this response out, have a nice day.
@@Oldtinear ...what do you mean, you don't believe that humans have fish ancestry? That's a staple doctrine of evolution...? *"We are fish"* (P.Z. Myers, PhD, Associate Professor of Biology, University of Minnesota Morris) *"Human Ears Evolved from Ancient Fish Gills"* (Bjorn Carey, Live Science, 2006) With respect, shouldn't you know what your own belief system entails my friend? But no - fish don't evolve into philosophers, puddles of chemicals don't atheistically fizz into people no matter how much *time* you add to the mix, and "Big Bangs" don't produce immaterial metaphysical mathematically precise laws that all of matter obeys for no reason. That's a mythology; that's not how "science" works. *"This is what the Lord says: ‘If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth"* (Jeremiah 33:25)
Powerful Video To The Glory Of God. Clear Presentation That Confirms The Bible Is True. Thank You Dr Ken Ham. God Bless You For Sharing This Excellent Post. Keep Shining For Jesus. Amen. Pastor Ben Soon.
@@JJDOSTUFF1111 Not only Ken Hamm, but Mike Winger as well is a wonderfully smart person. His youtube channel is named after him. He does great apologetics and theology. I'll be praying.
If you think that, I recommend you re-watch it. Literally the ONLY evidence we have is for biblical speciation within each creature's kind (Dogs > dogs, finches > finches, etc.) never once a change between kinds (Coelacanth > tetrapods, fish > philosophers, dinosaurs > chickens, etc.). All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12. *"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."* Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission
@@michaelg377 Are all creatures still eukaryotes? Once eukaryotes diverge they can become anything in the classification. Do changes occur at the cellular level - of course they do.
@@wolfie5 That's because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers - I don't have enough faith to share that belief... Again, we only observe biblical speciation within each creature's kind (dogs > dogs, finches > finches, etc.) never a change between kinds as evolution requires (coelacanth > tetrapods, fish > philosophers, etc.). Let me ask you this: Charles Darwin gave a testable hypothesis for his theory, saying *"if an organ were discovered which could not possibly be explained by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down..."* ... If evolution is true, *how did male and female evolve?* Before you answer, consider that we're talking about *two separate, yet interdependent sets of organs* that had to evolve "by numerous, successive, slight modifications" (Darwin) and which are precision tuned with numerous single-points of failure. You have to explain the *organs* in keeping with this testable hypothesis. 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" - keeping in mind that many women can't get pregnant today due to very real medical conditions like these? *"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)
Thank you, this should be in our schools. It's not telling you who is or how to worship, you have to decern the who and the how. With this you can,more easily.
exactly. that is the point of God programming us with the act of freewill. it is a true test of ones ability to discern and display our God given conscience. science has never been able to explain where our sense of morality derives from. God is a master at everything and scientists have been infiltrating His creations for quite some time, even going after the "god particle", which is simply nature. we are all malleable. science wouldnt exist without nature (God) and of course, we wouldnt exist without God. it seems so much more simple yet when you attempt to have these sort of conversations with pro science minds they just laugh and mock you, which proves they cannot produce an argument with objectives. all of science is perceived, not proven without including nature.
Absolutely! They took God out of schools and we can put him back in even if people don't want to do that, at least we could take the religion of evolution out.
@@summerd7668 I don't know what country you're from, but in the United States it is unlawful to do what you are suggesting. It is perfectly acceptable to pray in public schools, but we certainly cannot mandate the teaching of one religion over any other, since there are millions and millions of public school students, and they certainly all do not worship the same god or follow the same belief system.. this is one of the reasons why separation of church and state is very, very important. How would you feel if Hinduism, or some religion other than yours, was taught in public schools? In order to push one religion over all others, and teach it as truth in public schools, the United States would have to become a theocracy. Do you really think that would be a good idea? There's a time and a place for everything, and public schools are not the place to teach religious beliefs, unless it's a comparative religions course, or part of a history course or something. There are places to go to learn about, and be taught that one specific religion is the one true religion, and those places are called, 'churches'. Would you want biology or some other field of science to be taught in Sunday School? I wouldn't, because churches are not the places to go to learn about science. I'm not going to say anything about the 'evolution religion' part of your comment, because it makes no sense.. (perhaps it doesn't make any sense because you learned about the subject in church).
@TravisBickle Popsicle You should review your history and the separation of church and state. Evolution theory is absolutely a religion and that is the one taught in schools. What I learned in church was to ask questions and when you ask enough of them, you find that science and God are not in opposition. God created the laws of the universe and us with the ability to understand them. There is more evidence for God and only a fool would continue to deny Him and remove Him from the reality that He created.
@@summerd7668 the theory of evolution, or evolutionary theory / the modern synthesis, is a scientific theory. Maybe there is a God, maybe there isn't. I have no idea. That's got nothing to do with evolutionary theory or any other scientific theory. Since you are proclaiming that this particular scientific theory is actually a religion, which is kind of weird but whatever, maybe you could define evolutionary theory? Can you even define *scientific theory*? Nah, nvm.
I am so glad I came across this video as a new Christian doubting my faith time to time. To simply put it for all of you guys watching this video; think of god as the pushing force of a dominos effect. There has to be SOMEONE that pushes one domino for the others to fall into place
@@richardgregory3684 Is that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just add copious amounts of *Time* puddles can fizz into people by chance? *"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.) *"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)
Ken does a great job in this video, I wish more churches and schools were wise enough to use his material, instead it is apparent the world runs to embrace lies so much so many schools teach the fiction of evolution better then most churches teach the truth of creation.
So you want schools teaching religion down vulnerable children's throats so that they believe because if you try to teach them after they grow they will think about it and probably not believe?
I wanted to comment under this video for anyone who identifies as atheist or agnostic because I wanted to assure anyone who doesn’t know, that God is very very much real. Jesus is the son of God, I’ve heard his voice and felt Holy Spirits presence, all you have to do is make an effort to go to church this Sunday or the next, pray and be open to accepting the truth in a very way. The truth is the word of God which is the Bible. I swear on my life and every single person in my family’s life that God is very much real and knows everything about you. I don’t know what else to say to convince as many people as I can of the truth but this comment is very real, as real as the clouds in the sky, the soil in the ground and every sunset he’s ever made. He made you, he knows you, he’s with you even now as you read this, sometimes there’s a plan and it includes his silence. He is the King of Kings and we are all his children. You are loved beyond comprehension and if you’re reading this it means you’re very very blessed.
There are millions of Muslims and Hindus who would say exactly the same thing about Allah and Lord Shiva,. You can;t all be right. But you can all be wrong. The Argument of Personal Conviction is a logical fallacy.
@@richardgregory3684 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* then puddles of chemicals can turn themselves into people? *The real God is the one that even Atheists live in accordance with as if He programmed them.* For example, 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 respect towards others (James 3:10), 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 "r@pe" always wrong in your worldview, or is it sometimes morally permissible - and why?* Where does that come from in your "we're just chemicals" 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)
Hartelijk dank voor deze heldere en duidelijke uiteenzetting Verfrissend is dit geluid voor mij Moge het vele broeders en zusters helpen en vrijmoedigheid geven om open hier over te spreken God zij geprezen door deze video
As I watched this 57mins video, I found myself lifting my hand and worshipping the great God of glory! This video is simply declaring His mighty works. I am totally in awe of our Lord God. How could there be no God. It doesn't even make sense to my mind. How great thou art oh Lord
The fool hath said in his heart there is no God - Proverbs
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
See how delusion makes you happy?
Amen sister
PRAISE BELONG TO JESUS AND JHVH FOREVER AND EVER
AMEN
Live by Faith and not by sight for Faith is evidence of things that are unseen, things that are hoped for!!! Blessed are those who believe without doubt or seeing HALLELUJAH!!!
Faith is a voluntary exclusion of reasonable thinking!
@@HarryShagnasty-sc9zdit is evidence that leads to faith
Faith is the reason you give for believing something when you don't have a good reason.
😂😂😂😂😂😂
that is a foolish comment. You are basically telling people to disregard what they see for something that might not exist. One should only believe things that they can see as that is a fact.
I used to watch Ken Ham many years ago when he debated between evolution and creationism. I over the years have became detached from God and Jesus. And have recently found my love again for God. It took a jarring event though that God used to wake me up again, God does work in mysterious ways. After finding God again I'm starting to feel better and better every single day. Things are brighter and more clear. Ken Ham's message is very powerful.
I wasn't an Atheist per-say, but I was lost. I don't know how Atheists have the strength, it isn't a good existence.
How dare you speak for others.
@@ngc-fo5te "The long and short of it is that I became convinced that atheism implies amorality; and since I am an atheist, I must therefore embrace amorality... The religious fundamentalists are correct: without God, there is no morality. But they are incorrect, I still believe, about there being a God. Hence, I believe, there is no morality." ~ Joel Marks, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the University of New Haven.
*'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 doesn’t mean the word of God is not real if the Earth isn’t older than 6000 years. It means that human beings kept better records and oral traditions than we thought possible before.
The Catholic Church wants you to believe that the world is only 6000 years old for whatever reason. Maybe to ignore the ancient archaeology around the world which is getting increasingly harder to ignore the more intelligent human beings become.
Forget, carbon dating. Do you think you have more than 200 ancestor to Adam and eve? If so, that means the world is order than 6000 years. The institution of marriage itself is absolutely older than 6000 years. 😂
Right beside you man. I'm going through some stuff and God is using that to bring me back. AMEN
@@michaelg377 I don't understand what you mean by, 'without God there is no morality'.
There are billions of people in the world who do not worship the Christian God, are they all running around raping and killing each other? Some of the countries with the lowest crime rates in the world, such as Australia, New Zealand, France, and many more, predominately identify as atheist; all they're all running around raping and killing each other?
Morality is subjective, it does not come from a book or a god.
I have deeply studied all of this over 4 decades and even tried to disprove it, but i have come to the exact same conclusions that this man has.
He has expressed perfectly, what i have also discovered and that is that thru logic, what we are taught in the instititions makes no sense, but the bible actually does.
I remember drilling thru all this stuff and even using dogs to explain how breeds are created and how our genes are distributed, and then how race came about thru isolation and inbreeding after the confusing of the languages, and then telling others about it. They listened like someone had blown their brains out!!!
And now here it is for others to finally hear and understand for themselves. Someone else took it and dressed it up for mass understanding.
This happens ALOT to me and it gives me such a thrill to know that God has used me in this way... It never gets tired... ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
As Darwin was preaching that certain races were less evolved than other races (an unfortunate logical consequence of atheistic evolution), Scripture has always said that all human beings descended from the same Adam and Eve, and there is only one "race" - the human "race," and all are created equally as image bearers of God.
The concept of "race" as we use it today didn't even exist until relatively recently in history when European landlords wanted to distinguish between their farm hands based on physical appearance - it's a completely arbitrary concept, not real "science." Race is best described as the product of gene-pooling and environmental adaptation among isolated people groups, not particles to man evolution.
Well obviously you have wasted your life over 4 decades.
@@JB-yb4wnnice Dragon. But might I suggest Jesus? 😊
@@listeningministry
Oh sure, this the guy who's dad wiped out the planet for some stupid reason?
@@JB-yb4wn life is much better when you are enlightened to truth. There is peace in no longer having to search endlessly.
No amount of pseudo intellectual, smarty pants, clever bone, sarcasm.
Nor any amount of sexual gratification, wealth, or mind bending psychedelic.
Or ancient knowledge or teaching. Can come close knowing God.
You just have to be brave enough, to ask. And if you do. Well. That's the real red pill.
It goes pretty fast. I'm going to have to watch 2 or 3 times to fully digest all the info. It's one of the the best arguments for God I've ever seen.
We do not affirm His existence because we have doubt, just like you did affirm the existence of your friends because you doubt they exist, but because you are grateful they do. Did you ever tell your friend "I am so glad you are here." So do you have doubt they exist?
Besides what makes you think that if such a creature exist everyone would believe in it? Especially since he gave us free will.
@@adamokornrajh3874 we were given free will but we already know from Christian Doctrine that we will be divided, we will not stand in unity. Which is exactly why our different races were created by us. There is only one race, the Human race. God made us unique because why would we want to look like every other person? That would be pretty bleak. Going back to my original point, different religions, teachings that contradict the Bible are designed to separate and confuse us. As finite beings we can’t comprehend something outside of our own world. We can’t comprehend time nor space which does not exist. Yet we still create our own time…
@@AmbientVibesASMR I agree with you on the fact that other religions were created by satan to confuse and divide us, but I don't understand what you mean by creating our own time?
@@adamokornrajh3874 Time does not exist.
The explanation won’t be short but I hope you understand!
Humans everywhere use spatial metaphors to think about time, but the specifics differ from culture to culture.
Even alone in our thoughts, we think of time as space, leaning on brain areas known to play a role in spatial understanding.
Culture plays a large role in determining which metaphors we use. The direction of the written word has an especially strong influence.
In the 19th century, the physicist Ludwig Boltzmann wrote: “For the universe, the two directions of time are indistinguishable, just as in space there is no up and down.” Boltzmann’s view departed from time as an absolute in itself, a constant of the natural order of the universe.
He implied that there is no objective direction of time, and that we invent it according to our perception, just as we call the direction towards the centre of the earth “down.”
TIME AS AN ILLUSION
The great revolution in our idea of time began with Albert Einstein.( A Religious Non-Believer)
In his general relativity he included time as another dimension in the deformable fabric of the universe that explains gravity, and in special relativity time also became elastic, dependent on the position and velocity of the observer, so that the concept of “now” became meaningless.
Decades later, in a letter of condolence to the family of his friend Michele Besso, who had died shortly before, Einstein wrote that for physicists “the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”
This just in, God proved he was real because he said so.
Love your answer!
And I just proved I'm God because I said so.
Oh yeah and are y’all able to rise after death like Jesus Christ did? That’s how he proved he wasn’t of THIS world. Please read your bibles.❤
@@boldasalion2911 I am just as [in]capable of rising from the dead as your Jesus was.
@@donjacobs6753 then tell me the laws of God and the penalty for breaking them for starters. Then tell me why God allowed Adam and Eve to sin and after that if you are God explain all the evil in this world?
Film at 11.
Sorry to comment so late after the post. Always been strong Christian (so I think), recently had a couple questions. You answered them with your words exactly.
God bless you 🎉
What were these questions ?
*_God Bless_*
@Tbone I always find it funny when people who are not religious comment on these videos. You that bored or are you trying to convince yourself of something?
@Tbone You came to this exact video just to comment a nonsense claim. My brotha, there is a God and His name is Lord Jesus!
Thank you so much for this video! I’m almost 11 and science text books have been messing with my head and I’ve been having a hard time with my faith. Thank you so much Ken Ham!
I feel your relief! I'm 65 and learning with you. 😊
For your own sake, watch videos discussing logical fallacies. Most of Ken Ham’s arguments rely on them. If you truly wish to see how creationism holds up under scrutiny, watch Ham debate Bill Nye. Seriously, it’s an enlightening experience to see how dishonest his stance has to be in order to justify his belief.
@@damonirvine8910 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? I do agree with one of your points - do watch that debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye - it's Bill's false assumptions that caused him to do as poorly as he did. Ironically, *Time* is actually working in favor of Creation, and increasingly against Evolution. For example:
*“…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: "Paleontologists... obstinately refusing to yield Darwin’s predicted pattern, simply looked the other way.”
@@damonirvine8910 indeed, and a book I believe it’s called ‘Stealing from God: why atheists need God to make their case’ and some other ones from that author, it’s always around half truths and lies towards Scripture, don’t be afraid child the truth prevails and it’s mostly hypocritical arguments and just goes in circle, by their fruits we know them, it’s all spoken in the Bible that such men had do their works, and we have ours to do too, let us keep walking on that narrow path that God has put us in. He’s risen, He lives and loves, they forgot that it’s not because they reject and turn their faces away from someone that they stopped existing: they only ‘don’t exist to them’, yet we pray for them and ofc for all but the sin that leads to death as it’s stated in the book of John. God bless brothers, I also was one that had doubt and there are different things and problems but God clarifies everything, not everyone wants to serve but some want to be their own lord and gods of their lives, as Jesus said he who has ears let him hear.
Me to. Cause truth of anything seems to be handed down generation to generation. Look at politics. Handed down generation to generation. Oh my grandparents and parents believed in this. So this must be the right!! Wrong
Great lecture. Can't wait until my daughter is old enough to watch it and understand. Not only is it a great Biblical teaching but makes science learning so much easier and accurate.
God bless you with lots of good health and happiness 🎉
How wonderful that you will teach your daughter the truth!
Andy Stanley has thrown out the Old Testament. He has brought himself under God's curse. Revelation 22:18-19.
We are not to change God's eternal word. Yet many honor modern bibles which lie, change who God is, and continually challenge God and His word!!! by asking, Did God say? Come on, really?
God said He preserved His word. Psalm 12:6-7. Most modern bibles do not. In other words they are not admitting that God has a standard, His inspired word. His word is quick (alive) and quickens (gives life). His word is eternal.
Most of the modern bibles have at least one out and out lie. NKJB lies in Exodus 6:3. They began to call on the name of the Lord in Genesis 4:26.
Others quote Jesus telling his brothers, i am not going to the feast. John 7:8. (Is he saying he is going to break the law of Moses?) He waits and then goes. Liar! BLASPHEMY .
Jesus simply said, not going now, not yet. He waits and then goes. No problem, no lie.
And blatantly they mock Jesus and unashamedly, constantly, with each change ask, Did God say? "All things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that was made. " John 1:3.
Clearly He is the Creator.
Their Jesus was but a vessel. "Made through him."
Did God say Mark 11:26? Absolutely. It is an essential part of our walk with God. A verse that makes us tremble was added?????
Did God say? Acts 15:34? It shows God's divine providence. Silas was there when Paul needed him for a journey. Obviously Silas remained there.
BRAZENLY, they change or remove a word that gives the believers true power! Matthew 12:31 and Mark 9:29! Some spiritual warfare needs prayer and fasting!
Did God say eleven (11) times in the New Testament the word damnation, eternal burning? Yes. But not in theirs! Did God say?
Did God give three witnesses to that truth? Mark 9:44, 46, 48. They however only have v48. The other two they ask, Did God say? This is important because we need to know the truth and those who preach Annialism, we cease to exist, are easily proven wrong with these verses.
Jesus is God and Jesus is Man. Hebrews supports this with four verses, 3:3, 7:24, 8:3 and 10:12: "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sin for ever, sat down at rhe right hand of God; v10:12. They do not use the clarifying words 'this man' at all. Again, Did God say?
Every change they make is an insult to God and His word.
God said He would curse those who add to or take from His word. Revelation 22:18-19.
In the Old Testament those who honored a false prophet received the reward of that prophet. So the Alexandrian translators, the bible societies the publishers, the promoters, sellers and those who teach from them (showing those ear tickling bibles as God's word) or honor them will be held responsible. If done ignorantly, repent. God will not be mocked.
This happened when the inspired Antioch manuscripts called the Textus Receptus were replaced by the Alexandrian manuscripts called the Codex B or the Vaticanus from the Vatican basement, and the Sianiticus from a monestary. They do not agree with each other and the latter has about 30 changes per page. Obviously inspired by their spiritual father who brings conflict, frustration, despair and DOUBT.
King James Bible online
Helpful tool: Noah Webster 1828 Dictionary online:
This dictionary has civil and spiritual definitions. Look up: Repent, Regeneration, Believe, Faith Redemption, Perfect Conversation, Prevent, Propitiation,
Suppliers: Churchkjb.com
Localchurchbiblepublishers.com
Sources:
Adullum Films
-Tares Among the Wheat Sequel video.
Books: The Revision Revised and The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, both by William Burgon. Dean Burgon lived during the time of Wescott and Hort.
Book: Look What's Missing by David Daniels Chick.com.
If interested an old video called The Forbidden Book video.
It has some American History also.
You have a lot more learning to do if you think they accurately represent science. They use inductive reasoning, which is where you have your answer and you look for evidence to support it and omit the rest. Science doesn't like that because it's not a good way for finding out what is true. You need deductive reasoning. You look at the evidence and see where it leads you, then double check and have others double check for peer review. They got a lot of stuff false just within the first few min and when you start with false information, it will only lead to false information.
@@sadistksuffring1537 instead of criticizing, why don't you point out what is false? Your "science" uses inductive reasoning as well, just take a look at how many assumptions have to be made in order for c-14, dendocronology, archeomagnetic dating and so on.
If we pick up the most famous one, carbon 14 for instance, why can't we date a dinosaur fossil using this technique when there are still carbon in the bones?
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence from multiple fields of science, including genetics, paleontology, embryology, and comparative anatomy. The similarities in DNA sequences and developmental patterns between different species provide strong evidence for common ancestry and the gradual process of evolution over millions of years.
Additionally, the observation of natural selection in action, as well as the numerous documented instances of speciation, provide further evidence for evolution. For example, the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria and development of new species of animals on isolated islands, have been well documented.
But hey, let’s instead believe some illiterate and superstitious goat herders who, over 2000 years ago, had a higher level of understanding of our world and universe than we do today. I don't believe God would want you to be that naive. You have been given free will, please use it to educate yourself.
I was shocked to see kids hearing this, I can’t imagine hearing this when I was little, even as an adult this is a lot to take in!
But it is true, called faith.😊
@@TdBone a more accurate statement- you can’t just claim people are your friend by saying it
It's not really
@@pamelaevans3146 faith doesn't mean anything, irs just a word used by people without evidence for their so called invisible celestial dictator
Forget, carbon, dating. Do you think you have more than 200 ancestor to Adam and eve? If so, that means the world order than 6000 years. 😂
This video is so good. I see a lot of mockers and scoffers in the comments, but I haven't seen one comment that can disprove anything Mr. Ham is saying.
The religion of atheism requires plenty of blind faith, much more blind faith than Christianity does. The difference is they are putting their faith into the fallible opinions of men, rather than in the perfect word of God.
atheism is the absent of religion. it doesnt make sense what you´re saying. Atheism do not pray or follow a set of rules in the name of atheism.
Being an atheist is similar to be ab "individual person" why you may ask? two atheist are just doing their own thing. Religious people are forced to follow what i would call a communistic world view "if you dont follow the rules the consequenses can be severe" sounds like a dictator to me. Thats not freedom
You can be an atheist and deny every scientific discoveries there is outthere. You can be an atheist and deny evolution.
Religion can be dangerous because i am 100% sure that you have never have come across a situation where the bible is wrong which makes you and any other religious person closed minded. non believers can also be wrong aswell but we arent closed minded since we follow the evidence.
in a nutshell if god can be proven tommorow i would not be religious because religion is hope and hope isnt facts. religion will cancel itself since it would be facts
I know this was 5 months ago, but I am seriously curious as to what blind faith atheists must have that a theist doesn't.
Atheism is not a religion, they literally dont believe in any god or anything divine, but rather just believe anything they can see is reality.
Buddy, this dude did not bring hardly any valid receipts or sources whatsoever, even his alleged friend that is a scientist and a creationist who apparently has some method of dating that could place the Earth in the young earth creationist territory he still didn't name the person or cited any study they did.
Not only that but if you actually knew the science or anyting remotely connected to the material reality of what this man is talking about, then you would be able to recognize the subtle strawmanning of science as well as the quiet dishonesty that bleeds through their unrecognized bias.
@@justinstuder1649 "Atheism requires faith" is probably the strongest indicator that they have absolutely zero idea what they are talking about. 😂
The whole time issue (a day is like a thousand years) can be solved with day 3 & 4. He creates trees on day 3. He creates the Sun on day 4 (millions of years later???).
Yeah that doesn't make sense
Though I do wonder why God chose to create the sun on day 3 instead of day 1 Because I'm sure some people probably would use that as a technicality that the first two days didn't exist
2 Peter 3:8
King James Version
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
What a beautiful explanation of skin shade, so color of skin shouldn’t matter at all! What does matter is the quality of the persons standards, the morality of each individual. As believers in Jesus we should be most concerned about those two things, and how we as individuals keep his commandments! Love to all!
You're talking about this like you're mind blown by the idea of not being racist
10:50 - "We have never seen matter produce one bit of brand new information that ever previously existed" Truth.
Very true. And this information includes complex instructions for building things like your eyes with its millions of cells and a concave light-refracting lens that bends light just right so that you can see... and they say 'it's just chemicals." It's incredible.
@@ThomasKundera Well, first you need to get information from non-information - out of a chemical puddle. This information needs to then grow into instructions for building things like your concave light refracting lens that bends light just right, 137M light sensitive cells, 40M nerve endings, and precise muscles that auto-focus this complex optical system 100,000 times a day. Then once you've solve that information/instructions problem for building this complex masterpiece of engineering, you can move on to the chemicals and physics involved in this engineering masterpiece - but first you need to account for the instructions for it from non-information in a lifeless information-less chemical universe. How do you do that?
@@ThomasKundera So you admit that your chemical DNA is programmed with information (instructions) to build this complex machine including a concave light-refracting lens that bends light just right so your 137M light sensitive cells can process this input and turn it into a signal so you can "see"? Because the intelligent origin of information was the point of my post.
So far so good my friend - right?
@@ThomasKundera " the intelligent origin of information was the point of my post." And evolution is what put that information there."
Okay, so DNA contains information. We observe that every example of information elsewhere always has an intelligent source - every book has an author, every program a programmer, the words on this screen came from you as the intelligent source. So take an early living cell, and go back in time to the first "creature" or "bacteria" or whatever it was that contained DNA with "information" - How did that "information" in that first DNA/information filled cell get created out of chemicals in a puddle without an intelligent source?
Two worldviews, same evidence, two very different interpretations.
Evidence: DNA contains information.
Evidence: Every *other* example of information in existence always ultimately has an intelligent source.
Biblical Creation Conclusion: Therefore, *consistently interpreted,* the information and instructions in DNA also had an Intelligent Source (God).
Atheistic Naturalist Conclusion: "Evolution [an unintelligent source] is what put that information there."
Can you please explain?
@@ThomasKundera You just made another logical fallacy, *begging the question* of an unintelligent source for early DNA. Read above carefully, I'll repost here for you side by side, maybe it will help: "take an early living cell, and *go back in time to the first "creature" or "bacteria" or whatever it was that contained DNA with "information" - How did that "information" in that first DNA/information filled cell get created out of chemicals in a puddle* without an intelligent source?"
You said "Do you suggest that *a mutation in DNA* is caused by intelligence?" - *That depends on whether that information in DNA originally came from an Intelligent Source or not, right? So back on topic, with the first instance of information in DNA, in the first bacteria, cell, etc. - where did that information come from?*
You can get information from other information ("mutations in DNA," etc.) - but you need to get *information from non-information* without an Intelligent Source.
By way of a rough analogy, if a bunch of pages were ripped out of several books and thrown into the trash, it's possible that those pages could just happen to fall together into a certain order in a "new" book. That "new" book was not formed by an intelligent source - but *all of the information in it still came from an Intelligent Source (the original authors).* You need to account for the "author" that gets you from information-less chemicals to information-full DNA, not from one information-filled cell to another mutated information-filled cell. Does that help?
Thanks for a very informative view, using basic understandable language and logic to describe the comparisons between science and Christianity. which at the end proves the existence of God and the work of His hands and that the evolution and other theories are just theories and nothing else. Thanks for a great video.
do you know what does theory mean?
@@YerdauitYerlanulya theory is an interpretation of facts to form a conclusion. That’s why theories change, and can be wrong. We can interpret the facts incorrectly or we can discover new data that changes the picture.
It’s the same reason we can get wildly different politics when interpreting data incorrectly or not getting the full picture. The addition of data changes theories rapidly. For example, recently the JWT found that galaxies and heavy elements are found fully formed far further than we ever could have predicted they could be according to the conclusions and theories that we currently understood. This wildly changes the possibilities of the Big Bang, the process of the creation of our universe, and the timeline associated with it.
Understandable language and logic are important, but do you knwo what else is important? Sources. He has not proven that God was a witness to anything, he has not proven that God is capable of inspiring anyone and that he did. We know the history of the eiffel tower, because we have primary sources of people who left physical evidence with blueprints, and newspapers.
@@Quartz512_ So, you believe only in that you can see and obtain information from blueprints? Well, I have news for you, there is a blueprint for the existence of God namely the bible. If you take the time to understand the building of the Eifel tower, you might find it more interesting to read the blueprint of God, the bibile KJV. You, are His creation. Look around you at nature, and not man-made structures, and you will realize the power of God. He alone has the power to life and existence, and He created it.There is only one God and His Son, Jesus Christ. Trust and believe in them and you might be with Them when Jesus comes collect the saved. It is not to late for you to confess and repent of your sins and accept Jesus Christ into your life.
@@Quartz512_ Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers? Throughout Scripture we have 66 books written by 40 authors, including 27 books written by 8 of them plus their amanuenses which all corroborate the same claims - that's enough eyewitness/secondary witness evidence to sink a modern court case. We also have demonstrable proof of supernatural phenomena through fulfilled prophecy documented in the Bible, such as the prophecy in Daniel 9 which accurately predicted the rebuilding of Jerusalem, coming of someone meeting all the qualifications of the Jewish Messiah, execution of said Messiah in a specifically curse-worthy manner, and then destruction of the 2nd temple and Jerusalem (AD 70), all in that order and on a specific timeline that just happens to line up with the year that Jesus was crucified.
*Fulfilled Prophecy in the Biblical Texts*
Among other things. *Accurately telling the future with such precise detail is either extremely incredible chance, or it's a supernatural phenomenon. This is evidence of God's divine intervention in mankind through Scripture, and is therefore evidence that supports His inspiration of this text.* These specific prophecies came to be because God is sovereign over all of it, and His prophecies are always accurate. BTW we can prove this prophecy above was made hundreds of years before this specific timeline of events occurred based on tangible manuscript evidence that we have in hand that predates Jesus' time on earth (Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint, etc.).
*Science in the Bible*
Also consider the many hints of scientific truths throughout, yet undiscovered by secular man at the time they were written. The human authors wrote that God put the stars in the Heavens, and Scripture goes on to say that they are countless (Jeremiah 33:22, etc.) while Ptolemy only catalogued 1100 observable stars in his time. Likewise, years before Pythagoras is attributed with discovering a round earth, and while the rest of the world believed it was flat and/or on the back of an animal with wind blowing from four corners, Isaiah suspiciously wrote that God "sits above the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22) and Job wrote that God "hangs the earth on nothing" (Job 26:7) both showing signs of countercultural and 3-dimensional thought. *It's almost like these prophets of God suspiciously had glimpses of a scientific truth we didn't figure out for centuries.*
Then of course there's how Matthew Maury discovered ocean currents based on his understanding of Psalm 8:8, the Bible's descriptions matching the hydrologic cycle which we didn't figure out until relatively recently (Amos 9:6, Ecclesiastes 1:7, Psalm 135:7, Ecclesiastes 11:3, etc.), that blood is the source of life (Leviticus 17:11) while other cultures were practicing bloodletting to try to stop disease, hygiene laws requiring running water (Leviticus 15:13) while even up to the 1800s doctors would wash their hands in a still basin of water leaving invisible germs and causing countless infections and deaths as a result...
Among countless other examples. These hints at modern scientific truths throughout Scripture make sense if they were revealed to us from the all-knowing God who created the entire universe including the laws of nature (Jeremiah 33:25) and time, space, and matter themselves (Genesis 1:1). *They make sense if Scripture was inspired by God - literally "God-breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16).* But if the Bible is false, then it's very odd that all these prophets seem to have gotten modern science right on so many points millennia before modern science figured these things out.
*"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"* (2 Timothy 3:16)
No need science to verify Bible. Let Bible verify the science.
Bingo!!
Really, what makes the bible a valuable book to take in consideration, because it sais so?
@@dumyjobby because mostly science fail to understand or no clue for them wirh regard to Biblical truths & realities which are truly manifest in the world as well in the outer space. If you need examples, I can give enough examples. Do you need?
@@anilmendis7994 yes, tell me a biblical truth or a few please
@@dumyjobby Can science ( You ) answer the questions asked by God
in the Bible book of Job 38 chapter?
" Then the Lord spoke to Job out of the storm. He said:
2 - “Who is this that obscures my plans with words without knowledge?
3 - Brace yourself like a man; I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
31- " Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades?
Can you loosen Orion’s belt ?
32 - " Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons or lead out the Bear with its cubs " ?
33 - " Do you know the laws of the heavens?
Can you set up God’s dominion over the earth? "
34 - “Can you raise your voice to the cloud and cover yourself with a flood of water? "
35 - "Do you send the lightning bolts on their way?
Do they report to you, ‘Here we are’? "
36 " - Who gives the ibis wisdom or gives the rooster understanding? "
37" - Who has the wisdom to count the clouds? "
One of the best clearest message I have seen
Yeah, it's clear alright, in that whenever something cannot be explained, it's explained by being god. Never mind truly looking for the cause of anything, as it's just god. But then which of the thousands of gods that have been brought forth by man should one believe? For some crazy reason it's the one from the bible. As if that fairy tale carries any more weight that any other religion.
So according to The cosmologist the big bang theory is currently the accepted theory of the beginning of the universe up to now .....but apparently there are a few other theories The steady state theory where matter was always.there. mult universe theory..but for now The universe started from a single point in spacoe expansion from a single Atom so where did the atom come from you can't have something out of of nothings
@@soultraveller5027 - Funny how you go from saying "steady state theory where matter was always there" to then saying "so where did the atom come from you can't have something out of of nothings".
Well, if the steady state theory is correct, then that atom was always there!
@@soultraveller5027 The old chestnut, "nothing" as scientist use it is not the same as ordinary people understand. Nothing is a state of energy that equals zero then that fluctuated which then became something hence everything created (in a simplistic sense). I also pose a chestnut question, you can't believe that the universe came from nothing, but you believe god can or that he has always been there?. So why could that not be possible with the universe?. God is unnecessary baggage that need not be added. You are hypocritical of your own reasoning.
@@soultraveller5027what makes God?
In older times, farmers used to bury Maple block in blue clay. After 4 months, the wood became petrified and was used as a hone stone.
That's super cool.. how did u come by this info?
enoch news or the Dailywire lol@@joanneg7646
No they didn't, and the wood cannot be petrified because it takes millions of years to actually do that.
@@JB-yb4wn like coal or diamonds that they can now make in months
Right, the massive lie of millions of years to create a fossil is just that. Plus the only way to create a fossil is by rapid burial. What could bury a fish with another fish halfway down its throat. Only a huge wave of sediment from a huge flood.
Might also be good to add that not only could the voulcanos done this but today if you pour hot steel into way it explodes upwards and for that reason the molds at steel factory’s are inspected before use so no one dies
There’s an old saying, there are no atheists in a fox hole. An atheist just doesn’t want to acknowledge there is a God, because then they have to answer to him.
You are correct, and I've heard several former Atheists admit this myself. Their belief in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers and that puddles of chemicals can fizz themselves into people is just a smokescreen... they are not swayed by the fact that they actually believe they are distant cousin to a banana. Their disbelief is a heart issue.
*"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")
@@Oldtinear And yet you have no way to disprove this. You've clearly never witnessed any military training or actual combat veterans if that's what you think my friend - that idiom exists for a reason. As a proponent of the "we're all meaningless evolved protoplasm" belief system (atheistic evolution), do you agree with Huxley?: *"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")
It baffles me that these evolutionary types in the comment section STILL haven't evolved enough to understand better and higher knowledge.
I have been really blessed with this teaching. explained all the doubts i had about my own concern regarding the history of mankind and the creation of the world. And most importantly the existence of our living God the Father.
Don't billion doubts. Truth
Then yiu don't doubt much. Gode xplains nothing.
If you were a common person 500yr ago, then you never read a Bible because there were no Bible! Therefore you wasn't going around having these stupid arguments. Good night.
@@jasonwiley798 Well done on winning the spelling bee.
This guy never showed anything about science that proved the bible was right, he just poked a bunch of holes in science which is totally reasonable as science is just theory based upon earlier theories, no scientist knows 100% of anything but the point is to continue to explore and understand.
Ahh ...now I understand scientific explanation of "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...All things were made by him."
An evolutionist believes the theory that a 14 year old boy named Charles Darwin came up with. He thought “the world looks old, therefore it must be old”
And we use a child’s theory as our proof of history, JUST BECAUSE HIS FAMILY WERE CULT ELITISTS, aka Freemasons. His family was neighbors with Thomas Jefferson’s family, and William bartrams family.
You gonna believe a book that is historically accurate and a book that we tell time from (2022 years after Jesus was born)
OVER
a 14 year olds random idea/theory
LOL
I CAN TELL WHO IS AND ISNT WELL READ HERE. WHO IS INDOCTRINATED AND WHO ACTUALLY LOOKS FOR INFORMATION
Amen
Jesus is indeed the Creator God. The Word who was in the beginning and formed all things. Great bible scripture! John 1 is one of my favorites.
@Atheistme nice saying. Unfortunately for you it means absolutely nothing to a believer in Christ. Try quoting the bible. You may get more of a response.
@Atheistme "that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
So like atheistic abiogenesis, the many Atheistic Super-Natural solutions to the beginning of the universe, Oort clouds to explain away measurably young comets, an early greenhouse gas atmosphere to explain away the fact that earth would have been frozen solid 3.5B years ago (faint young sun paradox), dark matter, dark energy, dynamos to explain away measurably young magnetic fields on other planets, and macro-evolution...? *Should we hold your own atheistic worldview to the same standard...?*
A higher life form coming to earth, dropping off much lower life forms is like talking a domesticated dog, cat, gator, gerbil dropping them into the Amazon, Death Valley, the moon and expecting them to become what we are to day.
We have a lot to learn. But we may never know. The world is full of secrets.
Honestly you know what I think God is? I think in all of reality and creation, there are only really 2 things, the mother and the father, and they need each other for life to continue existing, so woman asked man what it would take to prove she loved him and he said you would have to show me and let me feel your love when I'm my strongest or weakest, when Im good to you or I'm cruel to you, when I am the infinitely best to you or infinitely the worst as in when I kill you, you will always show me your love and beauty. Woman said I can do that, and what would it take for you to deserve that love? And man said well I suppose for every slight against you, I will see that it is damaging that beauty, and so I will punish myself as a way to clean you up to show you that no matter what we do to each other we will always need each other and you will always be beautiful for me and I will always work to prove to you that you have that beauty to give, and the two of them made the agreement and that is what all of life is. God is the love between the man and the woman, the light and the darkness, the sick and the healthy, the weak and the strong, literally two halves of every conceivable coin possible and the two of them just create the world together feeding off of each other just to make an interesting and exciting world to live it together and experience every conceivable moment together across all of time.
Guys. I have no believed for so long. I turned 28 this year. And I suddenly wanted to grow plants. I never wanted to, but then I began to plant seeds in my back yard. And then, one day, I decided to listen to the Bible on an audio book. I have denied, I have questioned for more than 10 years. In the last two weeks, I have been shown so many answers to so many questions that i had, and I didnt search for them - they came to me. I did not search this video. It showed up on my feed. Two days ago I said, but what about the dinosaurs, and yesterday a video on my feed was from this channel about dinosaurs and gave me a whole new perspective of history. I am blown away. I dont feel worthy of our Father giving me any sort of sign. I have denied him for a long time. Now. i live with this immense fear in my soul, this deep deep fear of his judgement. I pray that he may forgive me for I was wrong. He is real. He is in all of us. I feel brand new. I feel as though this year he came to me to change my life in a positive way. And to guide me to live a better life. I seriously can not explain why I turned to the Bible. I NEVER read. Ever. And now Im practically done listening to the entire Bible. Please, pray for my soul that i may be forgiven in the after life.
My friend, you ask Jesus into your heart. Confess your sins to Him, and He will forgive you right now! He will send The Holy Spirit to guide you. All that you have to do is believe by faith! Jesus Christ suffered and died for all of our sins. While we were still sinners! And He rose from the dead because death could not hold Him! He has gone to Heaven to prepare a house for you and me! Some days are easier to believe than others, because we live in a world of sin. But Christ has overcome the World. And we will too! Take heart my friend!
fast and forest bathe... rely on Christian quotes to bring you hope...unplug from your ego and stress for a day...embrace silence...thats all it takes..bless you and your family💗👑💗👑💗👑💗👑💯☝
12 How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?
13 And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.
The lord is with you brother
Ask for forgiveness now, and at the same time forgive who you need to forgive. It's tough but its good good stuff.. God bless you and who you touch.
Just noticed you to b Swiss cheese!! Love Swiss cheese!!
to be able to see this, know this and learn from this!!! what a time to be alive
@@martinkent333 at this particular time it really doesnt matter, say what you want we all find out in the end
Faith is incredibly inconsistent in proving anything. If I’m at a crossroads with two paths, and flip a coin on which path to take. Then I have faith that my path was correct that would be incredibly arbitrary. Now let’s make a crossroad with one thousand paths. I decided to pick a random path with the faith that the one I chose was correct. Would that make me anything but delusional? So basically yeah it’s blind faith.
@@drewchrisman7516 I don't always make word salads but when I do it's a Saturday morning
@Tbone
Yes there is
Pray for strength, because a bumpy ride is just about upon us ... a great time to be alive.
I have a question In modern terms we consider " a day" a 24 hr period that the earth on its axis, with respect to the sun. The Sun , Moon, and stars were not created until the 4th day. But in the beginning, there was " light , that was called day, and " Darkness that was called "night"How can " A 24/7 period be determined? I do not doubt the creation simply confused about the timeline.
There is no confusion. God set the timeline of a day then. The same day we've always used is the same day He created. How is this known? Even the aborigine people in the middle of the bush who can't speak and know no other, know how long a day is. God ingrained this information into our beings. The creation only took the time the Bible claims. In order for it to have a moveable meaning behind those words used, God would have to be lying. God cannot tell a lie. Let God be true and every man a liar.
You see, the devil Is as a ROARING LION IN YOUR EARS! Whereas God is a still small voice in the heart of the saved man. Confusion and doubt are what the devil always desires us to have. God is not the author of confusion.
The folks who have an issue with God creating all things in an instant (even though He's all-powerful, all-knowing, ever-capable so on and so forth) have a serious issue with coming to terms with the Word of God.
Read the Authorized Word and believe it.
A thousand years on earth is a day with the Lord. It isn't twenty four hours. Don't let anyone tell you different...
@@angelamccrackin5243I don’t think it’s responsible or productive to tell someone not to let anyone tell them anything, without actually knowing, especially coming from a believer about God. The only reliable person (or any person) who was there was God and although sometimes He does speak to us in parables and poetry, He also doesn’t lie. You have to jump through some serious hoops to say that what the Bible teaches is not a week worth of days of creation. I’d never give that advice to myself. I’d never say to myself “never let anyone tell you anything different than you already think”. It’s just bad advice. Instead, anything anyone is trying to tell you, ask them to justify it. “Why do you believe that”, and “why should I believe that” are good starting points.
@@artax7664 i thought about what you said and you are correct. I dont know these things for sure and I made a mistake in declaring it to be truth. I dont want anyone to get frustrated with not knowing and turn away....
@@angelamccrackin5243 such a rare and humble response brother. May God bless you and be glorified by you.
You are an awesome teacher Ken Ham may God bless you❤🤍🙏😌♥️🩶🩷😊❤️
Thank you God, for this video. I was lost and now I'm found.
No lol you still lost
Found ignorant.
@@efesamueligbudu2241 Jesus loves you.
@@Mwilson8581 Um... Dude, are you okay? I mean, you can accept a 1 in 10^40,000 probability for even the universe to be calibrated, let alone having life exist, but you're just fine with the 2^256 probability of your encryption being broken in a single calculation.
@Lukephil Brecht There is a one out of 1 chance of it happening. And yes i'm okay. Probability is not a sound argument against something happening or for something happening. The chances are astronomical everyday, that you do the things in the order that you do them. Of course I am okay, I accept reality.
Wonderfully presented! Watching this in the start of the year is meaningful.
God bless you 🎉
*_God Bless_*
@Tbone
Yes there is
Funniest projection in the opening statement. Ken Ham thinks people who believe in evolution use text books like Ken Ham uses the Bible.
This is a matter of competing worldviews over the exact same evidence, and you have to evaluate the worldviews. For example, *if sediments have been accumulating on the ocean floor for 3+ billion years, then the sediment on the sea floor should be several miles deep* ...but the thickness of these sediments is only about 1300 feet deep.
Approximately 20 billion tons of dirt and rock debris are eroded from the continents and deposited into the sea every year, mostly near the continents. Approximately 1 billion tons of sediment are removed every year through tectonic movement (1-2 inches per year), resulting in a net gain of approximately 19 billion tons of sediment every year. At this rate, it would take about 12 million years (under *atheistic Uniformitarian Naturalist assumptions)* for all of this sediment to accumulate - not 3-4 *Billion* years.
This measurable evidence makes sense from a biblical creation perspective which holds that most of these sediments were rapidly deposited a little over 4000 years ago in the global flood. The evidence just fits.
Atheistic-Naturalists, however, have to invoke one of several rescuing devices to circumvent this problematic evidence, all of which are problematic themselves. Some claim *"it must have accumulated at a slower rate in the past"* - but the sediments on the continental shelves suggest they were deposited much *Faster* than today's rates. For example, the layering and patterns of the grain sizes in these sediments are the same as those produced by undersea landslides, when turbidity currents flow rapidly across continental shelves and the sediments then settle in thick layers over vast areas. *There is also no evidence of a large amount of sediment being subducted under the mantle.*
Two worldviews, same evidence, two very different interpretations. Biblical creation proponents "scientifically" accept this evidence at face value of a recent global flood and a young creation - the evidence simply fits. Atheistic-Naturalists have to invoke a rescuing device to unscientificially *circumvent this problematic evidence in order to preserve their atheistic version of our origins.* Which worldview is really behaving more "scientifically" at this point, the one that accepts the evidence (biblical creation) or the one that has to invoke yet another rescuing device to sustain their belief system (atheistic-Naturalists)? We are all indoctrinated into atheistic-Naturalism (evolution, etc.) today in our public education system.
Atheistic-Naturalists do the same thing with the Faint Young Sun Paradox which suggests earth would have been frozen when life was supposed to create itself 3.5 billion years ago (various unsubstantiated theories), young 100,000 year old maximum comets in our allegedly "14 billion year old" universe (fabricated Oort Clouds), young soft tissues in allegedly "65+ million year old" dinosaur fossils that appear similar to 4000 year old mummies and the Tyrolean ice man (preservative rescuing devices), the fact that the moon would have been touching the earth 1.5 billion years ago based on calculations concerning the effects of tidal recession on the moon (usually miscalculated and/or ignored), etc. *Is this really how "Science" is supposed to work?*
Two worldviews, same evidence, two very different interpretations.
@@adelinomorte7421 Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers? I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say, God "created" ("Bara", past tense) the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1), and then He looked at all He had "made" ("Asah" - past tense) and saw that it was good (Genesis 1:31) - He finished His creation. My point above was very simple, the sediment off the coasts does not fit a "billions of years" worldview, but it makes sense in a young earth worldview with a catastrophic global flood. This is a matter of competing worldviews over the exact same evidence. For example: *What are your thoughts on the Faint Young Sun Paradox?*
Scientists observe that our sun is slowly warming up as hydrogen fuses into helium, and at this observed rate, 3.5B years ago our sun would have been 30% fainter and earth would have been frozen solid as a result (if it was really billions of years old). The problem is that atheistic-evolutionists believe that 3.5B years ago chemicals fizzed by chance in a puddle to form all the necessary proteins required for life - in what would have been a global, dead, frozen environment - hence the "paradox." *How do you handle this observable evidence?*
A) Biblical Creation proponents happily accept this measurable scientific evidence - it's not a "paradox" at all because the earth isn't billions of years old, and life didn't create itself by chance from a puddle of chemicals, we were intentionally created. This makes sense because there is zero evidence that our earth was ever frozen solid as it should have been if it was really billions of years old, and also zero evidence of an early greenhouse gas atmosphere or other atheistic miracle warming effect to help sustain the atheistic belief in abiogenesis.
B) Atheistic-Naturalists (evolutionists, etc.) however have a problem, because you need billions of years of deep time to make it seem less implausible that chemicals can fizz into people, and that life atheistically created itself. So you have to invoke some kind of a miracle warming effect with no evidence like an early alleged greenhouse gas atmosphere, or various implausible celestial phenomena. Not only do these excuses have zero evidence, but they are also incredibly implausible - because if you did have an early greenhouse gas atmosphere 3.5B years ago, you have to believe that it countered the faint young sun's temperature just right (not too hot like Venus, yet not cold like Mars) and it had to dissipate in perfect inverse proportion to the gradual warming of the sun over time - *all just to make atheistic abiogenesis and early evolution seem less scientifically problematic.*
Two worldviews, same evidences, two very different interpretations. Which one is being more "scientific," the one that just accepts the evidence, or the one that has to fabricate implausible and evidence-less excuses to *circumvent this problematic scientific evidence and sustain their already scientifically-problematic belief that puddles can fizz into people?*
Any thoughts? *All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12.*
*"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)
@@Oldtinear That's because you believe in the modern mythology that nothing created everything accidentally with mathematical precision for no reason. I just don't have enough Faith to believe that a puddle of chemicals can fizz into a person, no matter how much *Time* you add to the mix. And I don't use the word "mythology" lightly, I say that because it a constantly rewritten atheistic origins story as it continuously makes evidence-less claims *about the unobservable past* and encounters evidence that contradicts its claims and expectations. That's not how "science" works. *"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)
*What are your thoughts on the fact that planets and moons in our solar system, including our own Earth, show measurable evidence of being 'young,' not billions of years old?* Magnetic fields on planets in our solar system are measurably young based on data collected through probes we've deployed over the last few decades, and on a billions of years time scale you start to have a lot of problems with them. Creation scientists actually predicted this accurately - the evidence just fits a biblical worldview.
We also observe tiny geologically active celestial objects which shouldn't be if billions of years old - like Pluto, Enceladus, Europa, and even our own Moon. There's no way the icy dwarf planet should still be geologically active with active nitrogen flows after 4.5 Billion years - scientists recognize this. Enceladus is spewing out material via a giant geyser, which is not sustainable on a billions of years time scale - secularists have an excuse for this, but that excuse doesn't apply to these other objects which are likewise geologically active - they are observably young. Even our moon was recently observed to be geologically active, including evidence of recent tectonic activity. Examples abound.
*"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).
These evidences (among many others) make sense in a biblical worldview - they look young because they simply are young. Right alongside measurably young comets in our solar system, measurably young tissues found in dinosaur fossils, the faint young sun paradox which causes a lot of problems for early atheistic abiogenesis and evolution, and the sedimentation off the coasts which would have only taken 12 million years to accumulate (assuming atheistic naturalist standards), among many others. In contrast, Atheistic-Naturalists like yourself have to invoke a number of various excuses to *circumvent these problematic young evidences and sustain your modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers and puddles can fizz into people if you just add enough Time.*
Meanwhile, *All 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)
@@Oldtinear You just ignored a LOT of scientific evidence above that militates against your mythology my friend. None of those young objects in our solar system should exist if your mythology was true, that's why you have to make *unsubstantiated evidence-less excuses for all of them* to sustain your belief system. *All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12,* and if you understand "science" (a methodology) then you understand the implications of a competing explanation. *"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 know it's not observable as science (a methodology) requires. It's just *constantly changing storytelling about the unobservable past.*
*"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."* (Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission)
Your words: *"Science is about testing. If you cannot test it, it ain't science.* Biologists could come up with many hypotheses for how sexual reproduction evolved. *But they could not test them."* (Oldtinear, 6 Jan 2024).
*So if you can't test, observe, or produce evidence for alleged Male and Female evolution in the unobservable past, then it's not Science. So what is it? Atheistic Faith?*
It's not that you're lying - at least this time, you've been caught in a lie before - it's more that you are stuck in a "strong delusion" (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12) and are literally incapable of understanding (1 Corinthians 2:14).
*"But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."* (1 Corinthians 2:14)
@@Oldtinear That's an ad-hominem fallacy - you're attacking the person rather than the argument because you don't have a rational argument to offer. And it's not an appeal to authority fallacy, it's just recognition that even educated scientists recognize that evolution is a mythology, a worldview bias, a religion - not "science" (a methodology).
*Does it concern you that we indoctrinated generations of children in schools with the Piltdown man as scientific fact, reviewed by evolutionists, with doctoral theses written on it for years? Those Expert Evolutionary Scientists were duped by a prankster's fraud - if even PhD holding Evolutionists can be so easily fooled, what else could they be wrong about?*
*"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.)
*"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."* (Sir Fred Hoyle, British Astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University)
*"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)
@@Oldtinear They do. Modern scientists claim that everything came from nothing all in an instant.
how do people believe this ?
How do you mean??
Because it makes much better sense than evolution?
I think its the best lecture for not only the believers but also for the non-believers. It is needed to make more scientific lecture of the same type. It will be a good answers to those who criticize the Bible's teachings. Thank you so much for uploading this wonderful message.
Professor ... aren't you having to believe the Catholic Church as the "sole" earthly authority needed to write and publish the Bible? Knowing what epistles & gospels belonged and which did not? You, nor any Protestant, Evangelical, Baptist, Lutheran, Calvinist or 7th Day Adventist were in existance. You and they and the other 20,000-40,000 differing Christian denominations were yet to exist, much less play any part at all, having to do with God, His Son, and the complete understanding of the Almighty's plan for our Salvation? The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (established by Jesus Christ) needed to be (100%) under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Truth)! In order for the Bible to be absolutely true, the CC needed to be absolutley "true." Is it possible, otherwise? Could the early church, have misunderstood Jesus, taught heresy, but yet knew enough to formulate & produce the (73 books) fully canonized Bible, that you need for your "sole rule of faith" ... you & every individual Protestant, with the authority to proclaim what it means? Even when all of you disagree? Isn't this the height of hypocrisy?
*How can you make any sense of this way of thinking & believing?*
@@gabepettinicchio7454 My friend, the Modern Catholic Church also was not in existence - you have many practices and even a modern canon that was not the same as the canon of the original early one true church, and even up to AD 1534 (Cardinal Cajetan, etc.) Modern Catholic leaders rejected apocryphal books from the canon. It wasn't always so clear-cut and "traditional" as Catholics insist... Let me ask you this: Scripture says *"One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind."* (Romans 14:5) - As a Catholic, what does *"let every man be fully convinced in his own mind"* mean to you?
What if your church was teaching you something that was false, hypothetically speaking? *How would you know?* How could you know? Is there a way for you to know, as a Catholic?
*"Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."* (Acts 17:11)
Just as the Bereans questioned Paul's teachings and were considered *"of more noble character"* for doing so, I would "examine the Scriptures every day to see if what [the Catholic Church] said was true." But since you believe the Catholic Church is the "sole earthly authority" to interpret Scripture, how would you know if they were lying...?
And you should know that Protestants are overwhelmingly united on the essential doctrines of Scripture (who is God, who is the Trinity, what is the Gospel, etc.) - it's on mostly minor secondary issues where we have disagreements. Besides, *Catholicism has many denominations:* The Latin Church, Coptic, Ethiopian, Maronite, Syrian, Armenian, Chaldean, Byzantine, Greek, Macedonian, Romanian, Russian, Slavic, etc. *So, if Protestantism is not true because of denominations, then it also means that Catholicism is not true because of its denominations. Do they, like Protestants, share the same core doctrines, and that excuses their differences?* Can we abandon the double standard...?
@@michaelg377
You: "My friend, the Modern Catholic Church also was not in existence - you have many practices and even a modern canon that was not the same as the canon of the original early one true church, and even up to AD 1534 (Cardinal Cajetan, etc.) Modern Catholic leaders rejected apocryphal books from the canon. It wasn't always so clear-cut and "traditional" as Catholics insist... Let me ask you this: Scripture says "One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind." (Romans 14:5) - As a Catholic, what does "let every man be fully convinced in his own mind" mean to you?"
*Me: Then you are calling Jesus Christ a nut-case & deceiving liar, for stating that His church would never fall to the gates of hell. He also said that he would have to leave, but that he would send the "Spirit of Truth" ... and that it would guide the church to all truth, until the end of the world. I remind you that he also said that their was so much more for them to know, and that he hadn't the time. So, did he somehow give them all the rest? If so, how would he do that. Catholics believe that all ceased after the death of the last apostle (John), so in what way could they grow in the knowledge that the lord required of them? Answer: The Spirit of Truth, not by adding on to what Jesus had already taught them, but by furthering their understanding of it. Therefore the "true church" is still with us, if one believes Jesus Christ is a God of his word. Is he? And where is his church that is still with us?*
*You are mistaken, in claiming the so-called Apocryphal books, were not part of the original canon, as stated by the church councils held in the late 4th & early 5th Centuries. Remember, Jerome questioned them. Anyway, please share the "unbias" link that supports your claim.*
*You should be aware that that there were the Hebrew OT & the Greek Septuagint OT. The deuterocanonical books were present in the "Greek" but not the Hebrew. As I mentioned in my last comment, Jesus & his apostles quoted (in the NT) the OT roughly 300 times. Roughly 200 of those quotes were from the Greek Septuagint, including the reference of "the mother & the 7 brothers" found in 2 Maccabees of your "Apocryphal" books.*
*Which "modern" Catholic leader's did not believe in the deuterocanonical books? I'm not saying that there were none, but would like their names and positions they held. If they existed that proves nothing. Many priests leave for Protestantism and many Prot. minister's leave to become Catholic. As a side note, Luther took away these 7+ books and also wanted James, Revelation and a few other books removed from the canon, but his followers would not allow it. He even called James, "the book of straw" and said it should be tossed into the fire.*
*In Romans 14:5 ... you left out the rest of the passage: "He who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. He also who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; while he who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.” --- Who was Paul speaking to and about what? --- He was dealing with the infamous “Judaizers,” that are defined in Acts 15:1-2. So, I do not understand your point.*
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You: "What if your church was teaching you something that was false, hypothetically speaking? How would you know? How could you know? Is there a way for you to know, as a Catholic?"
Me: *Yes, I believe I answer this in my comment above.* Of course, this pertains to the truths of "faith & morals." Individual men of Holy Orders, can and do sometimes error. I would also read the "Catachism of the Catholic Church." It's all there, and availabe on-line* www.usccb.org/sites/default/files/flipbooks/catechism/
How would you know if your cgurch is correct? In fact how would you know the Ninle is the true word of God?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You: "And you should know that Protestants are overwhelmingly united on the essential doctrines of Scripture (who is God, who is the Trinity, what is the Gospel, etc.) - it's on mostly minor secondary issues where we have disagreements. Besides, Catholicism has many denominations: The Latin Church, Coptic, Ethiopian, Maronite, Syrian, Armenian, Chaldean, Byzantine, Greek, Macedonian, Romanian, Russian, Slavic, etc. So, if Protestantism is not true because of denominations, then it also means that Catholicism is not true because of its denominations. Do they, like Protestants, share the same core doctrines, and that excuses their differences? Can we abandon the double standard...?"
Me: *That's nonsense. If they were united enough then they wouldn't be seperated ... would they? Luther believed in the Eucharist, he honored the Blessed Mother, as well as many other Catholic teachings, including the Catholic Doctrine of "The Trinity!" Then other's such as Calvin who left Luther for his own views on, free will vs God's will. Then Zwingli left because he decided to reject the Eucharist ... and so on. We're at 20-40000 different Protestant denoms, and counting. Is that what Jesus wanted? No, he was correct in telling Peter ... "the devil wishes to sift you as wheat ... and he did!" even in spite of the Lord saying that he has prayed for them (apostles) to all remain one*
*If you want any Scriptural truth, just ask and I will gladly add them.*
*You make mention of other Catholic denoms. Also, false. They are rights or sects, all 23 of them, are united with the pope in Rome. All, believing and teaching the exact same things w/the same readings at Mass, every day, as they share the same Liturgical Calender, in every country on Earth! They only differ, because of locality & culture, meaning wearing different colored garments as well as differing styles, again due to localities, and not differing in the teachings of faith & morals from the "Roman Right" ... or the "Western Church." We're all entirely ... One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic as Christ left it and the Spirit continues to lead it!!!*
@@gabepettinicchio7454 the roman catholic cult, so many wrongs, where do you even start to fix the whore of babylon's woes......
The Bible contains ficional stories with ficional events, timelines and characters. Or is there Scientific research done that can prove otherwise🤔?
Faith and Jesus is all we need !!! Everything else will fall in line !! Amen
Amen Jesus Is King All My Faith And Trust Is To Him Not On Science Again And God Exist God Is King God Is Good
Geological and Hydrological Impossibilities
Volume of Water:
The story describes a flood that covers all the mountains under the entire heavens (Genesis 7:19-20). For this to happen, the volume of water needed would be vastly more than exists in the Earth's hydrosphere. There is no plausible source for such an immense amount of water.
Water Distribution:
Even if there were enough water, its distribution would defy the laws of physics. Water seeks its own level, and a flood of this magnitude would require a completely different planetary topography and gravitational dynamics than what we observe.
Sediment Layers:
Geological records show that sedimentary layers have formed over millions of years. These layers contain fossils and other evidence of gradual deposition, which contradicts the idea of a single, year-long flood depositing all the Earth's sediment.
Biological and Ecological Issues
Species Survival:
The Ark story implies that all terrestrial animal species were saved on the Ark. There are millions of species of land animals, many with specific habitat and dietary needs. It's logistically impossible to gather, house, and care for this diversity of life on a single vessel for an extended period.
Genetic Bottleneck:
A global flood would cause an extreme genetic bottleneck, drastically reducing genetic diversity. This would lead to inbreeding and increased susceptibility to disease and genetic disorders, threatening the survival of species rather than ensuring it.
Post-Flood Ecosystems:
The story does not account for how ecosystems would be restored after such a cataclysmic event. Most plants would not survive a year underwater, and the ecological interdependencies would be irreparably disrupted.
Logistical and Structural Challenges
Ark Construction:
The dimensions of the Ark (300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, 30 cubits high) are impractical for ancient construction techniques. The largest wooden ships historically built were much smaller and often suffered from structural weaknesses.
Animal Care:
Managing the care, feeding, and waste disposal for thousands of animals for a year would require more resources and manpower than described. Additionally, many species have very specific environmental needs that could not be met on the Ark.
Feasibility of Repopulation:
After the flood, the rapid repopulation and spread of animal species to their respective habitats across the globe, crossing oceans and continents, is biologically implausible.
Historical and Mythological Context
Ancient Flood Myths:
The Noah's Ark story shares similarities with other ancient flood myths, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh from Mesopotamia. These myths likely arose from localized flood events that were catastrophic to early human settlements but not global in scale.
Lack of Archaeological Evidence:
There is no archaeological evidence supporting a global flood. Ancient civilizations in Egypt, China, and Mesopotamia show continuous habitation and development through the period when the flood supposedly occurred.
Chronological Discrepancies:
The timing of the flood as described in the Bible does not align with known historical timelines of ancient civilizations. These civilizations show uninterrupted cultural and technological progress during the supposed time of the flood.
Conclusion on the flood
From a secular, scientific standpoint, the story of Noah's Ark and the global flood contains numerous impossibilities and contradictions. The required volume of water, geological evidence, biological logistics, and lack of archaeological support all point to the conclusion that the story is a myth rather than a historical event. Understanding this narrative as part of ancient mythological traditions provides a more coherent explanation of its origins and cultural significance.
*"This text is 100% likely to be AI Generated"* (Quillbot)... *Yes, you should "think for yourself" my friend.* Also you're wrong. For example: Quantity of water) Mars has no liquid water, but scientists believe it was once covered in liquid water because of its canyons and other features. Earth is 70% covered in liquid water (!) and has similar features, marine fossils on the highest mountain tops, whale fossils deep inland in the Unites States, Ankylosaurus fossils found buried where they're not supposed to be among marine creatures, entire stacks of layered solid rock - bent at a 90 degree angle with no signs of breakage (because they were wet) - but secularists insist "there's no way there could have been a global flood." *Why the double standard?*
You should research what the biblical creation worldview actually believes on this point my friend, it is actually perfectly plausible and there is a great amount of evidence that supports it if you can see beyond your Atheistic-Naturalist blinders. There are many problems with the secular origins mythology today, you just have to be able and willing to conduct an honest critical self-assessment of your worldview and see what the other side's *actual arguments and evidences* really are.
In the meantime, here's another one for consideration that I hope you will find interesting *which contradicts several of your claims above:*
*Did you know that the secular 4000-5000 year old Chinese language suspiciously contains uniquely biblical imagery in some of its characters?* How did it get in there?
For example, the Character for "boat" consists of the characters "vessel" " *eight* " and "people," suspiciously matching Noah's family of 8 on the ark. The character for "flood" consists of "water" and "total", and the character for "total" is made up of "together," " *eight* ," and "earth," again suspiciously matching Noah's flood. The character for "To create" consists of "speak" "dust" "life" "walk" suspiciously matching how God spoke life into existence and formed man from the dust of the ground. The character for "devil" consists of the characters "secret" "man" "garden" "alive" , and the character for "tempter" consists of "devil" "two trees" and "cover," suspiciously matching the description of Satan in the Garden of Eden. The character for "Garden" includes "dust" "breath" "two persons" "enclosure" again suspiciously matching the account of God creating Adam and Eve from the dust in the Garden of Eden. The character for "happiness" includes "God" and "sheep" reflecting God's desire throughout the Bible to be with His sheep. The character "forbidden/to warn" includes "God" and "Two Trees" suspiciously matching the two trees God put in the Garden of Eden to give man a free will choice between good and evil (among other things).
Some argue that the Bible is just a "Bronze age" copy of other ancient mythologies, but that doesn't make sense. There are dozens of these Chinese characters with specifically biblical imagery, and I have yet to see an ancient copycat legend that has these same details. *The birth of the Chinese language suspiciously lines up with the time the Bible says the Tower of Babel incident occurred, and it would make sense if this imagery entered their language because the early Chinese people were simply familiar with the biblical account of creation and the biblical flood.* If you deny that though, then how do you explain this? Christian missionaries didn't exist until millennia after the Chinese language began. As a related finding, some ancient Chinese writings and pottery depict cultural parallels between the ancient Chinese and ancient Hebrew people concerning animal sacrifices... food for thought.
In addition, there are thousands of global flood legends all around the world, including 300+ Native American global flood legends which were developed in geographic isolation of Judeo-Christian influences, many of which specifically corroborate the biblical Noahic flood account, but not the other Mesopotamian flood myths. All of these geographically isolated people on separate continents suspiciously also had a knowledge of dinosaur-like creatures, and they also suspiciously had the same taste in architecture (ziggurats) all around the world. All of this evidence makes sense if these people descended from the same common people from the Tower of Babel incident after the biblical Noahic Flood. Otherwise this is all very strange and seems to contradict the secular narrative of human origins at many points.
Blessings to you and yours.
@@Oldtinear That's because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and that if you just wait a long enough *time* then puddles of chemicals can fizz into people - and that's quite a bit of "science" you just ignored above my friend.
Your words: *"If you cannot test it, it ain't science."* (Oldtinear, 20 December 2023).
""We can speculate [regarding early evolution], but *any speculations could not be tested, so we will never know"* (Oldtinear, 30 September 2023)
"the first life-forms which developed this feature *left no trace of themselves* 2 billion years ago." (Oldtinear, 30 September 2023)
Thank you for those powerful arguments against Evolution - now you can know, *from your own words,* that your own belief system *"...is not testable - it is nothing to do with science. It is a fundamentalist religious belief."* (Oldtinear, 20 December 2023) Do you hold yourself to your own standard though...?
Science is a methodology, what you're talking about is an Atheistic Ideology. No one here has a problem with "science" (a methodology), it's your Unscientific Atheistic mythology that says you are a fish, cousin to a cockroach, a brother to cancer cells and leprosy, and that we are all just "meaningless evolved protoplasm in a meaningless amoral chemical universe" that is the problem. You are so much more than you believe you are.
*"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."* (Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research)
@@bioof4NGL writing essays about why people don’t believe in something is… normal. Wasn’t the Declaration of Independence literally an essay as to why the 13 Colonies shouldn’t be ruled by England?
@@darthtyranous4514 I think the bigger issue above is that our friend "think 4 yourself" was using AI to "think 4 him" instead, and it was regurgitating shallow researched arguments and false information from the internet in a confirmed 100% AI generated "essay." Among other things, this shows the negligible role that "science," "evidence," "logic," and "thinking for yourself" actually plays in the atheistic worldview - it's an effort to suppress God, and it has nothing to do with logic, evidence, reason, or "thinking."
Consider this: *“…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 is an evolutionist claiming that evolutionary paleontologists were deliberately ignoring evidence and acting on bias and groupthink - what are your thoughts on that?
@@Oldtinear Actually he didn't, and the evidence I provided above refuted many of his major points. The problem with AI is that it uses the internet as its source of information, so by relying solely on AI to answer any question means *operating on the assumption that "just because it's on the internet means it's true."* Think for yourself my friend.
What are your thoughts on the evidence above that you ignored as well?
And what are your thoughts on the evolutionist admitting that evolutionary paleontologists are deliberately ignoring obvious evidence and engaging in biased groupthink?
"Think-4-Yourself's post listed a series of factors which destroyed the silly myth of the flood. You cannot come within a mile of rebutting them, so you make a fuss about AI and hope nobody notices your empty-handedness."
That series of epithet fallacies and strawman misrepresentations of what happened above is 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. It's classic apriorism, an Invincible Ignorance fallacy - there is no mountain of evidence that can convince a scoffer like yourself to honestly consider that you might be wrong.
"You toss words such as 'meaningless' about, but *meaningful social behaviour has a natural explanation."* (Oldtinear, 19 May 2024)
"'How do you get from meaningless goo to meaningful and valuable you just by adding time + chemicals + chance in a meaningless universe? 'The natural origin of life (abiogenesis) *is a hypothesis in progress. When we know more, I will get back to you."* (Oldtinear, 19 May 2024)
*How do you know it has a "natural" explanation if you can't explain it "naturally"...?*
God is the creator of ALL things seen and unseen.
Science is merely man giving names to the things and processes of God's creation. Then man in his arrogance, manipulates that which God created and claims himself to be God.
@Just me "Science is figuring out how things work" Exactly what I said, observing God's creation and naming it (describing it with words).
"Humility" separates you from Wisdom.
@@bradarmstrong5033 science is everywhere
@@byteme9718 in denial (absence) of the True God. Man sees his existence as supreme and worships his own knowledge (science).
Knowledge void of Wisdom = Death
@@meismonke5543 I will attempt one last time to open your eyes, you may not be ready today, but someday you will see. Science does not exist in opposition to the Creator. He made you in his image, meaning you have self-awareness, a conscience, emotion, and reason. All of the universe he created as a purpose for you, nothing is accidental or random. It is foolish to observe the complexity of life and not recognize the intelligent design. Cause and Effect.
I will pray for you.
@Just me sorry friend, that is an absolute lie (deception) that you have chosen to believe.
Nothing exists outside of God.
Praise be to our All Mighty God. Hallelujah! 😊🙏🏽🕊👑✝️👑🕊🙏🏽😊
I remember when Mt. St. Helens erupted. Scientists "carbon dated" trees after the eruption and the reading said they were millions of years older than everyone knew them to be!
You keep ignorant & deluded, your flavour of geographically and culturally ordained god seems to like that! 😂👍
@@pup1008 What are your thoughts on the observed 10-year old samples taken from a lava dome at Mt. St. Helens that were K-Ar dated to be 300,000 years old? In order to accurately "date" something, you need to know the original amount of the parent isotope, the original amount of the daughter isotope, that the rate of decay remained constant, and that the material was in a closed system unaffected by other influences which could throw off the results - *we can't verify any of these Assumptions without a time machine.* Why were the samples from this lava dome so far off? Because the scientists *incorrectly assumed* that all of the Argon was the product of radioactive decay of Potassium, but the material inherited additional Argon as it solidified, so they incorrectly dated a 10-year old object to be 300,000 years old based on their false assumptions.
If objects that we observe can be so incorrectly dated, what does that tell you about dating objects that we cannot observe, from the Unobservable Past?
Other items for consideration include young Carbon-14 found inside of allegedly "billions of years old" diamonds, young soft tissues and intact cells found inside a growing number of allegedly "65 million year old" dinosaur fossils which appear similar to 4000 year old mummies and the Tyrolean Ice Man, snail shells dated to be 26,000 years old in the 1980s, and numerous measurements taken from samples of past historically documented volcanic eruptions (Mt. Etna, etc.) which are WAY off compared to what documented history shows.
...but without this atheistic "flavour of geographically and culturally ordained god" (Naturalism and its underlying assumptions), you don't have "billions of years." Without "billions of years," your already implausible belief that chemicals fizzed into people by chance just by adding *Time* falls apart. You need a Creator.
*"It is appointed for a man to die once, then comes Judgment"* (Hebrews 9:27)
Ehm no, just a Cristian lie
@dumyjobby no, just a fact you cannot accept. This was general news at the time, until all of a sudden it wasn't. You can say whatever you want, but I actually lived this.
@@judyreeves2600
Actually check out *ANY* mainstream, secular site relating to it for a full & *FACTUAL* explanation! 🙄
The Lord Jesus Christ has delivered me from drug addiction, homelessness, abusive relationships, evil spirits (yes they're real) , sexual immorality, swearing, lying, stealing, laziness.. and even more. I give all the glory to Him. All praise and worship belong to God. He is real. He is bigger than any problem you face. He will meet you where you are at. Even right now.
(Romans 10:13) For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Currently I'm experiencing a demonic attack. But I am standing on The Word of God which says I have authority over
devils and we are commanded by Christ Jesus to drive/cast them out. So I'm will continue to drive them out in The Name of Jesus Christ.
Friends I implore you to do the same. The devil
doesn't want us thinking it's real.
We have authority over it!
All of them.
Keep strong in The Lord.
Jesus Christ is LORD to the glory of God The Father.
I bless every reader of this comment in The Name of Jesus Christ
What a presentation. Sitting down with the wife and 4 kids to watch this after dinner tonight!
@@stephenlaing2152 His children will have the opportunity to decide for themselves if they get to be presented with the information, and also, it is not really any of your business, now is it....
@@stephenlaing2152 And I venture that if you give them both sides, more often than not they will become fascinated in the real (scientific) version.
@@curesmithnethe would never show his children something that challenged his own preferential world view lol trust me i grew up with very ignorant religious parents who were purposely ignorant to anything outside of there “comfort zone”.
@@curesmithnet he would never show his children something that challenged his own preferential world view lol trust me i grew up with very ignorant religious parents who were purposely ignorant to anything outside of there “comfort zone”.
Ken Ham: There is no new information. Genes get rearranged but they're still the same genes.
Also Ken Ham at 27:09: Mutations: changes in our genes occurred.
🤦♀
Mutation or deformity is not new information. It's a corruption of the information that changes what should be there originally. Say the order should be abcdefg and a mutation comes along and eliminates a letter or makes the sequence acbedfg. It seems you may have confused create with change. A mutation doesn't create anything new no more than a man takes wood and carves it into whatever his heart desires. A new shape or form has been achieved but it is still just wood.
All the information is before your eyes it's just you. You're on the road and there is no fork in it. It is choice.
To let the physics explain who and what you are or somebody that's making a guess, their opinion of misunderstood information. Only pure facts matter there are no wrong answers only correct. The Human Condition is what you make it, for yourself. If you do not adhere to the scale of physics you'll never understand this. For this is where language is derived from. Also music. It is of scale, it can go up or down but it is unscalable in it's Mass. The physics within it, is the answer. Physics started when someone asked, what am I. Around a campfire. From there it led to philosophies which are all over the world, and just a repetition of itself.
For there must be balance, or there would be none. Meaning if it can't hold it shape it won't exist/ no Foundation to it. So what you see the cosmos yourself everything is in balance, or it would not exist in the first place. Just Like Music it has to be in balance for you to enjoy/ hear it in the first place.
It's just an understanding of the balance in, the presence of you in the first place. Understanding this will lead you to a compendium of understanding of all things. For the math it does not lie.
@@CWRobinsonMusic look up insertion mutations. new material can be added.
@@cynthiaayers7696 not hatred just rational disbelief. You might not believe that, for example, a Bigfoot exists. That doesn't mean you hate the idea of Bigfoot. You just haven't been able to find any good evidence for it.
@@johnmacleod3421 doesn’t happen in the natural world though. Takes an intelligent mind to do so.
Luke 14:11
For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
Amen 🙏
@@Mari-rz5sh Amen
@@ChiefCedricJohnson
Good to see that you are wise. GOD Bless you & all who seek HIM, all that are lost return your Creator Almighty GOD. Shalom🙏
Deuteronomy 30:15-20
New American Standard Bible
Choose Life
15 “See, I have placed before you today life and [a]happiness, and death and [b]adversity, 16 in that I am commanding you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, so that you may live and become numerous, and that the Lord your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to take possession of it. 17 But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but allow yourself to be led astray and you worship other gods and serve them, 18 I declare to you today that you will certainly perish. You will not prolong your days in the land where you are crossing the Jordan to enter [c]and take possession of it. 19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have placed before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your [d]descendants, 20 by loving the Lord your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding close to Him; for [e]this is your life and the length of your days, [f]so that you may live in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.”
Psalm 52:2
God looks down from heaven on the entire human race; he looks to see if anyone is truly wise, if anyone seeks God.
@@Mari-rz5sh God bless. I read the King James Version.
32:58 the fact that we all technically live on islands is a pretty good indicator that there was a flood.
Science agrees that there has been floods in the past, there's deserts that used to be under water and so on.
But all the continents user to be one super continent at one point. We know this because of archeological findings like fossils of the same species being found on different continents and other geological findings. Not to mention the current movement of the continents.
A few floods in the past does not confirm gods existence. In fact the pole ices are melting right now and will cause landmasses to get under the sea level.
These events happen on a geoactive planet.
But to make a further argument. The epic of Gilgamesh is a text written around 2000 BC, (long before the bible).
And it has a flood myth which is very very similar to the story of Noah.. Including building a ship and taking animals onboard
"The gods sent a flood to destroy the human race, but one god, Ea spoke to a reed fence giving instructions on how to build a suitable boat. Uta-napishti heard the words of Ea, and saved himself, his family and all living things. The flood was upon the earth for six days and seven nights."
Is it coincident? I think not.. Most likely this story was carried on from mouth to ear, gradually changing and eventually tailored to fit into the Old Testament. It makes the most sense.
No it's not. Creationists like ken Ham deny evolution but they rely on the theory of evolution to support the claim of the flood. People who believe there was a flood and an arc need to be institutionalized. It's a belief founded in ignorance and denying science.
@@HaveAHuff That's just not true my friend. For example, *if sediments have been accumulating on the ocean floor for 3+ billion years, then the sediment on the sea floor should be several miles deep* ...but the thickness of these sediments is only about 1300 feet deep.
Approximately 20 billion tons of dirt and rock debris are eroded from the continents and deposited into the sea every year, mostly near the continents. Approximately 1 billion tons of sediment are removed every year through tectonic movement (1-2 inches per year), resulting in a net gain of approximately 19 billion tons of sediment every year. At this rate, it would take about 12 million years (assuming atheistic-Naturalist assumptions) for all of this sediment to accumulate - not 3-4 *Billion* years.
This measurable evidence makes sense from a biblical creation perspective which holds that most of these sediments were rapidly deposited a little over 4000 years ago in the global flood. The evidence just fits.
Atheistic-Naturalists, however, have to invoke one of several rescuing devices to circumvent this problematic evidence, all of which are problematic themselves. Some claim *"it must have accumulated at a slower rate in the past"* - but the sediments on the continental shelves suggest they were deposited much *Faster* than today's rates. For example, the layering and patterns of the grain sizes in these sediments are the same as those produced by undersea landslides, when turbidity currents flow rapidly across continental shelves and the sediments then settle in thick layers over vast areas. *There is also no evidence of a large amount of sediment being subducted under the mantle.*
Two worldviews, same evidence, two very different interpretations. Biblical creation proponents "scientifically" accept this evidence at face value of a recent global flood and a young creation - the evidence simply fits. Atheistic-Naturalists have to invoke a rescuing device to unscientificially *circumvent this problematic evidence in order to preserve their atheistic version of our origins.* Which worldview is really behaving more "scientifically" at this point, the one that accepts the evidence (biblical creation) or the one that has to invoke yet another rescuing device to sustain their belief system (atheistic-Naturalists)? We are all indoctrinated into atheistic-Naturalism (evolution, etc.) today in our public education system.
Atheistic-Naturalists do the same thing with the Faint Young Sun Paradox which suggests earth should have been frozen when life was supposed to create itself 3.5 billion years ago (various unsubstantiated theories), young 100,000 year old maximum comets in our allegedly "14 billion year old" universe (fabricated Oort Clouds), young soft tissues in allegedly "65+ million year old" dinosaur fossils that appear similar to 4000 year old mummies and the Tyrolean ice man (preservative rescuing devices), the fact that the moon would have been touching the earth 1.5 billion years ago based on calculations concerning the effects of tidal recession on the moon (usually miscalculated and/or ignored), etc. Is this really how "Science" is supposed to work?
@@michaelg377 I'm not reading any of that. There are 16000000 species that would have had to be on the arc. Creationists acknowledge there's no way a vessel that size could have been constructed by a man and his family. They assert there were only 1000-4000 species, depending who you ask. Which means everything had to evolve from those species. The entire world view is a contradiction. Even most people who believe in your god don't believe the flood happened. It's simply illogical.
@@michaelg377 You aren't going to be taken seriously when you blatantly deny science.
Enjoyed this video. I appreciate the discussion on evolution. I've watched several other speakers discuss the complexity of DNA and protein strands. The ecological impact of the eruption of Mt. St. Helen's had some new information for me. Keep up the good work.
Have you actually watched anyone other than the self affirming minions from YEC echo chambers?
@@pup1008 With respect, given your misunderstandings and inability to explain your own worldview beliefs from our prior discussions... have you?
“…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 in particular 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.”* This is an evolutionist admitting that evolutionary paleontologists are ignoring the evidence. What are your thoughts on that?
All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12.
@pup1008 what's it to you? I enjoyed the video. Spread your hate somewhere else.
@@rosesacks7430
One man's "hate" is another man's reality...
@@Oldtinear *He absolutely is an evolutionist - that's exactly why that statement is so significant.* - and he said flat out that evolutionary paleontologists are ignoring obvious evidence. The fossil record most definitely is not evidence for evolution, it's time to abandon that obvious lie my friend - you've been misled, it's just groupthink and "simply looking the other way": Again: *"...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) This is an evolutionist admitting that evolutionary paleontologists are ignoring the evidence in the fossil record, and maintaining their stories DESPITE the evidence. What are your thoughts on that?
Here are a couple more:
*"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded... The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time... Some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record... have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."* (D. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50, no 1 (1979), 25)
2 things we observe in the fossil record:
*“Stasis.* Most species represent no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
*“Sudden Appearance.* In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed.” (Stephen Gould, "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change," 1985)
...it seems no mountain of evidence could ever convince an evolutionist who is so blindly devoted to his faith.
Genes are amazing. My kids are 4 years apart. My son was born with perfectly olive skin, though he is white And he tans perfectly and never burns, my daughter however, is pale and I have to put sunscreen on her. Their skin is so different!
How I love God and God's perfect creation. He is so magnificent, His creation was created in an utterly perfect balance from sub atomic particles here on our tiny earth to the red giant stars throughout the unmeasurable universe.
A quasar pointing in our direction would be a very bad day for us. We’d be perfectly extinct, that’s for sure.
There’s no extinction in hell . Life is eternal .
@@malcolmscrivener8750 Missed the point and was able to get in your nutty dogma too. You’re on fire today sparky.
@@rogerandjoan4329 I didn’t miss your point when you said you love to mock theists .
By doing that you scorn Almighty God , your creator !
How hateful is that and how clever are you , son of dust ?
@@malcolmscrivener8750 It’s a good thing that there’s astute gents like yourself around to have god’s back.
Atheists only mock real actors. I can understand though why you think we mock god since you’re accustomed to confounding reality with mythology.
It’s weird when they try to claim science can’t be trusted then try to use science to prove their claims
Ah! Cherry picked science! 😂
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* then puddles of chemicals can fizz into people? They're not saying that "science can't be trusted," they're saying that your interpretations of the evidence are necessarily *Assumption* based and if you have false *Assumptions* then you are going to misinterpret the information.
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) is 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)
@@Oldtinear My friend, you just said it yourself - if the laws of nature break down as demonstrated above, then clearly something Super-Natural (beyond "nature,' beyond those laws) must exist. No "inventing" required - that's why even the Atheist has to make up *Infinite, Eternal, Self-existent/Pre-existent, etc.* phenomena to sustain your "natural" belief system (examples above). *The only way for nature to create itself is if nature is Pre-existent - like God.* This refutes "naturalism" at its foundation - but it makes sense in a biblical worldview.
"Have you any more evidence that YOUR superhero exists than the comic book characters do?" - Yes - for example, even you live in accordance with Him rather than your own worldview that says we are all "just chemicals" or "meaningless evolved protoplasm" in a meaningless amoral chemical universe that doesn't care. It's weird, 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 respect towards others (James 3:10), 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)
@@Oldtinear That's because you don't have a rational response. Thank you for your substance-less response though, that is all the response that is needed from you.
In the meantime, if you feel rational, please revisit the above, I would love to hear your answers to those questions you ignored.
*How do you get from meaningless goo to meaningful and valuable you just by adding time + chemicals + chance in a meaningless universe?*
@@Oldtinear I asked *How do you get from meaningless goo to meaningful and valuable you just by adding time + chemicals + chance in a meaningless universe?* Your silence is all that people need to see. And I did answer you, you're just not listening - Reposted for your reconsideration:
Yes - for example, *even you live in accordance with Him rather than your own worldview* that says we are all "just chemicals" or "meaningless evolved protoplasm" in a meaningless amoral chemical universe that doesn't care. It's weird, 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 respect towards others (James 3:10), 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)
*How do you get from meaningless goo to meaningful and valuable you just by adding time + chemicals + chance in a meaningless universe?*
*John 8:58* "Before Abraham was there, I was there" - Jesus
Yazze Tz
What is Jssus talking about when he says I was there before Abraham?
@@edwardlongfellow5819 Word (in the beginning there was a word John first chapter)
@@chale0ify
Can you tell me who is the author of the John gospel?
The discovery of dinosaurs living 250 million years ago and finding insects in sap over 400 million years old blows the Genesis creation story out of the water.
Dude, keep listening. I think you missed a ton. There’s plenty more for you to read and watch
@@joejohnson8656 People who do not question the bible are the ones missing a ton. Answer this: Why would the god that created the universe kill Aarons two sons for the menial infraction of not preparing the alter properly for people to donate gold? Time for you to read the bible
@@davidclark573 Where did you read this... are you able to trace it?
@@francescoc9976 read Leviticus 10. They burned incense but God had not ask them to do it
They offered strange fire to God. I’m not sure what is meant by “not preparing the alter properly “
One thing about the bible is that no stage of the human history was left out, it explains everything.
Great marketing brochure for the religion, ain't it?
They left out cats tho...
And before human history, as the Genesis story starts before humans existed, it can’t be factual.
Why, panther, you of all people should know that just isn't true.
@panther7584
What a load of bollocks. Waste of 57 mins. Ever heard of a dinosaur ? Bible didn't mention them.
There are literal verifiable human structures older than you say the Earth is.
As an atheist this was really eye opening. Still an atheist
Can I ask you a related question about it? DNA contains mass quantities of ordered, sequenced, encoded information, including instructions for building complex machines like your eyes. Every observable example of information in existence always has an original intelligent source: every book has an author, every program has a programmer, the words on this screen came from you... Therefore, *if consistently interpreted,* the information in DNA likewise had an intelligent source (God). *How do you handle this observable evidence?*
@@michaelg377 Quote :"Can I ask you a related question about it? DNA contains mass quantities of ordered, sequenced, encoded information, including instructions for building complex machines like your eyes."
no it does not. It is more like a recipe, less like computer code. The best evidenmce is that we can read dna, know what it does, what the information means, and yet can´t just make an eye. There is a lot more to this.
Quote :"Every observable example of information in existence always has an original intelligent source"
that is a lie, but nice try. WE know for a fact that DNA changes via positive mutations, neuitral mutations and negative mutations, all 3 are clearly infiormation (you just admitted that) and all are clearly the result of random mutations.
Quote :"Therefore, if consistently interpreted, the information in DNA likewise had an intelligent source (God). How do you handle this observable evidence?"
ah you are saying this is proof odin exists , or did you mean zeus ??
@@daftwulli6145 With respect my friend, everything you just said is incorrect on nearly all counts. You say "no it does not. It is more like a recipe, less like computer code." Please consider the following: *"Genes are information. They are coded information. It even looks like computer information. A chromosome is a great long computer tape. It's linear. It runs one dimensional. [It's] digital code. It's not binary, it's quaternary, but apart from that it's just the same as computer tape. It's read in sequence. It's copied and pasted from one part of the organism to another in just the same way as a computer programmer would copy and paste. So biology has turned into computer science..."* - Richard Dawkins, DNA : The Greatest Discovery in Modern Science. *What are your thoughts on this? Do you disagree with Richard Dawkins?*
"Every observable example of information in existence always has an original intelligent source" that is a lie, but nice try. WE know for a fact that DNA changes via positive mutations, neuitral mutations and negative mutations, all 3 are clearly infiormation (you just admitted that) and all are clearly the result of random mutations."
No, "Mutations' doesn't explain how you get *ordered, sequenced, encoded instructions for building complex machines like your eyes* out of meaningless informationless chemicals. We have never once observed information create itself out of non-information without an Intelligent Source - on the contrary, *we ONLY ever observe information coming from an original intelligent source.* Why would you insist on an interpretation IN CONTRAST to ALL the rest of the observable evidence?
My friend, you're *begging the question (a logical fallacy)* of atheistic-naturalism and atheistic-abiogenesis here. Every single observable example of information that we have always has an intelligent source, like those 3 examples I offered above (book authors, computer programmers, the words on this screen from you, etc.). If this is truly a "lie" as you assert, *can you name one example of information in existence that doesn't have an original intelligent source? Just One?*
""Therefore, if consistently interpreted, the information in DNA likewise had an intelligent source (God). How do you handle this observable evidence?" ah you are saying this is proof odin exists , or did you mean zeus ??"
In essence you're not wrong on this, this evidence *by itself* only points to the fact that DNA logically had an Intelligent Source; it doesn't necessarily identify who that source was. Are you suggesting that you believe in Odin or Zeus, or perhaps Aliens like Richard Dawkins proposed as a "Possibility" in this video? In any case, that's a different conversation - A) DNA contains information, B) information observably always has an intelligent source, therefore C) *if consistently interpreted* the information in DNA likewise had an intelligent source. *How do you handle this observable evidence?*
*"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)
@@michaelg377Your not asking a question, your making a statement, and that’s just a bad faith argument in the making
@@froginabucket7294 No, I'm asking a question - the fact that you see it as a "statement" is significant though. This is a linear, logical, evidence-based argument. What are your thoughts?
A) DNA contains information, B) information observably always has an intelligent source, therefore C) if consistently interpreted the information in DNA likewise had an intelligent source. *How do you handle this observable evidence?*
One example of a genetic process that can increase the information in a genome is gene duplication followed by divergence. This process occurs when a section of DNA is duplicated, resulting in multiple copies of a particular gene or set of genes within an organism's genome.
Gene duplication can arise through various mechanisms, such as errors during DNA replication or recombination events. Once a gene is duplicated, one copy remains functional, carrying out its original role in the organism, while the other copy is free to acquire new functions through mutations without disrupting the essential functions of the original gene.
Over time, the duplicated gene can accumulate mutations that alter its sequence and functionality, leading to the formation of a new gene with a distinct function. This process is known as gene divergence or subfunctionalization.
Through gene divergence, the duplicated genes can take on different roles or specialize in performing slightly different functions within the organism. This increases the genetic information by adding a new gene variant with a unique function to the genome.
An example of this process can be observed in the evolution of the globin gene family, which includes genes responsible for producing hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying protein in vertebrates. Gene duplication events in the ancestral genome resulted in the formation of multiple copies of the globin gene. These duplicated genes then diverged over time, leading to the development of different globin genes with distinct roles.
In humans, for instance, gene duplication events resulted in the formation of several globin genes, including those responsible for the production of different types of hemoglobin: fetal hemoglobin, adult hemoglobin, and myoglobin. Each of these genes has undergone divergence, acquiring specific mutations that allow them to perform their unique functions in different stages of development or in different tissues.
This process of gene duplication and divergence has played a significant role in the evolution of new genes and the expansion of gene families throughout the history of life on Earth. It has allowed organisms to acquire new functions, adapt to different environments, and increase the complexity and diversity of their genomes, ultimately contributing to the richness of life forms we observe today.
Other processes, such as mutation, recombination, horizontal gene transfer, and genomic rearrangements, can also contribute to the generation of new genetic information.
Mutation, for instance, introduces changes in the DNA sequence, which can lead to the formation of new alleles or novel gene variants. Recombination, the exchange of genetic material between chromosomes, can result in new combinations of genetic information. Horizontal gene transfer, the transfer of genetic material between different species, can introduce entirely new genes into a genome.
Furthermore, natural selection acts as the driving force that determines which genetic variations are advantageous and thus more likely to persist in a population. Beneficial mutations that increase an organism's fitness, such as providing a new function or improving an existing one, can be positively selected for, leading to their preservation and spread in a population over time.
Overall, these mechanisms, combined with natural selection, provide a comprehensive understanding of how genetic information can increase in a genome over generations. The claims against evolution that suggest information cannot be increased are based on misunderstandings of the processes involved and ignore the substantial evidence supporting the accumulation of new genetic information through evolutionary mechanisms.
Nicely put. Thank you.
Bubble of fresh air in swamp of ignorance, but anyway they will put god in any gap and crack you have
😂lol gene duplication is not increasing information or generating new information? Apart from A, T, G, C how many new bases could be formed and entirely new generic code could be created? Can you answer that?
Hgt is transfering not creating
Recombination is just rearranging n so is mutation just mutating on the information available? Rewatcv the video
Atheists don't hate this video, don't worry
Yeah, they do, atheists say that they don’t hate religion, but they also demonstrate the opposite when you criticize them in the slightest
They don't hate this video. Believe me.
@@mariayudelkamercadogarcia4500 “just trust me bro”, atheist classic
@@SpikeSpiegel-hk7tr do you want for us to hate this video? I don't even use the word hate in my life. So I know for sure I don't hate this video. You are just making assumptions. This video is a example of confirmation bias, and this fact doesn't make me hate it. 😄😉
@@mariayudelkamercadogarcia4500ahteist do hate this video just look at the comments, they just say not true go read a book and repeat the same things the video went over
For anyone interested in evolutionary biology. Please read a textbook before or after watching this video.
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* then puddles of chemicals can fizz into people?
I agree with your screen name, you do have to "think for yourself." 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? Women literally cannot get pregnant today because of known medical issues with these organs...
*"“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.
@@Oldtinear Why? How many PhD creationist technical papers do you suppose a PhD evolutionist had to evaluate in their secular public education? But how many PhD evolutionist technical papers do you suppose PhD creationists had to evaluate in their education? One side lives in a bubble (evolution), and the other side has to evaluate both worldviews (biblical creation). We are all *uncritically indoctrinated* into this religion of atheistic-Naturalism (evolution) today in our public education system, and the phenomena of groupthink and atheistic censorship of the alternatives are used to keep this uncritical indoctrination going. *Wouldn't it be better to consider both worldviews with an open mind, rather than living in a bubble?*
@@Oldtinear Actually, you should know that PhD Creation Scientists who get a secular education have to study ONLY Naturalistic-Evolutionist technical papers in their education, and in addition they also study and publish their own Creation technical papers - like Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, for example. In contrast, Atheistic-Naturalists (evolutionists) who get a PhD education ONLY ever read items within their closed-minded naturalistic bubble. It's groupthink. Consider the following example: *“…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 particularly important: *"Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin’s predicted pattern, simply looked the other way.”*
@@michaelg377
I've given you a chance to prove your flavor of god is real Michael in a highly respected academic forum but you just *_run, run, run?_*
Make the same offer to me for my chance to prove your "God of the Gaps" fallacy is total nonsense & I'll bite your hand off!
Do you even care what truth is?
@@pup1008 No my friend, that's because you have your own "Atheism of the Gaps" - we've actually discussed this already: the question is *why do YOU follow My 'flavor' of God instead of your own "we're all just chemicals worldview?"* For some reason you live in contrast to the atheistic "we're all just chemicals in a meaningless universe" 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 meaning, value, 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 (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 - from your meaningless chemical accident universe that doesn't care? 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)
This is a test called existential viability (ie. can you live your worldview out in reality) - it's a big problem for an atheistic chemical accident in a meaningless universe worldview, but even Atheists live perfectly in line with the image and likeness specifically of the "flavor of God" of Scripture - it's weird, right? Put differently:
*How do you get from meaningless goo to meaningful and valuable you just by adding time + chemicals + chance in a meaningless universe?*
Any thoughts?
All of my questions/doubts were logically answered. Thank you Dr. Ham
Where did Ham receive his doctorate from?
@johnnynotenglish9751
I don't know if this was meant in a mean / sexist way, or, if it is a joke I am misunderstanding, but regardless, that is no way for one to conduct themselves, and, no way to treat another person.
To the recipient of the presumed insult, I sympathize with having to put up with this level of incivility.
Forget, carbon, dating. Do you think you have more than 200 ancestor to Adam and eve? If so, that means the world order than 6000 years. 😂
no, they were not. this was 8th grade thinking mixed in with magic
@johnnynotenglish9751 Then show us how smart you are by telling how creation happened on its own. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
As an Atheist; I tend to leave the hating to the Christians, thanks.
Atheists, Mao, Stalin, Marx, Lenin, Pol Pot, and Mussolini were such peaceful atheists. And then there's Margaret Sanger, who is responsible for creating the largest human killing machine in history... Planned Parenthood. Such peaceful people. They wouldn't hurt a fly, but keep human beings away from them.
@@SokemRokemRobot nobody specs the Spanish Inquisition!
@@miztor7797 That's the Roman Catholic Church. That's another animal. The RCC persecuted many Christians throughout the centuries (i.e. Foxe's Book of Martyrs, etc.).
Hate is everywhere my friend.
We are the same "color" just different tones or hue.
No. Some people are blue, and others are red. Those are not the same color. Did you vote for Trump with Obama or Biden as the VP or vice versa? Obviously not. DUH!
This was a fantastic viewpoint and I just ordered the book! Can’t wait to discuss with my husband.
God bless you, so nice to see so many young people in the audience.
He is amazing and scientific. God is always right! If you think isn’t you have to study deeper to get the answer.
So sad to see young people being brainwashed.
He is not scientific, but if you want to explore the other side then you can ask me and I’ll be respectful towards you
@@rademilosavljevic5754 he is absolutely un-scientific, he just poked some valid holes in science, but never really proved anything within the bible. He just put forth his theory of how things could have happened like they were described in the bible. There is a difference between proving something actually happened and simply stating a possibility of how things may have happened.
Amen! God bless you and your family 🙏❤
DNA is The CReator Gods signature
Psalms 139:16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. This is talking about DNA!!!
@@byteme9718 Impossible. Random chance cannot even make an amino acid (millers experiment was a failure) let alone a protein. Anyway DNA was designed by an intelligence far above anything man could ever dream of. A book cannot write itself it has to have an author.
Deoxyribonucleic acid, that dna. Every single persons dna is different. So if this is gods signature he must have some amount of personalities. Do you ever read what you write. Try reading a proper non fiction .book you will learn more
@@johngurvan8279 What a ridiculous comment.
@@itsonlyme2274 hate it when you are proved wrong
i WILL SHARE THIS WITH AS MANY PEOPLE AS i CAN! THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER! WE NEED TO SHARE THE GOOD NEWS AND THE TRUTH! PEACE BE WITH YOU ALL!
WHY ARE YOU SHOUTING?
The Best concise explanations of aspects of creation I’ve seen thus far. Explanation of the East Asian eye shape was omitted; which most likely originated with Eve. Thank you.
As an atheist i don’t hate this video.
But if just confirms the evidence for a god i have heard a thousand time before and i could argue every point this charlatan has made.
Sounds like you hate Ken Ham as much as you hate Almighty God , your holy and righteous creator .
You will answer to Him when He decides to end the life He gave you on His earth .
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom .
Don’t be a godless fool !
Salvation is of the Lord .
TULIP
Who, or what created the universe?..
Why..do we resemble the God of the bible?
I don’t need to watch this to know it doesn’t prove gods existence
Double negative means you believe in a God. Is that what your comment was trying to say?
That’s not how double negatives work actually read my comment
@@giantmonkey28 LOL. So you don't believe in God.
@@t-bonewtfi don’t, that’s correct. What I tried to say in the comment was “ I don’t have to watch the video because I know I doesn’t prove god so it’s a waste of my time” sorry for the confusion lol
@@giantmonkey28 LOL. Not a problem. I agree with you.
This is the best video that Ken has ever come up with. I just wish he would slow it down a little bit and not try to cram everything into 1 hour. Love you Ken! ,😊
"Of all the things I value most of all
I look upon my Earth
And feel the warmth
And know that it is good" Spiral Architect, Black Sabbath (70s Psychedelic Blues Christian Rock Band)
God is amazing in every way! One day we see him and know forever!
You believe what you believe and that's all that matters is what you believe in no matter your religion the human mind is a pretty powerful thing with the right beliefs
*"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me"* (John 14:6)
*"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)
*"The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord"* (Romans 6:23)
@Just me I don't have "to DEMONSTRATE the truth of it," because you're doing it for me my atheist friend. *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 purpose and a capacity for "dominion" over creation (Genesis 1:26), morality and a sense of justice (Genesis 9:6), a sense of respect towards others (James 3:10), 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. I know you don't believe in God though - so how do you explain these observable qualities in you from your own atheistic "we're just chemical reactions" worldview?
"Do you believe meaningless chemicals fizzed together in a puddle, and somehow "human beings are valuable"? Or do you believe that chemicals evolved, and somehow "rape is wrong"? Animals do it all the time, and chemicals destroy each other all the time... and the atheistic worldview holds that we are evolved animals, and just chemicals... 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)
@Just me Evolving as a "social species" doesn't explain how you get from meaningless goo to valuable you from meaningless godless chemical reactions my friend. You didn't rationally answer this problem the first time, and you haven't rationally answered it here either.
Meanwhile, you're living perfectly in line with the image of the God you reject as a meaningful and valuable human being (Genesis 1:27) with a purpose and capacity for "dominion" over creation (Genesis 1:26) morality and a sense of justice (Genesis 9:6) a sense of respect for other human beings (James 3:10) and a conscience that reflects the principles of His laws (Romans 2:15) - and you reject this image just as He said you would (2 Timothy 3:5). In case this is lost on you, you are ironically living perfectly in line with the God you reject, and perfectly in contrast to your own atheistic assertions - and that is powerful evidence you can see in yourself that the God you reject exists, that He created you, and that He loved you enough to make you specially in His image and likeness.
*"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)
*"But God showed His love for us by sending His Son to die for us while we were still sinners"* (Romans 2:15)
@Just me "Social species need to care about others in their tribe for survival."
Why does "evolution" care about your survival in this chemical reaction universe? Did "Nature" or "evolution" determine that the chemical puddle we evolved from was somehow "important" and that it needed to "survive" and develop "advantages" so that it would be able to adapt and survive? Why does "evolution" or "nature" care about your survival at all...?
@Just me Even if the magic man does exist, we were left to fend for ourselves on this God-forsaken planet.
Your amazing at this i can really feel his spirit when your talking
Thank u God not that we deserve truth but people keep searching like their suppose to and it always begins and no end with u. Thank u again love Terry
The Mount St Helen’s geology lesson was particularly interesting.
And breathtakingly wrong.
It is the best explanation that i have ever heard in my entire life. It can solidify my faith in God like a diamond and can never be swayed by atheist scientific theories ever again.
Religion produce nothing, science do.
Well you obviously haven't been to the library in decades.
This is a great lesson that children as well as adults can understand. The great thing about the videos is that we can keep watching them. It actually help me understand many things and I am a Christian nurse. Thank you. And God bless you.
can’t believe this has been on youtube for 6 years. i would have bet some real money that they would have taken something like this down by now. thank God it’s still up 💛💛💛
I'm still shocked to find this
that's because you're allowed to have opinions that don't hurt other people on TH-cam.
@@Hal_142 yeah and this “hurts people” the same way the other stuff they take off “hurts people”
@@justacatfish2405 not really. half of this is a misunderstanding of science the other half is blind faith. but even then they haven't really said anything damaging or offensive aside from the last part about gay marriage.
@@Hal_142 i wasn’t referring to gay marriage i was referring to youtube taking down videos containing information they don’t like
Glad I found this video. Answer all my questions
It’s funny
How many people convert from being a
Atheist , when the pilot says we’re going
In for a crash landing .
People seek comfort in times of stress and can’t think logically. Religion is sometimes a good coping mechanism, but that doesn’t mean it is truthful.
Yet the transformation in people’s lives, freedom from addictions and promiscuous behaviors, LGBT lifestyles, supernatural healings and restoration provides irrevocable proof.
Yes fear makes people act irrationally
Praise our lord and saviour Jesus Christ. God bless everyone who reads this. Amen 🙏🏼
I had read the book, “It couldn’t just happen" which was very helpful. THIS video REALLY explains in depth, but in easy to understand language, the answers to questions many of us have had. When confronted with the Ark account, I didn’t understand, but would rationalize it in my mind by thinking that God may have made it so the animals hibernated, or (being God) he made it so the animals didn’t need to eat or poo while on the Ark…things like that. Now I can explain the truth in ways that both I and others can understand. Thank you, Ken Ham! Thank you, God, for everything you have and continue to do for us! Thank you, God, for being there for us in good times and bad.
Emily Ferris that's exactly what I think about the animals on the ark...they were ALL asleep!
@@michelleblackburn8071 …yes! Being God, He is more than capable of that!
Ohhh. So God used to be magic and help people survive catastrophic events?!?!
What's going on with starving children?!
How about.... ya know..... hurricanes?!!
Couldn't God just intercede and help a brother out?! Or is he no longer magic?! Lost his touch?
@Michelle Blackburn Sleeping?!
Even if that were true.
You saw where the Ark allegedly landed, yeah?!
So, after the flood and they crashed.... how did Kangaroos get all the way to Australia?!
Or...... how would he have gone and retrieved the Roos in the first place?!
And even if he did.... why would they go back... travelling across multiple continents and across the ocean....??!
Does that make sense?!
@@ericchin739 I respect your right not to believe in God. After all, He gave us free will so we could choose to live our lives and believe what we want. I do not denigrate you or your beliefs; I ask that you afford those of us who believe in God the same courtesy.
Well presented!To make a overall conclusion is that: believing in God and dying is much more better than dying without believing in him.
according to what I believe, it's the same 🤔🤷🏻♂️
The reason you believe in God is because deep down you hate the fact that you had to move out of your parents house, that is what I believe makes people go after God.
@@Notarabbit911 ...What?
Great clear message
This is a great message for those who are willing to listen to the evidence and critically assess their own worldview assumptions.
We're all uncritically indoctrinated into the theory of evolution today, and most people don't know how to think for themselves as a result.
@@michaelg377 Most people have never been educated in advanced biology, but indoctrinated by churches. From European perspective ist looks like one of the US-problems.
@@michaelg377 agree 💯
@@michaelg377 'uncritically indoctrinated into the theory of evolution'.. what does that mean?
Science isn't about indoctrination :-(
@@travisbicklepopsicle Science is a methodology. What you're talking about is an Ideology. We are all forced to learn the theory of evolution in our public education system from a very young age, and it's even pushed in our childrens' cartoons - we never talk about the problems and scientific difficulties it encounters like getting information from non-information, the changing story of the Coelacanth, debunked Junk DNA, the Faint Young Sun Paradox which suggests our earth would have been frozen solid when life was supposed to atheistically create itself from a puddle, "billions of years" without ever considering the unverifiable assumptions that go into radiometric dating - *time* performs the Atheist's miracles.
Science is great, but science is *limited* to measuring physical natural phenomena. It can't account for anything immaterial, like the laws of logic which exist outside of our chemical bodies and yet all of "nature" has to obey, or the metaphysical mathematically precise laws of physics which all of material nature has to follow for some reason. It also can't explain anything outside of the laws of nature - so consider this: The 1st law of thermodynamics doesn't allow energy to come from nothing "naturally." The 2nd law (entropy) says energy is always being converted into an unusable form, so energy can't just exist forever because on an eternal past time-scale it would all be used up. So if our universe couldn't have a beginning from nothing, and if it couldn't have just existed forever, then *how do you "naturally" explain the beginning of our universe?* You can't, not without invoking some kind of a Super-Natural phenomenon. Science breaks down at this point, among others.
Have you ever wondered why atheists have to invoke such wild sci-fi sounding theories to sustain their "natural" belief system? *Infinite* unobservable alternate universes, an *eternal self-existent* singularity, alternate *unobservable metaphysical* laws of nature, *pre-existent* phenomena... you have to attribute Super-Natural qualities of God to "nature" to "naturally" explain our origins, it doesn't make sense. *The only way for "nature" to create itself is if "nature" is pre-existent... like God.*
*"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."* (Romans 1:20)
The only time I have been speechless in my life was when my brains ran out my ears listening to a Christian argue that god is real. If you feel you need to prove your deity's real it's not.
That assumes that the side denying the argument is being rational and the side making the argument is not - which is simply not the case. Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just add *time* puddles can fizz themselves into people?
God help anyone who thinks Ken Ham can explain anything, no matter how fast he talks
Neither side really has a clue. But MR Ham is a snake oli salesman. And I'm a Catholic
@martinmunnelly5532 Thanks for sharing. Am not religiously inclined but would happily prefer listening in to a Catholic service or two rather than swallowing MR Ham's snakeoil
Maybe you need to listen to what he says and do some homework before spouting off your opinions. I did, and it was illuminating.
@rolfburnie9068 Perhaps you turned yourself into a burning bush with all the illumination
@@williamcritchley Maybe I'm simply more interested in learning
Definitely best argument I ever heard. Not 100% but pretty good.
We’ll it’s more of a couple of arguments put together in one video
Seen Dr Kent Hovind?
@Elliot sadly, I don't really go deep into religious conversation. I don't believe and don't really have enough knowledge on it. Plus, I'm more focused on other things. Religion is accepted, not being told.
Thank you, Mr. Ham. God has brought me to this video. Thank you, God.
Mr. Ham is a big liar. He just shamelessly makes things up. Believe me when I tell you this man is less a scholar than he pretends to be.
@Just me You're begging the question of atheism. If God did guide him there, then what you're saying is false. Or, alternatively, maybe He even used that YT algorithm for His purposes. Do you have perfect knowledge of everything in the universe, everything in existence? If not, then the best you can rationally say is "I don't *think* God led you to this video." Likewise, if you're honest, as an atheist the best you can say is "I don't *think* that God exists" - thus logically, you're not an atheist - you're an agnostic.
Honest atheists are agnostics, not atheist.
@Just me " " He even used that YT algorithm for His purposes" - Baseless assertion!"
Again, do you have perfect knowledge of everything in existence in the universe? No? Then you can't rationally say that possibility is false - the best you can *rationally* say is "I *think* that is false." Right? Are you being rational?
""as an atheist the best you can say is "I don't think that God exists"" - Which is what atheism IS. Agnosticism relates to KNOWLEDGE."
Oh, so in your knowledge you are an agnostic? You just don't know, that means there is a possibility that God exists in your worldview?
@Just me That ignores evidence of existential reality though. Again, you live perfectly in line with everything God said about you as a valuable human being made in His image and likeness (see above), and perfectly in contrast to your own "meaningless evolved protoplasm" atheistic worldview - and that is *clear evidence* you can see in yourself. *If you're an atheist (God doesn't exist) or an agnostic (you "just don't know") then why are you living perfectly in line with the God you reject?* You're just throwing that evidence out because it doesn't point to the conclusion that you want to be believe in.
*"If a man so much as looks at another woman with lustful intentions, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart"* (Matthew 5:28)
*"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"* (Romans 3:23)
@Just me The fact that you say you're an atheist (doesn't believe in God) and agnostic (just "doesn't know") but then you choose to live perfectly in line with everything Scripture says about the image and likeness of God in you is powerful evidence you can see in yourself that your atheistic and agnostic worldview are false biases, and that He exists and created you. I'm showing you existential evidence you can see in yourself my friend. You say "I don't know if there is a god or not but I don't BELIEVE in one," meanwhile you choose to perfectly corroborate God's existence while living in contrast to your own "chemical reaction" version of our origins. It's a beautiful thing if you honestly think about why you do the things you do as an atheist.
*"So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."* (Genesis 1:27)
*"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"* (Romans 3:23)
*"But God showed His love for us by sending His Son to die for us while we were still sinners"* (Romans 5:8)
*"Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God"* (John 1:12)
When you say "God... places ZERO value on human beings" what are your thoughts on these verses above? He made you in His image and likeness, you rebelled against Him, and He paid your fine in His own blood in your place for free because He loves you, and just for "receiving Him" He offers you eternal life and to bring you in as one of His own children. How do you reconcile your statement ("ZERO value on human beings") with these four verses?
Young earth Creationists: "Samson had magical hair of super strength, Adam and Eve were made from clay and inbred, donkeys talked, snakes talked, virgins had babies, dinosaurs rode on noahs ark. People were raised from the dead using magical powers. Women should be silent in the church. "
Also Creationists: " The fossil record, evolutionary biology, geologic column, deep time, distant starlight are lies and part of a global conspiracy against my beliefs of a literal interpretation of a religious book written in the bronze age"
Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, that puddles of chemicals can fizz into people if you just add time, that you are literally related to a banana, a cockroach, and a worm? That you were also made from clay and inbred - by accident? Nothing created everything accidentally with mathematical precision for no reason...? That you have the same amount of value as a dirt clod on the side of the road, which likewise evolved by natural processes just like you in this meaningless universe that doesn't care...? With respect, you have some very basic misconceptions about what Scripture actually says, not to mention the many incredible issues in your own worldview.
Let me ask you something... Charles Darwin met the gold standard of science (a methodology) by giving a testable hypothesis for his theory, saying "if an *organ* were discovered which could not possibly be explained 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
Evolution is an OBSERVED FACT
Descent with modification HAPPENS
Why are you denying REALITY?
Is it because all you have left to defend your deluded nonsense is LIES?
@@captaingaza2389 *All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12,* and literally the ONLY thing we observe is biblical speciation within each creature's kind (finches > finches, dogs > dogs, bacteria > bacteria...) never even ONCE a change between kinds (Fish > Philosopher, Coelacanth > Tetrapod, Dinosaur > Chicken...). You didn't answer the question above, and that's important: *How did male and female evolve?* Until you can rationally answer this question, per Darwin, evolution is "absolutely breaking down..." *Did you know that the Theory of Evolution (and atheistic-Naturalism in general) shares characteristics of a religion?*
In 1982 in a federal court in Arkansas it was ruled that Creationism can't be taught in schools because "it is not falsifiable." With its history of rewriting itself every time we discover a new problem with it, what would it take to "falsify" evolution today? Hundreds of Living fossils? Allegedly millions of year extinct creatures still alive today? Finding fully developed vertebrates in the Cambrian explosion? Discovering that numerous allegedly "vestigial" organs actually have a purpose? Finding an alleged 70 million year extinct evolutionary predecessor to land-dwelling tetrapods still alive today with no signs of evolution? Young soft tissues in a growing number of dinosaur fossils that appear similar to 4000 year old mummies and the Tyrolean ice man? An ankylosaurus buried among sea creatures in a place where it's not supposed to be, or the Trilobite showing up in the Cambrian and in all other layers with some incredibly complex eyes - showing up suddenly and fully developed in the lowest layers of the fossil record? *Did you know that secular scientists recently debunked evolutionist claims of "junk DNA"?*
....or do we just reinterpret all of this evidence against evolution to sustain this naturalistic (atheistic) origins story? Should we hold evolution to the same *religious* standard?
*"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.
@@michaelg377
Nope
Male and female sexes evolved from mutations in hermaphroditic ancestors
If you read more than one book this wouldn’t be such a pathetic question
It seems you have little to no knowledge on evolution, so what do you decide to do instead?
Tell LIES, lots and lots of LIES!!!
Creationists can no longer defend their deluded beliefs honestly which is simply a reflection that their ideology and theology is bankrupt of any truth.
@@captaingaza2389 That's because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers. You just ignored a LOT of scientific evidence above my friend. You also didn't answer the question, Darwin's testable hypothesis concerns the *organs* - anyone can tell a story that says "hermaphrodites turned into male and female" but that doesn't explain these two separate, precision tuned systems with numerous single points of failure "by numerous, successive, slight modifications" that all have to be "just right" or reproduction, life, and evolution fail. *"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded... The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time... Some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record... have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."* (D. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50, no 1 (1979), 25)
What are your thoughts on some of those scientific evidences above? Those are examples of problems with evolution, and many specifically concerning how evolution has failed to be predictive (as scientific theories are supposed to be) and so we just rewrote the belief system instead. You believe in "evidence," don't you...?
About a century ago we taught evolution as "the truth." Since then it has undergone numerous radical ad-hoc readjustments as we've discovered more and more problems with it, 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 ones are the lies?*
There is so much misinformation it's actually tiring to listen to.
They just keep saying incorrect things without explanation like please stop.
I guess the title is pretty accurate.
What incorrect things?
@@juvenalgutierrez9843 How about the part about information, macro evolution has been observed countless times which actually does add information. How about birth defects, those are just mutations that have gone wrong which also add new information and if a birth defect gives someone a survival advantage that new information will survive.
Also how has the Bible been confirmed to be historically accurate?
Is it just because a lot of people were inspired by God to write the Bible?
As you could say that with almost all Religions and they can't all be true.
How about misrepresenting the view of Richard Dawkins, saying he believes we came from an alien planet, no he just said that is a possibility but life had to start somehow.
Also they completely misrepresent what is needed for life to form, as this pastor has no understanding of the theory of evolution which I could go into but I really can not be bothered right now.
@@Jon99ay My friend, that's because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers. We are all uncritically indoctrinated into this mythology as young children today, so it's no wonder there's so much confusion... *All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12* without evolution, and if you understand science (a methodology) you understand the implications of a competing explanation. Charles Darwin gave a testable hypothesis for his theory, saying *"if an organ were discovered which could not possibly be explained by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down..."* ... *If evolution is true, then how did male and female evolve?*
Before you answer, consider that we're talking about *two separate, yet interdependent sets of organs* that had to evolve "by numerous, successive, slight modifications" (Darwin) and which are precision tuned with numerous single-points of failure. 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, life, and evolution to fail?
@@michaelg377 I guess it is convenient for you to ask me how exactly the male and female sexes evolved as this happened so long ago that we don't really know exactly how it split in the first place but it will have been for sure a slow progress from countless of small changes over time.
I can tell you a reasonable explanation as to why the sexes evolved, and that is for a species to have a male and a female sex where one reserves the task to fertilize and the other to create a copy with those genes is beneficial evolutionarily speaking. This is especially true the larger the species become as the cost of being able to fertilize and copy yourself becomes greater. This is why almost all hermaphrodites (species that are both male and female) are small insects like earthworms, although there are some fish species that have this trait as well.
So as to how theoretically this split can occur is in species that are both male and female, mutations occur and they happen all the time.
all that needs to happen to start this split is that there needs to be a mutation that makes some portion of the seeds for further reproductions more suitable for either the male's or the female's task in reproduction. This can come at the cost of being worse in the task of the other sex.
Either way it goes the next generation of those more capable of the task of either the male or the female task in reproduction is more likely to reproduce than those not with this given mutation. And over time over countless of more mutations we can start to see how it is possible for a species to completely split into male and female as those species that have this split are more likely to reproduce.
Now as for your comments on the placenta, blood separation and the other stuff regarding how detailed and well put together this is.
This is just a pure appeal to complexity, just because it's very complex and you don't understand how evolution could bring these things about does not mean it could not have happened.
Your comment on how "evolution had to SIMULTANEOUSLY get all of these just right" for life not to fail shows your ignorance of this subject as firstly this is not really true as there are still many flaws with the human body and a bunch of other species and just to mention one that we have left behind from evolution. Wisdom teeth are a massive problem for a big portion of our population and the reason this is the case is that over the last few thousand centuries humans evolved to have smaller jaws. This is because we have lost the need for our big strong jaws as our ancestors learned how to cook meat with fire, and that makes it easier to chew, swallow and digest, but still we have these teeth left for our smaller jaws and there is not enough space for them.
Additionally we know that more than 99% of species that have ever lived on this planet are extinct we and other species are just what is left. Saying the evolution had to get all these things simultaneously just right as if this is an unbelievable thing shows your disregard for the bias we have. We are the ones that survived when evolution which is actually just random mutations doesn't get it right, either the individual within the species containing any bad mutation/s will either not manage to reproduce or their offspring will not be able to reproduce or just the species can go extinct. We live in a harsh world, which we now as humans have a hard time seeing with our modern life comforts but in nature only the fittest survive and only the fittest manage to reproduce. Which means our ancestors over millions of generations have mostly been the ones that have been the most successful in surviving and reproducing. Which can easily explain why we are so well "designed".
Anyway I guess I am not going to convince you of anything today as you are deeply convinced of your nonsense and you just copy paste these ridiculous responses everywhere, not really sure what the goal of that is... Just wanted to type this response out, have a nice day.
@@Oldtinear ...what do you mean, you don't believe that humans have fish ancestry? That's a staple doctrine of evolution...?
*"We are fish"* (P.Z. Myers, PhD, Associate Professor of Biology, University of Minnesota Morris)
*"Human Ears Evolved from Ancient Fish Gills"* (Bjorn Carey, Live Science, 2006)
With respect, shouldn't you know what your own belief system entails my friend?
But no - fish don't evolve into philosophers, puddles of chemicals don't atheistically fizz into people no matter how much *time* you add to the mix, and "Big Bangs" don't produce immaterial metaphysical mathematically precise laws that all of matter obeys for no reason. That's a mythology; that's not how "science" works.
*"This is what the Lord says: ‘If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth"* (Jeremiah 33:25)
Powerful Video To The Glory Of God. Clear Presentation That Confirms The Bible Is True. Thank You Dr Ken Ham. God Bless You For Sharing This Excellent Post. Keep Shining For Jesus. Amen. Pastor Ben Soon.
I have been doubting here lately so this is what I needed since I’m at a difficult stage of my life
@@JJDOSTUFF1111 Not only Ken Hamm, but Mike Winger as well is a wonderfully smart person. His youtube channel is named after him. He does great apologetics and theology. I'll be praying.
*_God Bless_*
Pastor Ben, can you tell me what empirical evidence Mr Ham gives that confirms the bible is true?
@Tbone
Yes there is
The puddle is amazed at how perfectly it fits in the pothole.
I am not sure if this was meant sarcastically, but if so, well done! Made me laugh ^^
Amazing the video says evolution doesn't happen - but demonstrates all the evidence for evolution does happen.
If you think that, I recommend you re-watch it. Literally the ONLY evidence we have is for biblical speciation within each creature's kind (Dogs > dogs, finches > finches, etc.) never once a change between kinds (Coelacanth > tetrapods, fish > philosophers, dinosaurs > chickens, etc.). All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12.
*"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."* Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission
@@michaelg377 Are all creatures still eukaryotes? Once eukaryotes diverge they can become anything in the classification. Do changes occur at the cellular level - of course they do.
@@wolfie5 That's because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers - I don't have enough faith to share that belief... Again, we only observe biblical speciation within each creature's kind (dogs > dogs, finches > finches, etc.) never a change between kinds as evolution requires (coelacanth > tetrapods, fish > philosophers, etc.). Let me ask you this: Charles Darwin gave a testable hypothesis for his theory, saying *"if an organ were discovered which could not possibly be explained by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down..."* ... If evolution is true, *how did male and female evolve?*
Before you answer, consider that we're talking about *two separate, yet interdependent sets of organs* that had to evolve "by numerous, successive, slight modifications" (Darwin) and which are precision tuned with numerous single-points of failure. You have to explain the *organs* in keeping with this testable hypothesis. 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" - keeping in mind that many women can't get pregnant today due to very real medical conditions like these?
*"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)
These claims were all destroyed before this video was ever published.
Thank you, this should be in our schools. It's not telling you who is or how to worship, you have to decern the who and the how. With this you can,more easily.
exactly. that is the point of God programming us with the act of freewill. it is a true test of ones ability to discern and display our God given conscience. science has never been able to explain where our sense of morality derives from. God is a master at everything and scientists have been infiltrating His creations for quite some time, even going after the "god particle", which is simply nature. we are all malleable. science wouldnt exist without nature (God) and of course, we wouldnt exist without God. it seems so much more simple yet when you attempt to have these sort of conversations with pro science minds they just laugh and mock you, which proves they cannot produce an argument with objectives. all of science is perceived, not proven without including nature.
Absolutely! They took God out of schools and we can put him back in even if people don't want to do that, at least we could take the religion of evolution out.
@@summerd7668 I don't know what country you're from, but in the United States it is unlawful to do what you are suggesting.
It is perfectly acceptable to pray in public schools, but we certainly cannot mandate the teaching of one religion over any other, since there are millions and millions of public school students, and they certainly all do not worship the same god or follow the same belief system.. this is one of the reasons why separation of church and state is very, very important.
How would you feel if Hinduism, or some religion other than yours, was taught in public schools? In order to push one religion over all others, and teach it as truth in public schools, the United States would have to become a theocracy. Do you really think that would be a good idea?
There's a time and a place for everything, and public schools are not the place to teach religious beliefs, unless it's a comparative religions course, or part of a history course or something. There are places to go to learn about, and be taught that one specific religion is the one true religion, and those places are called, 'churches'.
Would you want biology or some other field of science to be taught in Sunday School? I wouldn't, because churches are not the places to go to learn about science.
I'm not going to say anything about the 'evolution religion' part of your comment, because it makes no sense.. (perhaps it doesn't make any sense because you learned about the subject in church).
@TravisBickle Popsicle You should review your history and the separation of church and state. Evolution theory is absolutely a religion and that is the one taught in schools. What I learned in church was to ask questions and when you ask enough of them, you find that science and God are not in opposition. God created the laws of the universe and us with the ability to understand them. There is more evidence for God and only a fool would continue to deny Him and remove Him from the reality that He created.
@@summerd7668 the theory of evolution, or evolutionary theory / the modern synthesis, is a scientific theory.
Maybe there is a God, maybe there isn't. I have no idea. That's got nothing to do with evolutionary theory or any other scientific theory.
Since you are proclaiming that this particular scientific theory is actually a religion, which is kind of weird but whatever, maybe you could define evolutionary theory? Can you even define *scientific theory*?
Nah, nvm.
For those who have Faith, no explanation is needed.
Wrong, explanation is in the bible. Clearly you don’t read because of you false claim
That's right people of faith do not question and are dead inside consequently.that is why faith is a dead end.
I find that most Christians are very questioning. That is why we come back to the conclusion that God is a creator God.
I am so glad I came across this video as a new Christian doubting my faith time to time. To simply put it for all of you guys watching this video; think of god as the pushing force of a dominos effect. There has to be SOMEONE that pushes one domino for the others to fall into place
If you're willing to believe the stuff AiG put out, your "faith" is in no danger as you are already impervious to reality.
@@richardgregory3684 Is that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just add copious amounts of *Time* puddles can fizz into people by chance?
*"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.)
*"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)
yesterday's history tomorrow is a mystery it's called the present because it's a gift from God
Um no that's a quote from master Oogway thank you very much from the amazing 2008 film Kung Fu panda 🐼
Ken does a great job in this video, I wish more churches and schools were wise enough to use his material, instead it is apparent the world runs to embrace lies so much so many schools teach the fiction of evolution better then most churches teach the truth of creation.
***IS THAT SO?***
Forget, carbon, dating. Do you think you have more than 200 ancestor to Adam and eve? If so, that means the world order than 6000 years. 😂
So you want schools teaching religion down vulnerable children's throats so that they believe because if you try to teach them after they grow they will think about it and probably not believe?
There’s more physical proof of evolution than god! There’s no proof anything in the Bible is true, it’s all based on faith!
@@painreliefspc carbon dating is clearly a sham, it wouldn't prove a god so it's clearly a lie.
I wanted to comment under this video for anyone who identifies as atheist or agnostic because I wanted to assure anyone who doesn’t know, that God is very very much real. Jesus is the son of God, I’ve heard his voice and felt Holy Spirits presence, all you have to do is make an effort to go to church this Sunday or the next, pray and be open to accepting the truth in a very way. The truth is the word of God which is the Bible. I swear on my life and every single person in my family’s life that God is very much real and knows everything about you. I don’t know what else to say to convince as many people as I can of the truth but this comment is very real, as real as the clouds in the sky, the soil in the ground and every sunset he’s ever made. He made you, he knows you, he’s with you even now as you read this, sometimes there’s a plan and it includes his silence. He is the King of Kings and we are all his children. You are loved beyond comprehension and if you’re reading this it means you’re very very blessed.
There are millions of Muslims and Hindus who would say exactly the same thing about Allah and Lord Shiva,. You can;t all be right. But you can all be wrong. The Argument of Personal Conviction is a logical fallacy.
@@richardgregory3684Fruits and roots. They know Jesus, still deny him as the lord. Quoran, torah and kabbalah come from Babylon.
Do your research.
@@richardgregory3684 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* then puddles of chemicals can turn themselves into people? *The real God is the one that even Atheists live in accordance with as if He programmed them.*
For example, 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 respect towards others (James 3:10), 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 "r@pe" always wrong in your worldview, or is it sometimes morally permissible - and why?* Where does that come from in your "we're just chemicals" 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)
Great presentation. Thank you!
I'm so glad I found this video. Excellent.
*_God Bless_*
@Tbone
Yes there is
Hartelijk dank voor deze heldere en duidelijke uiteenzetting
Verfrissend is dit geluid voor mij
Moge het vele broeders en zusters helpen en vrijmoedigheid geven om open hier over te spreken
God zij geprezen door deze video