Atheists LOVE to Boast This So-Called “Proof” of Evolution
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 มิ.ย. 2024
- Atheists LOVE to boast this so-called “proof” for evolution, but there’s just one problem… In this video, Calvin Smith exposes the exaggerated nature of evolutionists’ stories, and emphasizes the reliability of the biblical creation account.
Subscribe to us for more high-quality biblical videos every week.
Love our content? Help us to continue to proclaim the gospel and the authority of the Bible-from the very first verse-without compromise using apologetics by partnering with us here: answersingenesis.ca/donate
_____________
🔹 DIGGING DEEPER: Want deeper answers to your theological questions? Visit answersingenesis.org/answers
🔹 BLOG: See Calvin Smith’s weekly apologetics articles here: answersingenesis.org/blogs/ca...
🔹 FREE e-BOOK: Sign up for our email newsletter and get a free copy of Calvin’s eBook, “Fellow Biblical Creationists! - STOP Doing These 3 Things…” answersingenesis.lpages.co/fe...
🔹ANSWERS TV: Get equipped to defend the gospel of Jesus Christ and the truth of God’s Word with live and on-demand video content from Answers in Genesis, the Ark Encounter, Creation Museum, and other Ministries worldwide. Start your free trial today at www.answers.tv
_____________
SOCIAL MEDIA
🔹 Facebook: / answerscanada
🔹 Calvin Smith: / aigcalvinsmith
🔹 Instagram: / answerscanada
🔹 X (formerly Twitter): x.com/AnswersCanada
🔹 TikTok: / answersingenesisca
_____________
Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from The ESV® Bible (The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. - ยานยนต์และพาหนะ
In my 65 years of life I’ve watched every single icon of evolution crumble to dust. Every new “proof” retracted, and never with any apology or sense of shame.
No, you really haven't. Millions of pieces of evidence for evolution have held up just fine and more are produced every day.
@jockyoung4491 can you specifically name them?
@@sunset6958, Google "Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academic Sciences" at the NIH National Library of Medicine and you will be able to "specifically name" plenty of them. I was an anti-evolution Young Earth Creationist until my retirement, when I finally had the time to investigate evolutionary processes. I marvel at God's power and genius in creating a biosphere that continually adapts and evolves and which continues to create new species. We can trust what God has so clearly revealed in his scriptures and in his creation. I consider evolutionary processes among the most impressive of all God's creative works. So I wish you God's blessings as you earnestly seek the answers to your question.
@@sunset6958
Yes, and I have done so many times on here. But don't take my word for it. The evidence for evolution is easily available in many place on the internet.
@@joefriday2275 Joe, haven't we been over this before? You've already admitted to accepting evolution, even if you _immediately_ backtracked.
It's funny how some athiests hang out on overtly Christian TH-cam channels to mock and hate on the God they apparently don't believe in. Is it they just don't have any hobbies or any friends?😂
Not an atheist, but I'm pretty sure they don't hang out on this page. They are driven to it by the deliberately provocative (click-bait like) titles. Titles that clearly encourage debate.
@@Skovydbut why would that video pop up for them. Because they click on them type of videos
No, they just don't like the lies of so-called creationists.
@coolhawk2003
Yes. They click on them because of the inflammatory titles. For example I watch a lot of science content, so these videos pop up a lot on my feed. The titles are provocative and confrontational, so I check them out, curious to hear the argument
@@SkovydThey're not just haters drawn in by the titles, they also subscribe so they can be the first ones to attempt to criticize Calvin's very well thought out videos exposing lies about evolution made up claims.
"How many other lies have I been told by the Council?"
Memes aside, I believed things that my public school teachers taught me while I also believed what my parents taught me. Yet, if the two contradict, they can't both be correct. I had no definitive assurance of the invalidity of Evolution due to not knowing the exact details of how supporters framed information and how they asserted their views as "history". I remember when my mom mentioned the soft tissue issue, but couldn't understand then what it meant. I needed to see "the man behind the curtain".
Darwinism as a pure science theory doesn't bother me. What does is how survival of the fittest ideas evolved into social darwinism, used to justify the worst ethnic cleansing atrocities of recent 100 years history.
The dictatorial god-state hunger games are a blight on humanity. They just excuse their doing as natural law. It is not and social darwinism is accoubtable. It stopped being a science and is now this death cult.
I'm fairly convinced the detractors visiting Calvin's posts are really just jealous of his fabulous wardrobe. 😇
And graceful aging; this man has multiple grandchildren and yet still looks to be finishing up his 40s.
Maybe it's the wardrobe. I tend to think they come to his posts because at their core, they know evolution is bogus, but their religion, science, doesn't allow them to admit it.
@@SavedbyGraceAlone1962
If that were true than this is the LAST place they would come.
i've always admired that him as well as his love for truth...
@@BobbyRHicks The only think Calvin loves is the donations from the gullible his lies about evolution bring in.
Jesus I seek you everyday. Even when I feel like giving up. I will keep faith. As a single mother. I’m struggling to make ends meet. My husband passed years ago. I have no one to turn to but you Lord JESUS. Both of my sons are special needs and require so much from me. Lord I’m afraid. Every month I struggle trying to provide for my children struggling to pay rent and to buy groceries. Lord help me and hear my prayers. Amen. 🙏🏾💕
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. 15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together. 18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time [are] not worthy [to be compared] with the glory which shall be revealed in us. (Romans 8:14-18, KJV) Praying for your family.
“Prayer, in my opinion, is an act of doubt, not an act of faith. If you truly trusted your god’s plan, you wouldn’t pray for anything.” Michael Sherlock
@@mirandahotspring4019and that is his understanding of prayer, does not mean it is God's understanding of prayer. You are not a God believer, but I see you appear in every videos which talk about God and commented things that would lead other people away from God. You are not atheist, you are God haters. Satan is having you work hard for him, and you don't even know it.
@@binhanh296 I don't hate what doesn't exist! I'm mocking your god, there's a difference!
@@binhanh296 You believe in satan, how silly. Do you believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa as well?
I don't need "proof", or even knowledge as much as I need "grace". Grace alone is the best of gifts. I want to make sure I open my gift up, instead of just letting it sit there looking pretty as a picture, and that only if I ever came close enough to see that it was right there.
Grace is meant to be showed and shared! 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. -Ephesians 2:8-9 (KJV) GOD shows you Grace, therefore, go and do likewise!
If you need to lie to make your point, you have none. The mistake Christians made was turning from Jesus’s love and became authoritarian.
Are you calling this guy authoritarian? How is he authoitarian?
@@user-dt2hp9wy5q He’s lying to you to prove a point that has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus. The people who wrote the Bible didn’t have the luxury of knowing what we know now. Unfortunately, they wrote it in a book and said God wrote it. That starts with a lie right there. The original message was love each other. And I see the far right Christians as the most hate filled, gullible people i experience day to day. The real question is WHY did the Christian church move the message? MONEY!
Bro, what?
THANK YOU. Don't vote and try to force your beliefs on others.
@@monotech20.14 Hypocrisy, you just did what you told me not to. You must be Christian.
I just watched a so-called documentary covering how a wolf became a whale so it could eat in the oceans. Then, millions of years later, the whale decided to go back on land and become a wolf again.
- Yes, that’s a very quick overview
- Umm, I’m not buying it. It doesn’t make sense.
- please continue with your videos. May God bless you and yours
- Much love and respect from Oklahoma City!!
_Umm, I’m not buying it. It doesn’t make sense._
Gotta love those arguments from incredulity.
No scientist has ever claimed any of those things.
@@jockyoung4491 Do you know what evolution even is? The theory states a fish became a dinosaurs and birds and eventually turned to humans with out explaining how or why it happens. Just million, billions or trillions of years. Also failed to provide the mid transition species showing non-functioning transition body parts on their way (*in a million years time*) to a different fully functioning creature. Evolution simply is creature 1 looks a little bit like creature 2, so 1 transformed into 2 just needed 1 million years.
@@MrTerrakb117 You're a great example of why we need more and better science education.
@samburns3329 and as expected, all you can do is provide an adhominum attack instead of answering the question. If it's scientific there should be an answer, but no, just try to shut down the argument. Considering there is no answer that's all you can do.
4:28: "No design, no purpose..." Dawkins is so depressing!
Yet they live opposite to what they say.
"There is something infantile in the presumption that somebody else has a responsibility to give your life meaning and point… The truly adult view, by contrast, is that our life is as meaningful, as full and as wonderful as we choose to make it.” - Richard Dawkins
Sometimes, reality can be disheartening, but this doesn't diminish the validity of evolution.
Without Christ there is no hope. He sounds hopeless.
@@TLK-tx8so the "validity of evolution", a fairy tale that can't even explain it's own origin
I love this! I want to share it with my 5th grade and up VBS class. Thank you for this work you do! You share amazing information that I don't see anywhere else❤
This is a good example of how to manipulate viewers. That is all. Tik was found in the location it was predicted to be found in, in the time period it was predicted to be found in, and it has the morphology expected of it. Triple win for science. Please stop creating science deniers. It isn't good for the future of our planet.
So you want to spread lies to children.
That literally violates "Separation of the church from state." Also what he is saying is completely false.
You are lucky you don't live in my country.
This would be very illigal (not to mention unethical) do to here.
@@jodyjohnston2899Atheist Cope
The accusations are always on the front page. The retractions usually make page 7.
That's if a retraction occurs at all.
No retraction was needed as the vast majority of this video is outright lies that Calvin and AIG have been corrected on and shown the evidence on multiple times.
Tiktaalik was the earliest, and now we found several more earlier transitional forms with even more fish like features. That doesn’t make Tiktaalik less useful. AIG will forever lie about tiktaalik because of how much it shows the predictive power of evolution. We predicted what features a creature should have, if found in that aged layer of rock, in that location because it was between two other layers that had fish below it and land creatures above it.
The odds of finding it if the underlying assumptions were false are astronomical.
Men will try to recuse themselves from the Heavenly Rule, but God just laughs ...Psalm 2
So true, he is narcistic and despotic individual, with all that powet
@@anttisalminen1110
This is talking about you
Isaiah 45:9 New International Version (NIV)
“Woe to those who quarrel with their Maker, those who are nothing but potsherds among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, 'What are you making? ' Does your work say, 'The potter has no hands'?
😂
@@sunset6958 when you look at it, it does
@@sunset6958 if we only knew our make, from the illution
atheist arguments that gods judgement or law is erroneous are not actually meant to argue that if god does exist we shouldnt be subjugated to him but rather to make an argument against his existence on the basis of apparent logical or philosophical error in the ideas of what god is.
why would someone who doesnt believe in god care about if the god they dont believe in should be able to rule over them after all?
Thank you keep up the good work
Start* the good work.
Thank you Calvin 🎉
something wrong with your bible?
Frog becomes Prince = Fairytale Frog plus millions of years becomes Prince = Science
now is there some rational criticism against the theory?
you dont understand science ✔
@@luish1498 Please explain
@@kb9gkc «Frog becomes Prince = Fairytale» we all agree with that.
«Frog plus millions of years becomes Prince = Science»
if this is not sarcasm then you dont know what you are talking about.
tell me were scince says a frog will become human?
common ancestor between modern day frog and prince has descendants which are subject to processes which lead to the thriving of organisms which mutate new and unique features which happen to suit their environmental needs and leads to the death of organisms which mutate unhelpful or disadvantageous new features*
you were pretty close though! next time try scientific publications rather than pokemon go.
Tiktalik is a great story. That is why the story had legs...
Joking aside, any scrutiny of evolution stories shows that they are just a silly and unfounded as you might guess. Because it was found where one would expect, they think it was a great prediction.. what they do not say is that creatures with similar features are always found in the same geological layers. There is nothing remarkable about it and where it was found in the "geological column". There are plenty of evidences that do not make the case viable for evolution, just bias looking for backing once again
_what they do not say is that creatures with similar features are always found in the same geological layers._ What is your "Flood" explanation for why early tetrapods are only found in the middle Devonian strata?
@@sciencerules2825 I would be curious as to how many examples of tetrapods in these layers have been found, and where else they have been found but classified 'conveniently'
@@Stifle9 Where have you researched? What scientific papers and/or books on the subject have you read? The late paleontologist Jenny Clack was a specialist in tetrapod evolution. Her 2012 book *Gaining Ground* has a good overview of tetrapod finds although it is now a bit out of date.
@@Stifle9
There are hundreds of species of tetrapod fossils found from the millions of years before and after Tiktaalik, showing obvious progression toward land adaptations.
You seem to be basing your opinion on limited information. Is this on purpose?
Amen AIG 🙏 God's word will stand firm to the end. The word of man is not greater than God's word.
Of course you will. You’re a sycophant.
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
Romans 15:4
For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.
Romans 10:17
So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
Matthew 24:35
Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
Yeah, evolutionists never get into the Nitty Gritty details of evolution.
There are over 3 million published scientific paper with the "nitty gritty details" of evolution. What details have you looked for?
@@sciencerules2825 What animal species today is in the process of changing into a completely new species?
@@MegaTechno2000 Ring species like the _Ensatina_ salamanders are in the process of evolving into multiple unique species.
@@MegaTechno2000does a pug look like a wolf to you genuinely
It has so much differences from a wolf because of evolution
@@sciencerules2825
Variations of...........
....... a salamander !
Profound qoutation of scripture at the end. Rings so true, especially in the days we live in! The word of the LORD endures forever!
so what do you need this chump's videos for?
Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
Hebrews 2:1
Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it.
Isaiah 40:8
The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.
John 17:17
Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.
does quoting it help alleviate the fear it's make believe?
@@AMC2283 quoting it is powerful because it isn't the mere words of man.
It is God's word. God speaking to us. His creation.
@@IAMhassentyou quoting them is powerful? So the theory of evolution makes you feel powerless?
@@AMC2283 not at all. Not what I said. In fact, quite the opposite. Why would I feel powerless when I wield a weapon that absolutely obliterates it?
@@IAMhassentyou so the theory of evolution would make you feel powerless if you didn’t know the magic words out of your spell book to refute the evil biologists?
As always, SO well done! Spot On☝️
As always complete bullshit
Every square pixel of this video was a lie. Just because it wasn't the first does not make it a false Transitional form.
@@Jewonastick yet you still keep coming back. Lol
@@jodyjohnston2899 pretty sure that isn't the argument that was presented. Lol
@@Abidingingrace-zf3tr Yeah, probably for the same reason why people look at road accidents when they pass by
Trillion dollar reward to any atheisss who can create one thing they say a mindless big bang made
You should first actually get your question correct.
The big bang didn't create anything.
When you think of it in terms of an explosion (eventho it wasn't its an inflation event).
The big bang is the explosion not the explosive. Its an event not a thing.
Cosmic evolutionists say the Big Bang created elements through a process called Big Bang nucleosynthesis, which occurred between a few seconds and a few minutes after the Big Bang.
They say the Big Bang created hydrogen and helium, then the hydrogen and helium formed stars, and later, when these early stars exploded, they created all the heavier elements found in later stars.
Of course, all of this is ridiculous, and there's ZERO evidence for it.
The James Webb telescope didn't see any early stars or young galaxies.
Another cosmic evolution failure.
In reality, everything was created at once.
@aidanya1336 so you and your classmates loose again did me phrase it right write rite
Whatever creator other then GOD you call mom thats the one you cant copy
@@jameshale6401 Nothing like christian love ey. You are doing an amazing job advocating for your faith. keep it up.
@aidanya1336 its so loving the way large groups of atheisss gather together to listen to speakers rattle on and on about a GOD they dont think exist
But on the way to the atheisss church
Now you do know drug addicts and drunks exist but you dont stop on your way to atheisss church to convince them of anything now thats love
The true christian is tougher on themself then any atheisss could be but you never got to know a real one
You cant do or say what you want and the end result be the same
No collector of that trillion anytime soon
And are you going to ask GOD who created him on judgment day
Tough love aint easy but love never is
It's not a missing link. As it isn't half of one and half of another. It's one Species.
Of course it is. All fossils represent one viable species, even when they are transitional
It’s a fish with legs and a flexible neck.
The theory of evolution predicted it would be there.
@@jockyoung4491 whats the Chihuahua transitioning too?
@@MrTerrakb117
We don't know yet. Maybe it will change a lot in the future; maybe not. Evolution has no goals. Species inevitably change slowly over time. But at any given moment, it is just another species doing its thing. It only looks like a "transition" when we look back in time.
@@MrTerrakb117
We don't know how it might change in the future. Evolution has no goals. Species always change gradually over time, but at any given moment they are just another species, doing its thing. It only looks like a "transition" when we look back in time.
Want to see a creationist win the 1K, 5K, and 10K foot races at the Paris Olympics? Just drive behind him in a car holding a scientific paper and asking him to read it. 🤣🤣😅😅😂😂
@@joefriday2275 *ZERO* % of Nobel Prizes have been awarded to work supporting Creationism.
@@joefriday2275 Wrong again troll. The 2022 Nobel Prize in Physiology / Medicine was awarded to Svante Pääbo for his discoveries concerning the genomes of extinct hominins and human evolution.
@@joefriday2275 We've sequenced the genomes of both Neanderthals and Denisovans you ignorant troll. 😅
_Ape genomes are different from humans._ Yes, by about 1.2% 🙂
@@sciencerules2825 Your information is outdated my friend. "The higher-quality human genome assemblies have often been used to guide the final stages of nonhuman genome projects, including the order and orientation of sequence contigs and, perhaps more importantly, the annotation of genes. This bias has effectively “humanized” other ape genome assemblies." (Kronenberg, Z. N. et al. 2018. High-resolution comparative analysis of great ape genomes. Science. 360 (6393).
*“the percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 84.38%” and “4.06% had no alignment to the chimp assembly.”* (Richard Buggs, PhD, University of London's specialist in evolutionary genomics).
Time is not helping these classic evolutionary claims. The ape and human genomes have gone from "99% similar" to closer to 80%, and scientists admit that they "humanized the ape genome" (ie. they acted with unscientific evolutionary bias)... which is what creation advocates have been saying all along.
@@sciencerules2825 Also, you should watch these videos - one of them offered a few other examples IRT the debunked ape-human genome alleged similarity that evolutionists still claim.
[Regarding Human-Chimp DNA similarity]: "There is a 13.3% difference in sections of our immune systems when insertions and deletions are considered." (Anzai, et. a., "Comparative Sequencing of Human and Chimpanzee MHC Class 1 Regions Unveils Insertions/Deletions as the Major Path to Genomic Divergence," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100, no. 13 (2003).
"The chimpanzee genome was 12% larger than the human genome... gene copy numbers revealed a 6.4% difference" (Jeffery Demuth, et al., "the Evolution of Mammalian Gene Families," 2006).
[Regarding Human-Chimp DNA similarity]: "There is a 17.4% difference in gene expression in the cerebral cortex" (Jon Cohen, "Relative Differences: the Myth of 1%" Science 316, no. 5833, 2007).
I know bugger all about Evolution but I'm an Atheist because I am without any belief whatsoever in any God.
But you believe in the story of evolution regardless…
Well if as you said if you know all about buggering, that's all you need to know about evolution.
I think God is keeping you an athiest for that good reason.
Did anybody else notice that he never debunked Tiktaalik as evidence for evolutions? He didn't even try!
10:48 He did right here. Try to watch the whole video next time.
@@markfry4304Watched it. Are you saying that _overstating the significance_ of the transition fossil refutes evolution?
@@steveOCalley No, showing that tetrapods existed long before tiktaalik, according to in-house (standard evolutionist framework) dating methods, was to the evolutionist community proof enough that tiktaalik isn't the transitional form they were looking for. Then, the video cited scientists arriving at that conclusion in their own words.
@@steveOCalley
To creatards it does!
@@lukejones5272
"showing that tetrapods existed long before tiktaalik, according to in-house (standard evolutionist framework) dating methods, was to the evolutionist community proof enough that tiktaalik isn't the transitional form they were looking for"
No, child. Showing that there were precursors, even transitional ones, does not in any way change the fact that Tiktaalik is a prime example of a transitional species. So no, he does not even come close to debunking Tiktaalik at 10:48.
Care to try again? Try to use your whole brain next time.
Grace to you
BTW, this site feels the need to delete posts that they don't like.
Maybe, but it could just be the usual TH-cam weirdness.
Yup. They do it all the time.
So true . Love your video. 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
My brother you have been mislead by a false teacher.
I agree, and his videos are becoming worse
@@jodyjohnston2899 is me or their religion advised to false preachers
lol Calvin talking about the big fish story without realizing that’s exactly how Christianity started.
Please explain.
There will never be final, scientific proof that evolution is true. The narrator says (at 2:18) that the hype surrounding discovery of Titaalik was "as if atheists everywhere thought they'd finally found the Silver Bullet that would finally prove Evolution as fact and that God didn't exist." Maybe some atheists thought that, but scientists don't deal in proofs, they deal in facts support or undermine a proposition. As the facts that support a proposition accumulate, there is more confidence in the proposition and at a certain point the proposition is referred to as "Theory" because of how useful it is in predicting. The Theory of Evolution predicted an animal with features like Titaalik would be found in a geologic formation of a certain age and the fact that Titaalik was found where it was is futher suppor of but not "proof" of the Theory of Evolution. It has nothing to do with the existence of God.
Technically science can't "prove" anything. But there is more scientific evidence for evolution than virtually any other scientific theory. There is no scientific doubt that evolution is true.
when peolpe write that i bet people feel smart, but every time someone says that evolution is just a «theory« , only show how uneducated that person is about science.
Atheist Worldview through disbelief has to do with existence of God, either way they're very known in Bible for being what they're.
Another point is whether or not evolution has to do with it, doesn't matter, in the end all it ends with Worldview.
Another point is whether or not their theory has to do with it, doesn't matter, in the end all it ends with Worldview.
A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. 2Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge.…
Does quoting it help alleviate the fear it’s make believe?
@@AMC2283 Why should I fear anything with God on my side. Psalm 118:5In my distress I called to the LORD, and He answered and set me free. 6The LORD is on my side; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me? 7The LORD is on my side; He is my helper. Therefore I will look in triumph on those who hate me.…
@@AMC2283Give credit to chance and evolution for his comment?
Even as an atheist, I thought evolution was stupid.
Why?
@@therick363 simple , he doesnt understand
the only ones that say evolution is stupid are the one that dont understand evolution. been a atheist or theist does nothing to do with « believe « in evolution. if you think that is stupid you should pay more attention to class, this ofc if you did go to school!
@@luish1498 my understanding is that through natural selection, the creatures that were well suited enough to their environment to pass on their genes survived while others died out yeah?
The problem i have is how sure we seem to be of the time scale, how slowly all of it happened, is there really concrete evidence of that or is it just guessing from carbon dating?
And the reasons they died out, people discount the biblical flood in favour of a meteor for the extinction event, but the death pose of so many of these fossils was a pose that could have occurred due to drowning, and if the continental drift theory is true, wouldn’t it have been Pangaea?
There’s so many people who just believe all of it at face value, and they do.
@@luish1498 Funny that you mention school since your grammar suggests that you didn't go. No shock there, since fanatics are often illiterate.
I didn't become a real Christian until I was 22 (almost 23) years old. But I NEVER believed in macro-evolution.
Because the two have nothing to do with each other. But since virtually ball of the biologists on the world DO accept macro-evolution, science will go on without you.
Intelligent people don’t believe in it either, we find the evidence sound. But gee whiz, are you sure you became the right sect, I mean there are 45000
I too don't believe in macro evolution. So called "micro evolution" is the same processes as "micro" evolution at a smaller time scale. Simple.
@@psychologicalprojectionist yeah? Why does your god allow mutagens in the environment only to undo every last mutation so that god forbid they don’t cause a macroscopic change?
@@AMC2283 Good point. I am not a scientist, but I believe we have countless examples of single nucleotide mutations which have a "macro" effect on the development of the individual. Of course we have several genetic diseases caused by single nucleotide difference. We also know that Hox genes in particular are important in early development and can cause "macro" changes in body design. Indeed if we can imagine a selection pressure brought on by the environment which favors flies with legs instead of eyes, we would know how that could occur in nature with a single nucleotide mutation, because it has been observed in the lab.
And yes, we know mutations can have natural causes e.g.UV light, background radiation or just the less that 100% fidelity of dna replication. So why would god deliberately seek to uncreate his creation with his creation? That is not intelligent design is it?
"the hype surrounding god old tiktaalik has nearly faded away" ..Wrong. It is still an important fossil that shows the transition from fish to tetrapod. It's a very interesting transitional species, something that many theists still try to claim doesn't exist.
You really have no idea what you're talking about.
Did you miss the whole point? 🙂 Even evolutionists have admitted it is no longer considered a missing link.
@@calvinsmith7575
_"Even evolutionists have admitted it is no longer considered a missing link."_
Missing link? It is an important transitional species and only strengthens the evidence for evolution.
You are the one missing the point here.
Try again.
@@MarkH-cu9zi 11:47 is the relevant quote in the video.
@@jefferygoldthorpe919 The fact that footprints were found doesn't change anything. Tiktaalik is still an important transitional species.
That quote isn't relevant at all and is nothing but confusion and desperation.
@@MarkH-cu9zi No I believe you are missing the point. If there was a supposed transitional tetrapod creature that existed 8 million years prior to Tiktallik, then it (Tiktallik) wasn't the transitional link it was hyped to be. Whatever else we might say about Tiktaalik, it is a fish. In a review article on Tiktaalik (appearing in the same issue of the scientific journal Nature that reported the discovery of Tiktaalik), fish evolution experts, Ahlberg and Clack concede that “in some respects Tiktaalik and Panderichthys are straightforward fishes: they have small pelvic fins, retain fin rays in their paired appendages and have well-developed gill arches, suggesting that both animals remained mostly aquatic.” Ahlberg, P.E. and Clack, J.A., News and Views, Nature 440(7085): 747-749), 6 April 2006.
I love the backdrop for this video. Beautiful lake and outdoor clothes. Good going, would love to see more like this. God bless
Yep, I’m sure a lot of work went into how best to sucker people
What an interesting case about this rare animal. I want to know whether a similar hype has been seen among the evolutionists regarding the Platypus. According to Wikipedia; "The platypus (Ornithorhynchus anatinus), sometimes referred to as the duck-billed platypus, a semiaquatic, egg-laying mammal endemic to eastern Australia, including Tasmania." Any comments?
Tiktaalik is not a "rare animal". It is a fossil species that went extinct 375 million years ago. Just one more piece of evidence for evolution
The platypus is a monotreme and therefore descended from primitive mammals before they evolved placenta. What about it?
What about the platypus confuses you?
@@samburns3329 this is an odd animal with bird-amphibian-mammal attributes. It should raise questions about how such species could have arised. In principle, inter-species breeding is not possible right?
@@masashibata8895 The platypus is a member of the monotremes. We know quite a bit about how the monotremes evolved. Monotremes branched from the mammalian lineage at least 130 million years ago before the evolution of the marsupials and placental mammals. Monotremes are considered primitive mammals because, like reptiles and birds, they lay eggs and have a single cloaca. There are only two living types of monotremes, the platypus and four species of echidnas. If you're into heavy duty science here is a good recent paper
*Platypus and echidna genomes reveal mammalian biology and evolution*
Why does a giraffe have a long neck?… it adapted over generations for a particular niche. In the giraffes case it was high leaves no others could reach.
The platypus and echidna lay eggs. Who knows if that will ever change
Why do you think that you can't have faith and believe in an evolutionary process?
Depends on your faith. If you're Bible-based, evolution appears to be non-compatible with macro-evolutionary processes. It does apparently require that a select few cats differentiated into the many types of cats we see today, though.
If you do, then you can't believe in the inerrancy of the bible. If the bible isn't inerrant, how can you trust any of it, including the part where Jesus says we are saved?
To me, the Bible is like a guidebook on how to live, not a history or science book. It doesn't have to be 100 percent true. It was written for the people of the time@user-dt2hp9wy5q
Thank the Lord for these videos. I try to watch them every sabbath. Truly feeds my soul, such a blessing.
something wrong with your bible?
So you like watching a channel that lies?
@@AMC2283There is a fossil on it.
@@therick363You think 99% of other channels don't lie?
@@Trendsthismonth many out there do. But many have demonstrated this Chanel does it on purpose.
Evolution is a scientific theory. Calvin here lies about that
Keep spreading truth. God bless
Start* spreading truth.
Are you capable of saying anything true since you care so much about it? Are you capable of saying that your beliefs are just that and there is a mountain of evidence for evolution which you simply think is some kind of test of your faith?
@@AMC2283 It is written that faith can move mountains. But in the case of evolution there is no mountain of evidence to move, the missing link is still missing and microscopic fragment dubious, to outright frauds.
The evidence does show that strangely Darwin and Marx exchanged their ideas and books. The theory or evolution birthed marxist revolution that enslaved people in body and mind.
All the wasted money spent on evolution studies was a wild goose chase. It did not produce anything useful. Better if it was spent on applied sciences of agriculture and medicine, which is not to be confused with the theoretical speculations of darwinism which didn't result to any betterment.
Well this was silly. From the fishing getup to the pseudoscience
Yepppp, just going fishing with my Bible like I do everyday. But nah, evolution isn’t just against my religion or anything. These are scientific criticisms.
4:34 no design no purpose no evil no good nothing but blinding difference. Man, he must be a real fun person to hang out with on the day today.
I wonder if most people who debunk God & his creation do so bc they don't want to follow him. They must wake up soon bc biblical prophecy signs prove he's coming any day now & the ones who are against him will suffer forever! We must keep praying that they come to the light, which is only found in Jesus, our savior! TY & God bless you & all!☦️🙏🏻🤍🙌
Don’t have to disprove what there’s no evidence for, and no, don’t be ridiculous, not everyone is superstitious like you. And which god are you talking about, yours?
@@AMC2283as an atheist, why do you value your life so much if you're just gonna die soon anyway? No one will remember you in 100 years and life is nothing but misery, pain, and pointless.
@@nathanielpotts2556
_"why do you value your life so much if you're just gonna die soon anyway?"_
Read that sentence a few times and see if you can figure it out for yourself.
@@MarkH-cu9zi atheism says that we are just here by luck and happenstance, nothing happens for a reason, and that we dance to the tune of evolution. My argument is that nothing in atheism gives a person any kind of "worth", which is why I'm confused why atheists value their lives in the first place in a worldview that doesn't value them.
The common answer I get to this is "well I give myself worth and value". Unfortunately, with no god, that is just an opinion of yourself. If I treated you like trash and as if you had no value, that wouldn't be right or wrong, but just my opinion of you.
However, if we are both honest with ourselves, treating you as if you are valueless is objectively wrong. The reason why you have value in the first place is because someone took the time to make you into the person you are today. You know a watch has inherent value because someone took hours to create it. That's why humans value their lives, because God gave you that value in the first place, yet atheist try to make it seem like it's them that gives them value.
@@MarkH-cu9zi atheism says that we are just here by luck and happenstance, nothing happens for a reason, and that we dance to the tune of evolution. My argument is that nothing in atheism gives a person any kind of "worth", which is why I'm confused why atheists value their lives in the first place in a worldview that doesn't value them.
The common answer I get to this is "well I give myself worth and value". Unfortunately, with no god, that is just an opinion of yourself. If I treated you like trash and as if you had no value, that wouldn't be right or wrong, but just my opinion of you.
All this time and money and still creationists can't find a flaw in evolution that creationism can fix.
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.
Let me ask you this... Did you know that Evolution shares characteristics of a religion? *Scientific theories are supposed to be falsifiable - given its history of constantly rewriting itself as it runs into problematic evidence, what would it take to falsify evolution?*
In 1982 a federal court ruled that Creation can't be taught in schools because "it is not falsifiable." Evolution has a long history of radically rewriting itself as it runs into more and more problems - what would it take to "falsify" Naturalistic Evolution? Over 500 Living Fossils? Debunked "Junk" DNA? Finding a 70M year extinct *evolutionary ancestor to tetrapods still alive, unevolved, with no evidence of it ever evolving?* Discovering that many "vestigial" (leftover) organs actually have a normal function, like the appendix? Finding "millions of years" old creatures with no signs of evolution? Fully developed vertebrate creatures in the Cambrian explosion? An Ankylosaurus fossil found where it's not supposed to be buried among sea creatures? Whale fossils deep inland in the United States? Trilobites found appearing suddenly and fully developed with complex eyes in the Cambrian - and in every fossil layer indicating they were buried rapidly? Maybe measurably young tissues in dinosaur fossils that look similar to 4000 year old mummies or the Tyrolean Ice Man? Early jawed placoderm fossils showing fully developed complex jaws - causing evolutionists to claim that they must have evolved, de-evolved, and then re-evolved those jaws to maintain their story of shark evolution? What if scientists admitted that Human-Ape DNA is down from 99% "similar" to only 84% "similar" and admitted their bias in "humanizing" the ape genome?
...or should we just reinterpret all of these problematic evidences to keep the belief in Atheistic/Naturalistic evolution alive, and why? We are all *uncritically indoctrinated* into this Atheistic-Naturalist religion of evolution in our public education system today... Should evolution be held to the same religious standard as Creationism?
All of the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, and if you understand "science" then you understand the implications of a competing explanation.
*"The evidence of God... has been clearly seen since the beginning in all that has been created, so they will have no excuse"* (Romans 1:20)
@@michaelg377wow, looks like we have a Gish Galloping, copy/paste manifesto here!
@@Bomtombadi1 Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just add lots of *Time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people by chance? *I just asked a question - what would it take to falsify evolution today?* Here, let me ask you this... Both Biblical Creation and Atheistic-Naturalism look at the *exact same evidence,* but each worldview has a vastly different interpretation. For example, consider the Coelacanth.
*Evidence:* We found a fossilized Coelacanth. *Atheistic Naturalism:* Evolutionists 'dated' this fossil (based on *Uniformitarian Naturalistic assumptions* ) to be 70 Million years old, and also *Interpreted* its funny looking fins to mean that it must be the evolutionary ancestor to land-dwelling 4 legged creatures (tetrapods).
*New Evidence:* Fishermen started catching the Coelacanth alive, unevolved, and with zero evidence of it ever evolving from or into anything. Fact: The Coelacanth is a living fossil.
(Uh Oh)
*Biblical Creation worldview* - This shows that evolutionists are making up stories and mythologies, not conducting real "science" (a methodology). The Coelacanth has zero evidence of ever evolving because it simply didn't. God created this fish "according to its kind," and we will never see it change into a different kind. This also brings into question whether the Atheistic-Naturalists' assumption-laden *interpretation* of it being 70 Million years old is even legitimate - there is no time stamp on this fossil, it's just a buried dead fossilized fish. Furthermore, this is one of several hundred living fossils we've discovered of "millions of years old" creatures that are still alive and identical to their modern living counterparts - which at face value shows that A) evolution did not occur, and/or B) the "millions of years" of deep time on which evolution relies is simply false.
*Atheistic-Naturalist worldview* - Evolutionists are divided on what really happened with the coelacanth today. It has zero evidence supporting the *belief* that it ever evolved from or into anything. Some maintain that "some must have evolved, and the rest achieved stasis and stayed the same," and just readjust this evolutionary substory. Others admit these early evolutionists were just wrong. Evolutionists usually just ignore that this is a 70 million year old living fossil that is identical to its living counterparts - "it doesn't mean evolution 'DIDN'T' happen... evolution is still true." *It's a web of conflicting excuses over an evidence-less mythology derived from a biased worldview-based atheistic-naturalist interpretation.*
Two worldviews, exact same evidence, two very different interpretations. Which worldview is being more "scientific": the one that can consistently account for all of this evidence (biblical creation), or the one that maintains a completely evidence-less story, changes its story, and then calls it "science" (atheistic naturalism)?
*"The question of where tetrapods evolved is even more difficult to answer than that of when"* (Jennifer Clack, Paleontologist, "Gaining Ground: The Origin and Evolution of Tetrapods," 2012)
*"The fish-to-tetrapod transition is one of the fundamental problems in evolutionary biology"* (Wood and Nakamura, "Problems in Fish-to-Tetrapod Transition: Genetic Expeditions Into Old Specimens," 2018)
@@Bomtombadi1 A Gish Galloping new creationist nitwit being cheered on by Joetroll. Lucky us. 😂
@@michaelg377 _each worldview has a vastly different interpretation._ Your problem is all interpretations aren't equally valid. The best interpretation is the one which explains ALL the evidence as a consilient unified whole. That is what evolutionary theory does. The genetic record supports the fossil record supports the geologic record supports the radiometric dating record, etc. It's like assembling the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle to see the big picture. Creationists always demand each piece of evidence be interpreted *separately* and come with a different excuse for each piece, not caring their multiple "interpretations" often directly contradict one another.
I need an answer from Genesis- What Is the firmament? Rawka. Beaten out hard as bronze?
Species beget species 1st law of biogenesis
and every generation has genetic drift, so only until the day they don't
It is also the law of biological evolution.
BIO-GENESIS The beginning of life, that's the very essense of biology and Biblical sounding too.
Truly it all starts with bio-creation, bio-reproduction. There is nothing to evolve without first the creation. That is why evolution theorists hate and envy creationists.
Can someone explain to me what the hell this has got to do with atheism? 😂😂
I’m gonna guess they will dodge the question or misrepresent things. But I agree with you. Just more blatant dishonesty from this channel
@@joefriday2275 are you going to answer the posted question? or just show my prediction was correct?
@@joefriday2275 we don't believe in God. That's all atheists have in common, and that's all atheism is!
nothing--he's a compulsive liar and con artist
@@joefriday2275 whaaaaaa, evowushun is against my rewigion!!!!
They tried that rubbish here in Australia too! The Australian Lungfish is endemic to the Mary and Burnett Rivers in Qld. There was a bloke who had the job of heading Sydney Museum, and he pushed evolution . He got his training studying the Australian Lungfish and made-up stories supporting Darwinism, despite NO TRANSITIONAL evidence of changes to the Australian Lungfish. So, the Museum board carried him on his chair out into the street after firing him. 100 years later that same place has dedicated a room (like a worship Centre) to the memory of that FRAUD!
i served as a pastor in the river Burnett region and saw a lungfish. A wonderful part of God's Creation!
Not everyone from Australia is all that bright ☝️
Today you’re concerned about evidence like there’s a shred for your superstitions?
Nope. Fossil remains never "prove" anything. In science they offer only evidence. (Tiny bits of evidence may and often do add up over time.) But exaggerating the significance of only one ancient creature in no way disproves or disproves anything.
Basically, you're being hyperbole.
It was really only the media that exaggerated its significance. The scientists just said it was an extremely informative piece of the puzzle.
Living fossil ceolocanth has been unchanged for millions of years from the age of the dinosaurs until now. Proving that adaptations and mutations are a bio-option in nature not a univeral bio-requiste as evolution would have everyone believe.
@@jockyoung4491Yeah, and NY Cappo Paulie Vario got indicted just for nodding hello at a bar.
Enough alibi from "evolution wise guys" the grift is over, the "peer review mafia" is done, finito !
@@toldyouso5588
No biologist has ever said that species have to change drastically. The coelocanth has been on the same stable habitat for millions of years so it has no selective pressure to change. Duh.
Tektaalik could not coexist with it's descendants?
It absolutely could. Just like dogs coexist with wolves
@@Jewonastickin that case Calvin only displays his ignorance, I would guess.
Imagine for a moment that evolution is not as simple as you are.
Why is he using atheist and evolution interchangeably? Being an atheist doesn’t mean you accept evolution to be true. There are plenty of atheists that reject evolution as well and believe it is just as ridiculous as believing in a god
Quite; in fact globally, the majority of Christians accept evolution as true. As do most Christian faiths including the Catholic Church, virtually all Cardianls, Arch Bishops, Bishops and Priests of all denominations. It's just a minority of denalists holding out, just as they refused to accept the earth going around the sun for centuries
@@richardgregory3684Wrong. Adaptation is what everyone believes in….thats not evolution
@@crackheadbiden3273 What is the difference?
@@samburns3329 Adaptation is all we see and that happens by mutations that degrade. We never see evolution create anything new so no evolution from a common ancestor. Simple concept for the educated.
@@crackheadbiden3273 Adaptation _is_ evolution by way of natural selection. And no, mutations aren't inherently degradation of the genome. That's just a creationist lie.
What makes Tiktalik proof is the fact that it was discovered by an evolutionary prediction.
Good luck explaining that.
@@joefriday2275 They didn't draw tiktaalik... they found it.
They predicted that due to the landscape at the time, and the place in an evolutionary sequence, that they would find an animal showing features of both a fish and a tetrapod.
That's how science works, you make predictions and test them.
...and in this case it passed. It's a very interesting transitional species....something creationists keep squealing don't exist.
@@joefriday2275 google it . google it GOOGLE IT!!!!
@@joefriday2275 you know you're displaying c0wardice right?
I can't post pictures here but you can find them easily by just using a search engine.
@@joefriday2275 It's not just one fossil....there have been 60 tiktaalik specimens found.
You have no idea....
@@joefriday2275how still being a little child at the adult table
Go learn what a scientific theory is then come back.
A tip for the confused.
Imagine for a moment that evolution is not as simple as you are.
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* that puddles of chemicals can fizz into people by chance? Like it or not that is what modern atheistic particles to man evolution literally believes - but you also erroneously conflate this naturalistic worldview (an ideology) with science (a methodology), hence much of the confusion. We are all *Uncritically Indoctrinated* into this constantly radically rewritten modern mythology as young children today.
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 - and women today literally cannot get pregnant because of issues with just one (much less several) of these critical organs.
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.
Praise God brother. Thanx for sharing your awesome videos. GBU
something wrong with your bible?
I came from an all loving God who drowned every living creature on the planet just for fun….
Everyone knows those children and unborn babies had it coming. 😶
Yes. And the same all loving God who will to throw you in hell for your rebellion against him just like he has done to many others before.
Not just for fun, liar. And not every living creature, either.
If you had a case, you'd tell the truth.
@@jimnewl Yes, just for fun. An omnipotent Deity could have just POOFED people into behaving exactly how It wanted. Those people were murdered just for spite.
Does a judge give a death penalty sentence to a criminal just for fun? or out of spite? No, it is because the punishment fit the crime. Hell is punishment for our crimes against God. He doesn't send anyone there for fun. God gave His Son as a sacrifice on the cross to take our sins and pay the price we deserve. If we persist in sin and rebellion against God, we then choose our own eternity. Why do you fight against our God who loves you enough to let Jesus suffer a horrible death so you can have eternal life?
"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life." John 5:24.
For me it says that the video was posted 4 minutes ago but theese comments saying they was posted 20 minutes like what😭💀
I put it on 1.25 speed to see where the lies were. I know this story inside out.
Amen
Great News 🙂
They should go down to Florida and see if they can help deal with the invasive walking catfish and what about other fish that breathe air like snake head and tarpon to name a few and they’re definitely fish. Although invasive and no bag limits on a snake head are actually very good to eat walking catfish and tarpon not so much.
FINALLY someone with common sense!
"Rabid atheist Richard Dawkins"?
LOL.
You could use a lot of words to describe mild-tempered Richard Dawkins, but "rabid" it not one of them!
If you want to see rabid, watch some videos of Christian preachers!
Or go to r/ Atheists
@@MemeLordCrusader
Such as....?
@@cygnusustus the subreddit
@@MemeLordCrusader
Such as.....?
@@cygnusustus are you high ?
This is so ridiculous! Who cares whether evolution is real or not. However God made the world is a reality, it really doesn’t affect my faith either way
7:00 on addresses that kind of thinking, with respect. See the quote at about 9:20 in particular.
More importantly, evolution contradicts God's Word. Charles Lyell sought to "separate science from Moses" with his theory of old-earth geology, and he heavily influence Darwin to the point where Darwin said "it's as if my thoughts came out of Lyell's brain." Christians who accept evolution are attempting to combine one worldview that seeks to 'separate science from Moses" (evolution) with "Moses" (the Bible) - it doesn't make sense.
Scripture says God created everything according to its kind. We only ever observe speciation within each creature's kind, never even once a change between kinds as atheistic evolution requires.
Jesus Himself patently refuted evolution when He said "“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’" (Matthew 19:4). Not after millions or billions of years of chance chemical reactions - but "at the beginning" God created male and female.
False assumptions lead to false beliefs, and that is a foothold for Satan for you, your children, and everyone around you who needs to hear the truth.
"and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because *they refused to love the truth* and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a *powerful delusion* so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who *have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness."* (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12)
@@michaelg377 in regards to your quote from Darwin, God will take what was made by the enemy and use it for good. Whether evolution is correct or not I do not know but I do know that we see Gods glory in everything in the world especially that which we cannot comprehend or understand.
About the 7 literal days thing, Peter literally says a thousand years is like a day to the lord, so there’s no reason to believe the world was created in a literal week.
Notice how every living thing almost has male and female (even plants!) is that a coincidence? Absolutely not. God has control over everything in this world. God has not interceded since the the very beginning but continually guides the world and answers our prayers.
There’s just no good reason to argue against something that could very well demonstrate Gods glory. Christians don’t need to hide from this, science will always support the Bible!
@@gonewhaling3984 I showed you my friend, Jesus flat out denied evolution in Matthew 19:4. As a Christian, now you can know that evolution is false, unless you reject the words of Christ. For the 7 days thing - each "day" in Genesis 1 had its own 'evening and morning," which plainly refutes the day-age theory. Your verse (2 Peter 3:8) does say "a day is like a thousand years," but also undoes its own math saying "a thousand years is like a day," and *In context* is talking about God's judgment (2 Peter 3:7) and His patience (2 Peter 3:9), not giving a secret code to reinterpret Genesis to match the atheistic origins mythology of evolution.
"There’s just no good reason to argue against something that could very well demonstrate Gods glory. Christians don’t need to hide from this, science will always support the Bible!"
I agree, science will always and does support the Bible - but what you're talking about is an Atheistic-naturalistic origins ideology *that seeks to explain our existence without God, and our children are being forcefully indoctrinated with this atheistic origins mythology from a young age* - it's no wonder so many are leaving the church today, especially since even Christians are allowing this atheistic ideology.
God created everything according to its kind in Genesis 1. To believe in particles to man evolution is to deny this part of God's Word, insisting that there is a change between kinds.
Jesus said He created male and female "at the beginning," not after millions/billions of years. To believe in particles to man evolution is to declare Jesus wrong.
Scripture says human beings were made in God's image and likeness, uniquely - to believe in particles to man and fish to philosopher evolution is to reduce mankind and God's image and likeness to an arbitrary construct among animals.
Besides, if each "day" was really thousands of years - how did plants survive for thousands/millions of years on day 3 since God didn't create the sun until day 4? This is only a problem with the day-age theory, not if it was really just one day with its own evening and morning as it plainly says... unless you reject God's Word at this point.
God can use everything for good, I agree - but that doesn't mean He is okay with replacing His Word with an atheistic origins mythology.
Your faith is strong.
Although we may never know if evolution is real. It's easy to figure out how evolution came to be an ideological struggle.
Darwin - evolutionist
Marx - revolutionist
The had a connetion to form social darwinism, the root ideology of the worst crimes against humanity in the 20th - 21st century. Bloody purges in the name of natural selection.
I thought the Darwin fishing was meant to mocking Darwinian evolution.
You can be sure this a carefully constructed product meant to appeal to your sensibilities. Why, look at this wholesome fisherman with a Bible in his hand, telling me just what I want to hear. I identity with that!
Evolution is change
AIG opposes change.
Evolution has never been observed…
@@calvinsmith7575tell me what evolution is and then i will tell how wrong you are!
@@calvinsmith7575so you don’t understand what a scientific theory is then
Again he's equating evolution with Atheism, you don't have to be an atheist to understand how evolution works and understanding evolution doesn't mean you're an atheist.
Those are lies they tell to scare people away from thinking for themselves.
Imagine, someone trying to force supposed evidence for their view on you, while they only believe what someone told them, and then claiming this is evidence. Ultimately, one may view Christianity or evolution in this light, but the question is can an alternative be better if it suffers from the same problems as the belief it seeks to replace?
The difference is that the evidence for biological evolution has been laid out objectively for anybody to look at and think for themselves. No, you should not automatically believe what someone says. But if all if the experts in the world claim one thing, its seems wise to at least give it an honest objective look. That is all anyone can ask of you.
@@jockyoung4491there will never be proof of ones ancient ancestry you just trust that you are related to that thing.
Even experts are human and all humans get things wrong
@@mozzarellatherat9687
_"Even experts are human and all humans get things wrong"_
...that's one of the reasons why we use the scientific method.
@@MarkH-cu9zi yes and the scientific theory of evolution was made by humans. One in particular being Darwin. You may say “it wasn’t made by humans it’s reality” but in reality you cannot prove ones ancient ancestry. You just have faith that the as I call them “blueprints” of animals being similar that they are more closely related. So in reality evolution is a faith based belief made by man.
@@mozzarellatherat9687
_"yes and the scientific theory of evolution was made by humans"_
...and? ....the evidence was not made up by humans. You seem quite confused about many things.
_" but in reality you cannot prove ones ancient ancestry. "_
We can determine a lot about ancestry but how does this help you?
_"You just have faith"_
No...evidence. You know... the stuff you can't find for your god?
_" So in reality evolution is a faith based belief made by man."_
Nope it's a scientific theory supported by mountains of evidence.
Try again.
No, not "atheists": _people who accept evolution._ Many theists accept evolution, and there are atheists who don't accept it. Given that the first word of the bloody _title_ gets it wrong, I didn't come to this video with high expectations; and it fell even below those.
And both Theistic-Evolutionists and Atheistic Non-evolutionists have major problems in their worldview - for the former, internal inconsistency, and they have to compromise both Scripture and Evolution to sustain their worldview, not to mention the scientific evidence and history of radically rewritten storytelling evolution has had to do. For the latter, Atheists still need to be able to rationally explain our creation without God, and unfortunately the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers and that chemicals fizzed into a puddle by chance into people - just add *Time* - seems to be the most rational thing they can come up with... without a convincing naturalistic origins explanation, you need a Creator.
*"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)
@@michaelg377
_"without a convincing naturalistic origins explanation, you need a Creator."_
You're not even trying to hide your lazy god of the gaps argument. 🤦♂
@@MarkH-cu9zi That's because you have your own Atheism of the Gaps my friend - and it's not a "god of the gaps" to say that if you can't "naturally" explain our origins you need to account for your creation by some other means - and the whole time the reality of a Creator is staring you in the face no matter how you try to suppress it.
Let me ask you this... as an Atheist, when all the right chemicals just happened to mix together and fizz into all the necessary proteins required for life, and then into all the necessary cell components inside of a cell enclosure by chance chemical reactions, *how did they overcome the problem of hydrolysis which inhibits protein formation in water?*
*"we've not made the RNA in a prebiotically relevant manner. It hydrolyzes too rapidly."* (Professor Saztech, Chicago, 2021)
[Regarding Abiogenesis] *"Chemistry is actually hard to get to work. The molecules precipitate. The molecules hydrolyze. The molecules decompose. And so it's very much a constraint that you have to deal with.. it's one g-d problem after another."* (Steve Benner, former Harvard Professor, Director of Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution, 2019)
*"Liquid water is generally considered a key ingredient for life. When the Sun was much fainter, the Earth with its present atmospheric composition would have been frozen solid. If the oceans were frozen, life may not have formed" (Quote: NASA).*
...science (a methodology) is most certainly not your side my friend. Fish don't evolve into philosophers, and puddles of chemicals don't fizz into people, no matter how much *Time* you add to the mix - that's just not how "science" works.
you know for a channel called AIG, you sure say a lot of things that aren't taken verbatim from Genesis. What's up with that man?
Our family got so sick of my sister's lying stories that we had to disown her. I made it clear to her that she's not welcome back until she repents of the bullschit she is always starting
…..what were the lying stories?
@@therick363
lol as if I'm actually going to spend that much time and effort which it takes to even tell one of the stories
@@tymz-r-achanginwell it’s not like you have to tell the whole story. I was simply asking what was the lie.
Your post it’s hint at anything so it made me curious. It’s a big thing to say someone’s lying. Naturally someone will ask.
it's amazing that a family like yours produced anyone with intelligence
So you cut off your family member because you’re an asshole? Have I got that right?
Tectolik was not thrown out.....what on earth does that mean?
‼️Nobody celebrates disproving God unless they want to commit evil without consequences. The end.
You don’t have to disprove what there’s no evidence for
@@AMC2283 🙄 the whole Reddit clapped
@@AMC2283 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? There is plenty of evidence for God my friend - encoded information (as in DNA) always observably comes from an intelligent source (an Encoder), and also consider your own behavior: 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 "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)
Otherwise... *How do you get from meaningless goo to meaningful and valuable you just by adding time + chance + chemicals in a meaningless universe?*
Who is Darwin - Evolutionist
Who is Marx - Revolutionist
They exchanged books with each other and the 20th century bloodshed became thier proving ground for "survival of the fittest" the evil theory of social darwinism.
Scratch an evolutionist and under you find a commie revolutionist.
Smith: "...in a world where there isn't any ultimate meaning or pupose to life..." This is a common refrain from creationists. If people don't accept their view, it means they have no purpose or meaning in their lives. Utterly false. The purpose of organisms is first, to preserve themselves, and secondly, to reproduce themselves. That is life's purpose. Along the way, however, we can enjoy being alive, and being alive in the world around us. Does one need to be religious to enjoy a beautiful sunsrise, or sunset? Nope. Does one need to be religious to enjoy the company of humans and other animals and plants? Nope. Does one need to be religous to provide aid and comfort to other humans, other animals and plants? Nope. Can one enjoy life, living and the universe surrounding them to the fullest without religion? Yes. What you're really saying, Mr. Smith, is that without religion your life has no meaning or purpose. Fair enough, but don't try to project that lack on others.
Exactly. I keep trying to explain that our life has what ever purpose and meaning we choose to give it. If you want your life to have meaning, do something meaningful.
@@jockyoung4491 Hear, hear!
5:02 it’s not that we atheists want to celebrate our evolution and that there is no god. We celebrate knowledge and understanding and truth no matter what that may be. Most of us would much rather learn there was a purpose to life and even a good creator that loves us. We simply know that isn’t true and a childish fantasy.
Sorry you think that way, but to disprove the Bible is to disprove something with what evidence? There's no evidence the events in the Bible couldn't happen, no proof either, the only evidence people have is "Oh, that dude got shot but he didn't come back to life. Fake!". There are eyewitnesses that saw Jesus alive after the 3 days. So would you rather trust that you came from nothing, that life just happened, when life doesn't come from nothing, or trust something that hasn't been disproven for thousands of years and believe in the man who claims to be the son of God and showed people he was? I don't know about you but I don't know any fairytale that was passed down through the world through thousands of years if there's nothing supporting it. I'm also sorry if I'm being a bit aggressive here, I get a little heated about this topic because of atheists claiming that our Bible and our God doesn't exist, then provide nothing but fossils of different animals the Bible literally says God created. I'm happy to continue this if you want, hopefully not as an argument but a well thought out, open-minded discussion.
@@joefriday2275 you think evolution can be recorded on a cell phone? Let me guess, you’re a flat earther too? 😂
@joefriday2275 Credit where it's due? Sorry, I don't get what you're laying down, unless you mean that Hubble was an atheist, so then that would be funny if an atheist proved himself and every other one wrong. Also, where'd my comment from before go? I can't see it.
@@braydonlehmann4855 of course the universe was created. It certainly has not always existed in its present form. We believe the most educated information. Just because it may have been created does not mean there was an intelligent designer behind it. God of the gaps fallacy
@Jessemessy1 Yes, while it is educated, it's not fact. I believe in the Bible because of how reliable it is. It hasn't been disproven, but I believe in God simply because I do. I do get how the universe literally being spoken into existence sounds outlandish, but for an all-powerful God, it's not so outlandish. We obviously don't blindly follow our faith, we have reasons behind it. Everyone of us have different, unique reasons why. I can assume the same is true for you believing in what you believe, as well.
There are several fish that walk on land now.
Not only walking fish but real flying fish too. Just waiting for evolution theorists to declare it as proof birds evolved from fish.
Don't ever assume that Rifkin represents anyone but himself. His books are full of distortions of Science.
I'd rather die and find out that there is no God than to live my life thinking there is no God only to find out (too late) that God is real.
Oh, congratulations, Pascal's Wager. OK, what if there's a god...just not the one you're expecting. You're just making Odin mad by failing to die in glorious battle and spending your life on your knees praying to a cowardly peacenik.
Mr. Smith omits one of the most important aspects of the discovery of Tiktaalik; namely that it was discovered after looking for it after predictions made on the basis of scientific evolutionary insights. This means that the modern scientific theory of evolution can make falsifiable predictions, which is one of the hallmarks of a successful scientific theory.
The paleontologists and geologists involved looked at the known evidence in the fossil record, determined in which time period and in what kind of rock the theory would predict an intermediate form between fish and four-limbed animals to appear, started digging in such a layer, and voila! Tiktaalik was found.
From an earlier exchange with Mr. Smith, I know that he is aware of this important fact, and yet he chooses to remain silent about it to his followers. Perhaps it is an innocent oversight... or... perhaps he is trying to manipulate his audience by purposely omitting evidence. I know what I think... what do you think?
Yes, I’ve seen many creationists avoid the truth and use blatant wordsmithing to protect their religious agenda.
It is dishonest, and I am sad for the gullible that believe them.
Did you know that on the Vaticans own website you can find declarations from the different Popes, the last 3 Popes admitting evolution and an over 4.2 billion year old earth… Not creation as described in the bible.
A lot of other things in their website also, including about the earth and universe (now agreeing with modern scientific discovery).
They are slow to accept discovery/reality and admit it, but faster than people who still believe the bible is gods true word
The issue is these confirmation biased Paleontologists and Geologists deliberately ignore both the empirical biochemical evidence and empirical genetic evidence that clearly point to biblically accurate age of the Earth. None of these Paleontologists and Geologists are fair and objective.
The issue is these confirmation biased Paleontologists and Geologists deliberately ignore both the empirical biochemical evidence and empirical genetic evidence that clearly point to biblically accurate age of the Earth. None of these Paleontologists and Geologists are fair and objective.
The issue is these Paleontologists and Geologists del1berately 1gnore both the empirical biochemical evidence and empirical genetic evidence that clearly point to biblically accurate age of the Earth. None of these Paleontologists and Geologists are f@ir and 0bjective.
Thank you, I needed that clarification. Now I see, that evolution theorists are the "peer reviewed mafia." They place bets after rigging the tri-fecta or superfecta races. These evolutionist PhD wiseguys are criminals.
I'm happy to say this is this guy's best video up to date.
The bar couldn't be set any lower.
@@sciencerules2825 Science rules? Like the scientists that tell us men can turn themselves into women?😂
@@SavedbyGraceAlone1962
The gender thing is not a science issue. It's a freedom issue.
@@jockyoung4491 you mean a lack of freedom issue imposed by those that want to play make believe
@@jockyoung4491 Right. That's why "scientists" from woke atheist-run establishment-owned "academia" are promoting it.
It's unbelievable that there are still atheist. Look around at the diversity of life. Cells decided to be plants or animals ? For sure there's a creator. The creator is so far beyond our basic understanding.
Literally frogs become princes!
Only the obtuse darwinoatheism could believe such nonsense
What makes you think a frog just becomes a human?
@@Bomtombadi1 erm, follow your own narrative dude (if infact you are a real dude with real dude equipment).
@@thunderous-one so essentially a straw man on your part. Have I got that right, dude?
Also, what makes you think that because I accept evolution, that I Wouk also accept this gender politics?
@@thunderous-one Atheists say there are 68 sexes. Normal people say there are only XX and XY.
@@joefriday2275 there you are! Atheist here, and I actually don’t. I think it’s all stupid.
So you’re wrong. What now?
Theists love to belittle any reasonable evidence of Evolution.
they hate everything that contradict the bible, but reality can´t be changed so they bend it to fit , they realized that was impossible to get all species on the ark so they go bend it and found the word kind so now you don't need all Canidae family you just need one that create all dog kind
@@brunobastos5533 I like the fact they got over 1400 species of extant bats from the single bat "kind" pair on the Ark. They need sooper dooper hyper evolution but claim evolution never happens. 😂
@@samburns3329 that is true , they deny a gradual over time , but a turbocharged evolution since the supposed flood is super credible
Evolution is a fact …
Why do think that?
If you're claiming that based on scientific evidence, the same science that gave you that evidence would call this a theory. You can't claim definitively that evolution is a fact without being anti-science.
@@user-dt2hp9wy5qhow is evolution anti science?
I can find any bone in the dirt and attach any BS story to it that I want
Do you think today's cultural ambiguity is anything new in human history? It is as old humanity....and humanity is hundreds of thousands of years old!
The discovery of tik wasn't that it was supposed to be the FIRST.
The achievement was in that it was a transitional expected AROUND the time AND in the precise biome as was predicted. So it was a triple win, time, place and morphology. We predicted WHAT kind of organism would be found, "when" it should have existed and where. And they were 100% correct.
Yes, we DO expect earlier ones to be found. But we don't expect them to be found in the hadean, for example, nor the precambrian. We don't expect them in place that were NOT, at the time, non-coastal.
AND LOOK, that NEW study ALSO shows the transition in another "marine intertidal zone" at that time.
We DO expect these forms around this time. But the Canadian site was the easiest to travel to and to examine for the American researchers.
Except that those predictions were wrong about all 3 points.
@@statutesofthelord Did it find the fossil in nunvavut? That would be the location AND time. Was it morphologically between a fish and a tetrapod?
@@statutesofthelord You just saying this doesn't make it true. It hit all 3 predictions... as PhrontDoor pointed out.
@@nathancook2852 It wouldn't be AIG without some angry clueless creationist yelling *NUH-UH!* to all the scientific evidence. 🙂
@@PhrontDoor Even Evolutionists admit that Tik was a big failure.
I'll say this as many times it needs to be said: Not a single creationist understands Evolution.
Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers?
*"Human Ears Evolved from Ancient Fish Gills"* (Bjorn Carey, Live Science, 2006)
*"We are fish"* (P.Z. Myers, PhD, Associate Professor of Biology, University of Minnesota Morris)
*"That’s because we, and in fact all tetrapods (four-limbed vertebrates, many of which live on land), share a more recent common ancestor with the coelacanth and lungfish than we do with ray-finned fishes."* (evolution berkeley edu)
With respect, I don't think most evolutionists understand evolution. 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?*
@@michaelg377 It's not a mythology, sorry.
I would actually agree with that: Evolution is a relatively difficult topic to understand, and I think the average joe does not understand it. But the average joe also doesn't pay mind to it. Nor tries to assert its falsehood without understanding it.
Um... male and female are not organs. If you refer to the different reproduction organs, the male and female evolved way before those became a thing. I would recommend How Creationism Taught Me Real Science for a more detailed explanation, I don't remember it off the top of my head, and you can just watch it instead of me watching it and telling you its contents in several paragraphs if you are interested in the answer.
@@joefriday2275we all understand you lie then run away
@@joefriday2275No, you don't understand it. To call it a hoax is to fundementally not understand it. Saying it is an incorrect theory is the best one who understands it can say.
Michael is back with more copy/paste. Seriously, once you cut through the verbose BS, all that’s really there is argument from incredulity.
We all think we have control of the world around us but we can’t control simple physics like time=ratexspeed. A day with the Lord is a day but to us is a thousand years. If we could control time there wouldn’t be time dilation between point A to B.
There’s always calculation with accurately predicting an outcome and if the math is off it’s a bust.
Great info
Something wrong with your Bible?
Far from “great info.”
Love the sycophants on here
Mr. Smith fundamentally misunderstands or purposely misrepresents what an intermediate fossil or missing link is. Regardless of whether current four-limbed animals descend from Tiktaalik, Tiktaalik has intermediate characteristics between fish and four-limbed animals and is therefore classified as "intermediate" between these groups whether Mr. Smith likes this or not.
He talks a lot and says little… because he can’t deny it is a transitional species between fish and tetrapods. But everything continues to transition, animals plants and fungi
Evolution is a complete hoax by the dishonest godless scientific community
@@mrb.8389 In order to be transitional, it would have to have ancestors that are fish and descendants that are tetrapods. Can it be verified that that is the case?
@@gregorymoore2877 Surely you can use Google and learn for yourself 🤣
No land vertebrates until amphibians in the late Devonian about 365 million years ago.
Fish vertebrates before then… so of course there were transitional species like Tiktaalik in between.
Land vertebrates didn’t magically appear hahaha
@gregorymoore2877 that isn't what transitional fossil means. There is no reason why it has to transform into something else. It is a fish with some of the derived features of a tetrapod land animal. That fits the definition of a transitional fossil. End of
Christianity has collapsed among the young. Bible literalism is the problem, not the solution. Instead of getting sarcastic about evolution, address the many credibility issues in Christian dogma. Unlike evangelicals, no scientist would ever claim to have all the answers and would certainly never believe anyone deserves eternal punishment for thought crimes. Time to grow up, Calvin, and stop seeing people as saved or damned. It's absurd.
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 by chance? Or that Hitler did his deed, millions of people tortured and killed, and then he just "goes away" without any consequences? With respect, that's because you have a low moral standard. Let me try to put it into perspective... every time you lie, steal, fornicate, look with lust, hate, are greedy, selfish, dishonor your parents, engage in idolatry, blasphemy, or any other form of evil, you are breaking God's mostly common sense moral law (ie. sin). If you sin just 10 times per day, then after 80 years you will have broken God's mostly common sense moral law over 290,000 times, and when you break a law a fine is due.
Now to you, a little lie, or watching a little bit of the product of trafficking online, or thinking unfaithfully against your spouse, etc. may not be a big deal because you have a sinful nature and a low moral standard - but to an infinitely Holy God all evil is aborrhent, and it's His standard by which you will be held accountable.
"If God places no trust in his holy ones, if even the heavens are not pure in his eyes, *how much less men, who are vile and corrupt, who drink up evil like water!"* (Job 15:15-16)
Of course, if you're innocent, you have nothing to worry about. But if you're guilty, then when you die you have a hefty fine to pay for your evil deeds that you just can't pay because everything you have was given to you and you have nothing to pay with. *"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"* (Romans 3:23).
That's the bad news. The good news is that this same Infinitely Holy and Just God loved you so much that He did something for you so that He could justly and legally save you - He sent Jesus to live a perfect sinless live in your place thus fulfilling the law on your behalf, died a horrible and humiliating death in your place thus paying your fine for you, and then He was resurrected on the third day conquering death itself so He can likewise promise you eternal life after death. You committed countless crimes and lived a life of crime and rebellion against your Creator, and Jesus paid your fine. It is a free gift - where He took your punishment and paid your fine for your sins, and He gives you His earned righteousness in exchange for free. *Now you can reject this free gift, you have that God-given right to reject God - but your fine for your sins will be paid one way or another on Judgment Day; it's just a question of who is going to pay it, and you make that choice.*
*"But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken."* (Matthew 12:36)
Also you should know that no educated Christian follows "biblical literalism" - we interpret each passage in accordance with its context including literary genre - history as history, and poetry as poetry. Your rejection of history a priori does not constitute "literalism" or "metaphor," etc., you have to read from the perspective of the message's intent/genre/context. Genesis is presented as a known Hebrew genre called historical narrative complete with plain unembellished language, lists of kings, battles, and genealogies, is corroborated by some archaeological artifacts like the stele Sinai 115 which places the ancient Hebrews in Egypt exactly when Scripture said they were there (against the secular narrative), and it even contains cited resources like the book referenced in Genesis 5:1... it's not "biblical literalism," it's reading historical claims as historical claims - many just reject it *a priori* because of their Atheistic/Naturalistic presuppositions. We are all *Uncritically Indoctrinated* into atheistic evolution today as young children, and very few get to hear the many problems with it or the other side of the argument - that's why the young are leaving.
@@joefriday2275 He was educated in Ron DeSantis' Florida. 'nuff said. 😂
@@michaelg377 OK, who had "fizz into people by chance" on their Michael Stupid Creationist bingo card? 😄
@@joefriday2275Humans are a subset of apes, and the apes and Old world monkeys are separate branches within Catarrhini.
Monkeys include both Old World monkeys (Cercopithecoidea) and New World monkeys (Platyrrhini). While apes and monkeys share a common ancestor, they are distinct groups within the broader primate order. We are genetically nested deep within the taxanomic suborder Anthropoidea
(or Simiiformes) the "monkey clade.", which includes both monkeys and apes. If we didn't come from monkeys, then why are we still monkeys? Because cladistically, morhphologically, genetically we are a subset of monkeys, and birds are a subset of dinosaurs, in the same way as ducks are a subset of birds, and the lions are a subset of cats.
Do you understand this?
*“the percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 84.38%” and “4.06% had no alignment to the chimp assembly.”* (Richard Buggs, PhD, University of London's specialist in evolutionary genomics).
"The higher-quality human genome assemblies have often been used to guide the final stages of nonhuman genome projects, including the order and orientation of sequence contigs and, perhaps more importantly, the annotation of genes. *This bias has effectively “humanized” other ape genome assemblies."* (Kronenberg, Z. N. et al. 2018. High-resolution comparative analysis of great ape genomes. Science. 360 (6393).
*It's time to abandon this monkey mythology, time is not proving very "nice" to it.* To say things like "If we didn't come from monkeys, then why are we still monkeys?" is circular reasoning - the evolutionist assumes evolution is true, interprets "things that look similar" as if evolution is true, and thus concludes that evolution is true - it's a big irrational circle. Meanwhile, *all the best evidences for evolution (our alleged monkey heritage included) can also be explained by Genesis 1-12,* evolution not required... which says something about the limitations of the alleged "evidence" evolutionists think they have.
[Regarding Human-Chimp DNA similarity]: "There is a 13.3% difference in sections of our immune systems when insertions and deletions are considered." (Anzai, et. a., "Comparative Sequencing of Human and Chimpanzee MHC Class 1 Regions Unveils Insertions/Deletions as the Major Path to Genomic Divergence," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100, no. 13 (2003).
"The chimpanzee genome was 12% larger than the human genome... gene copy numbers revealed a 6.4% difference" (Jeffery Demuth, et al., "the Evolution of Mammalian Gene Families," 2006).
[Regarding Human-Chimp DNA similarity]: "There is a 17.4% difference in gene expression in the cerebral cortex" (Jon Cohen, "Relative Differences: the Myth of 1%" Science 316, no. 5833, 2007).
You are not an ape, nor are you "meaningless evolved protoplasm" in a meaningless amoral chemical accident universe that doesn't care about you. You are a valuable human being made in the image and likeness of God. Otherwise, *how do you get from meaningless goo to meaningful and valuable you just by adding time + chemicals + chance in a meaningless universe?*
One of the famous tactics of the believer is to build these straw men and assert their strawmen are instrad beliefs atheists hold.
Always remember this is simply the theist bearing false witness Against the atheist. IE The thiest lying about the atheist
So no fan of this channel wonders why they teach genesis in terms of refuting evolution, while no biology class teaches evolution in terms of refuting any religion on earth-they just teach evolution?
Exactly
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* chemicals can fizz into people by chance? *Scientific Theories are supposed to be Falsifiable, Religions are Not: Given its extensive history of radically ad-hoc readjusting itself every time it runs into problematic evidence, what would it take to "Falsify" the Theory of Evolution today?*
In 1982 a federal court ruled that Creation can't be taught in schools because "it is not falsifiable." Evolution has a long history of radically rewriting itself as it runs into more and more problems - what would it take to "falsify" Naturalistic Evolution? Over 500 Living Fossils? Debunked "Junk" DNA? Finding a 70M year extinct *evolutionary ancestor to tetrapods still alive, unevolved, with no evidence of it ever evolving?* Discovering that many "vestigial" (leftover) organs actually have a normal function, like the appendix? Finding "millions of years" old creatures with no signs of evolution? Fully developed vertebrate creatures in the Cambrian explosion? An Ankylosaurus fossil found where it's not supposed to be buried among sea creatures? Whale fossils deep inland in the United States? Trilobites found appearing suddenly and fully developed with complex eyes in the Cambrian - and in every fossil layer indicating they were buried rapidly? Maybe measurably young tissues in dinosaur fossils that look similar to 4000 year old mummies or the Tyrolean Ice Man? Early jawed placoderm fossils showing fully developed complex jaws - causing evolutionists to claim that they must have evolved, de-evolved, and then re-evolved those jaws to maintain their story of shark evolution? What if scientists admitted that Human-Ape DNA is down from 99% "similar" to only 84% "similar" and admitted their bias in "humanizing" the ape genome?
...or should we just reinterpret all of these problematic evidences to keep the belief in Atheistic/Naturalistic evolution alive, and why? We are all *uncritically indoctrinated* into this Atheistic-Naturalist religion of evolution in our public education system today... Should evolution be held to the same religious standard as Creationism?
All of the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, and if you understand "science" then you understand the implications of a competing explanation.
*"The evidence of God... has been clearly seen since the beginning in all that has been created, so they will have no excuse"* (Romans 1:20)
@@michaelg377 _"All of the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12"_
Your evidence comes out of a book riddled with absurdities, errors and contradictions.
Meanwhile evolution is supported multiple lines of independent evidence.
@@MarkH-cu9zi That's a whole LOT of evidence against evolution you just ignored my friend, and more importantly - you didn't answer the question. What do you call an unfalsifiable scientific theory? A religion. Evolution demonstrably does not believe 'scientifically,' we just tack on excuses to keep it alive every time it runs into a problem.
Let me ask you this.. *Have you ever heard of 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?*
*"Liquid water is generally considered a key ingredient for life. When the Sun was much fainter, the Earth with its present atmospheric composition would have been frozen solid. If the oceans were frozen, life may not have formed" (Quote: NASA).*
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?
*"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)
@@michaelg377 You have provided no evidence against evolution. Just the usual creationist lies and bullsp1t.
Even if evolution were true - which it isn't- mechanism is being confused with agency. It's like discovering the inner workings of a watch and concluding that therefore a watchmaker isn't necessary or in existence.
Sorry but you have zero evidence for any external "agency" in biological evolution. None. The genetic mechanisms we know of work through the laws of chemistry and physics. That's all which is needed.
We not only have evidence that evolution is true, but we understand the mechanisms that produce biological diversity without an intelligent designer.
@@jockyoung4491 evidence when asked to provide fail spectacularly sir. Chihuahua doesn't cut it and doesn't prove evolution. Only proves adaptation. IF this is the level of evidence you need maybe it isnt really scientific after all
@@MrTerrakb117 How many different species of snake are there in this world that all evolved independently of each other? how many different breeds of horse are there that are in different parts of the world that all evolved independently of each other???, evolution.
time and evolution are the clock makers and you never saw the first clocks didn't you . And what maker make the creator
Thanks for this good story.
Aheists and evolutionists could think about the chance that life would arise by itself, then they would arrive at the number 0.
They will never want to investigate that, because it is extremely difficult to let go of a prejudice and think neutrally.
That is why I have a lot of respect for people who have become Christians from atheists/evolutionists, unfortunately there are far too few of them.
Of course everyone is allowed to have their own worldview, but unfortunately this is also forced on our children in schools.
Atheists also say that about Christians, so one must always look for the truth and that is very difficult for both of them.
One thing is clear to me, the more I delve into Christianity and explore nature in many ways, it becomes increasingly clear that life cannot have arisen by itself and cannot be evaluated.
Moreover, there is only natural selection in the same species.
The origin of life doesn't matter to evolution. Evolution is a natural process which occurs after life is here.
Abiogenesis which is the study of how non life evolved into the first instance of life is not proven on how it happened unlike the overwhelming evidence for evolution.
But there are multiple well evident backed up hypothesis on how life can form from simple chemical reactions.
This channel is notorious for being debunked on multiple things such as their horrible anti evolution arguments and on abiogenesis.
nearly if not all nitrogenous base has been found in meteorites. Which are the things that make up RNA
Amino acids and other complex biological materials have been observed to easily form in sterile enviroments that allow them to form.
Neither atheists nor theists have enough data to say what the odds are of life arising by itself. We know the odds of life existing on earth are exactly 1:1, because life DOES exist. We DON'T know how life originated, so we don't know how to even try to calculate those odds.
It's like asking what are the odds that the Big Bang was caused by an intelligent being. We have no idea WHAT caused the Big Bang, so we don't have any data to tell us what the odds are that an intelligent being did it.
You describe YEC's perfectly....they can't let go of a prejudice and think neutrally.
Evolution doesn't argue for or against God. Besides, this and many others of his videos are misleading and cherrypicking. If it suits you, believe God started evolution, but don't deny it. Probabilities are near zero but never zero.
In February-March 1616, the Catholic Church issued a prohibition against the Copernican theory of the earth’s motion. This led later (1633) to the Inquisition trial and condemnation of Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) as a suspected heretic, which generated a controversy that continues to our day.
And then the Protestant Revolution happened because the Catholics weren't doing Christianity right. And Then the Catholics added the apocryphal books to their canon, and a few other noteworthy changes, but they claim to be the original one true church anyway...In any case, the whole idea that it is somehow unscientific to believe in God and therefore in the possibility of miracles, is both historically and philosophically mistaken. Modern science owes its very origin to monotheistic religion. To quote Lewis:
"Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver." (Miracles)
That is why most of the great founding fathers of modern science believed in God and were Christians who took the Bible seriously. To mention just a few of them and the scientific disciplines they helped to establish, they include: Galileo and Kepler (astronomy), Pascal (hydrostatics), Boyle (chemistry), Newton (calculus), Linnaeus (systematic biology), Faraday (electromagnetics), Cuvier (comparative anatomy), Kelvin (thermodynamics), Lister (antiseptic surgery), and Mendel (genetics). All these men believed in an ordered universe and in the possibility of discovering how it functioned because they were convinced that the evidence of intelligent design in Nature indicated the existence of an Intelligent Creator. As Kepler put it, writing in the 17th century:
"The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order which has been imposed on it by God, and which he revealed to us in the language of mathematics." (Kepler)
@@michaelg377 *And then the Protestant Revolution happened because the Catholics weren't doing Christianity right. And Then the Catholics added the apocryphal books to their canon, and a few other noteworthy changes, but they claim to be the original one true church anyway...*
And then the Protestant churches began splintering because _they_ couldn't agree on who was doing Christianity right, even going so far as to shard off two sects, the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, that many people treat as entirely separate religions. Talk about a dumpster fire.
*In any case, the whole idea that it is somehow unscientific to believe in God and therefore in the possibility of miracles, is both historically and philosophically mistaken. Modern science owes its very origin to monotheistic religion. To quote Lewis: "Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver." (Miracles)*
And yet everywhere we look, we never actually see any sign of such a lawgiver. Sure, we see the behaviors that reality functions by and call them laws, but nothing about it explicitly _requires_ a lawgiver, and we have plenty of evidence on how things in this reality arose naturally.
*That is why most of the great founding fathers of modern science believed in God and were Christians who took the Bible seriously.*
And yet they universally _set their religion aside_ when doing their scientific works. You can't point to _any_ of these guys and rightfully claim that their works were fulfilled based on an acceptance of magic rather than a consistent reality.
@@burnttoast2790Michael G is part of the David Barton historical revisionist crowd, which basically means credit Christianity for everything. Basically the 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon of Christian games.
He’ll find a way to credit Christianity for inventing the litter box.
Galileo Galilei disagreed with the Pope and the Inquisition. But not God.
In the margins of his copy of the Dialogue, Galileo penned a silent rebuttal to the Inquisition: “Who can doubt that it will lead to the worst disorders when minds created free by God are compelled to submit slavishly to an outside will? When we are told to deny our senses and subject them to the whim of others?”
@@joefriday2275 The irony of how well Galileo's words describe YECs is entirely lost on you.
"Intelligent design advocates and creationists...se only the abrupt appearance of new forms created by an Intelligent Designer."
Cool.
Show me an example of a new species appearing de novo, without ancestors. Pray for it to happen.
You can't?
Aw......poor little things!
How the hell could anyone show you that lol, whether or not it’s true? What do you think we are claiming haha? Can you show me that the Earth’s core is hot? Are you required to for me to believe it?
@@Papa-dopoulos
"How the hell could anyone show you that lol"
Thanks for conceding you have absolutely no evidence for your beliefs.
lol
'Can you show me that the Earth’s core is hot? "
Yes, we have evidence that the Earth's core is hot.
Same old creationist talking points.
Just to be clear:
- no one ever claimed tiktaalik was the first tetrapod.
- transitional fossil does not mean the species was transitioning into something else
- evolution and atheism are not the same thing
- every time the word evolutionist is used he actually means scientist
@@joefriday2275 are you going to address any of the points I raised or just go off on your own favourite talking points?
Liars make TH-cam videos, truth seekers write peer reviewed papers.
Yes the "peer review mafia." Dariwin was from that "peerage" the nobility class. This evolution theory is their idea. So they can go on treating the rest of the underclasses like animals and say it's natural selection. The suckers.
How about scientifically aware intellectuals?
Not to be a pain but the fish symbol comes from Dagon. Even the pope wears a dagon, fish scales, costume with a fish mouth on top. Totally agree with all the rest you clearly and astutely point out. Yah bless you greatly.
Yes that's correct historically, but forr me God created fish and so it is His symbol too. Likewise the rainbow He created is still God's covenant symbol even if the enemy will misappropriate it for evil.
@@toldyouso5588
Who has misappropriated rainbows for evil? And before you answer, think if you REALLY want to go there
@@jockyoung4491 The pro abortion group, any objection?
@@toldyouso5588
I odn't think anybody is "pro-abortion" and I am not aware of any of them using randbows either, although it is not an issue I am involved with
@@jockyoung4491 They are there organizing In the +. Do you object?