Calvin actually came the closest I've seen to actually defining it here. He said it was roughly at the family level. I'd like to know on what basis that was decided though. Since no kinds seem to be named in the bible
@@mattbrook-lee7732 Leviticus 11:13 where it clearly describes birds like black kites, herons, ravens as "kinds". If you're goign to describe ravens as being multiple kinds, which is exactly what it does, it is evidend: when the bible says "kind" it is what we would call "species". But believers in the Noah nonense want us to believe that "kind" would sit far above species level, perhaps even to the point where all birds would simpyl be "bird kind".
God please continue to protect me and my two children. Father keep me encouraged because being a single mother with autistic children is overwhelming and challenging especially now because I’m homeschooling them so my hours to work are limited. I’m desperately trying to provide for them. Lord give me strength As I continue to struggle to buy groceries and as I struggle to pay rent. I know you are with me Heavenly Father. You are the God of possible. Please change my situation.
Yeah, I don't know what the deal is. This person's been on numerous channels for years. At least 3 or 4 years with exact same message. By now some of those kids must be out of school seriously. I'm not exaggerating. I don't know what I don't know if they're looking for money. I don't know if they're just confused. I don't know what it is. I used to think it was real but now I don't.@@Bomtombadi1
“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.” Try praying to God not the TH-cam comment section
@Ray-vb5mg I second this. If you want us to pray for you, you can ask ma’am. If you’re here to pray aloud so that all may hear, I’m not sure this is the place for that, if any place.
@Bomtombadi1 I’m afraid that’s exactly what it’s for. I’m surprised there’s no CashApp or PayPal here either. I am a follower of Christ, and even I know that He doesn’t call us to sit back lazily and wait for things to happen. Jesus calls us to take action, taking up our cross daily-not posting “woe is me” videos for donations.
The ignorance and stupidity exhibited by this site never ceases to amuse. 🙂 This latest brain fart about "rapid speciation" is like watching runoff from a heavy rainstorm rapidly erode a soft dirt hillside, then claiming that proves *all erosion everywhere* (like the wearing smooth of the Appalachian Mountains) must have happened rapidly too. 🤪
@@Lightbearer616 Lying its not a crime, its not agression, its free speech. Id side with flat earthers over people like you who think have a right to tell others what to think and do, and puting them in jail for having diferent opinions.
Atheism has nothing to do with science. The title is a red herring. And I hate to break it to ya, Calvin, but evolution is supported by over a century and a half of empirical evidence. No version of any religion on earth can say that. At least, not honestly... You really are blatant in your Commandment breaking.
yeah--the us against them mentality in the very title is rather detrimental to their position. i've never seen a biology book that goes out of its way to refute religion
@@jockyoung4491 his style is polemic, which is inherently neither good nor bad, but simply a mechanism to promote dialogue. If you perceive it as offensive, it may be because you have nothing of substance to add to the conversation.
Odd, I thought YEC were the biggest proponents of rapid evolution, looking at evolution from the time of Noah until today, which mainstream science thinks is way too fast in theory to have been possible.
"I thought YEC were the biggest proponents of rapid evolution," - There was no evolution, only speciation just as Calvin explained. Speciation generates subspecies through gene loss, not through new genes. There are no new genes running around to be picked and used for evolution i.e. to produce the process of a taxonomic species transforming to a new taxonomic genus, family, order ... i.e. to evolution. No such process has ever been scientifically proven. Natural selection COULD generate evolution by speciation if it COULD deliver the survivors such qualitatively new genes that are not already found in the existing population. Natural selection (in fact natural elimination!) however delivers nothing. It just eliminates individuals who have less suitable genes for the environment where they live. The winners must go on with the genes they have. This is adaptation through gene loss as lost genes give room for the genes that are more useful in the new environment. This is good for a while, but the specialized genomes make a more one-sided gene pool than the gene pool of the original population. When the living conditions change again, the specialized population suffers and goes extinct. That's why millions of species have already gone extinct and this process continues incessantly. Repeat: Specialization by devolution, not evolution.
@@jockyoung4491 No you ignoramus. Rapid speciation is what YECs would support not rapid evolution . There is a difference. You simply dont understand whats being said .
@@vantagepoint9270 the Bible doesn't say that all snakes talk, it says that one snake talked. That event is not something we would be able to verify through the scientific method. We do know that people can communicate with animals and there are even animals who can talk (parrots). You said snakes are consistent with evolution? Nope. No scientist has observed the transition of a snake to a non-snake. All we actually can observe is that snakes always produce more snakes just like Genesis 1 says God designed them to. Please accept observable science and documented history; receive Christ.
@@vantagepoint9270 "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils: (Stephen J. Gould, World renown American paleontologist evolutionary biologist) So, no: scientists are not agreed regarding evidence for evolution. They agreed there is no evidence.
And that's why one's religious book with dozens of translations and countless interpretations whereas the other is a scientific theory with global scientific support and a variety of applications?
And when the talking head didn't talk to you but to some imaginary person behind your left shoulder: breaks any intimacy with the viewer and just looks kooky.
Mr Smith: Evolutionists claim "rapid evolution", while showing an study that shows a type for bird got 15% bigger in the last 30.000 years. Also Mr Smith: The cat kind that was on the ark changed into all these amazingly diverse cat-like animals in 5000 years. This is just stupid.
@@1MDA That is not a widely accepted scientific term. But evolutionary rates are relative. Even at its fastest, no individual ever gives birth to a different species, and nobody has ever claimed it could.
That was my first thought. If there isnt rapid evolution how did 1000 “kinds” microevolve to million+ species in a few 1000 years? Im not saying anything about rapid evolution, just showing internal inconsistency in the logic.
And what?Did it show the particle to human evolution?It is called speciation. The parent population split off to offsprings that share the traits of the parent population. Is that a surprise?
So i looked up the articles at the start that say "rapid evolution". The first one about Sulawesi Babblers is about a 15% size increase in males over females on an island. within the timespan of 30.000 years since they split from the Babblers on the mainland. Rapid by evolutionary standards does not mean rapid by human standards. The second is about severe natural selection on a bird species because an invasive new type of larger snail that took over the eco system and all birds with smaller beaks had a hard time eating them. Those with larger beaks (that were already around) flourished and within a decade or so only the birds with the large beaks were still around and that gene that caused the large beaks was present in most birds when it wasn't before. This is natural selection at work. None of the comments that pop up actually mention rapid evolution or anything of the kind.
I do have a question about the birds with larger beaks surviving, which I understand and makes sense in the scenario you mentioned, but what confuses me is this: Lets say you have the same ecosystem with the snail species and all the birds had smaller beaks originally, wouldn't this lead to the all the birds dying out before any of them could have developed beaks strong enough to break through the shells? There is potential for the smaller birds using rocks to smash the snails onto, but then why didn't the smaller birds do this in this situation? This is where I have an issue with evolution over a long period of time, in a isolated ecosystem where a food source is not accessible due to a inability of the prey, surely the prey would die out before being able to adapt to the environment?
@@pathblazerstudios indeed when the environment changes too quickly and evolution can't keep up species do die out. In fact there have been 5 mass extinctions throughout earth's history where exactly that has happened on a huge scale
@@mattbrook-lee7732 but then if everything died out, wouldn't it automatically suggest a reset on everything and starting all over again. If all the birds die out, then whatever controls the size of the beak would reset to 0 again as there is no knowledge remaining that the birds needed a bigger beak, as evolution doesn't keep a backup file somewhere of what it had previously accomplished just in case something goes wrong. which still makes me wonder, either the smaller birds found a way to sustain themselves over a period of time and develop a larger beak, or the larger beak has always been around.
Absolutely none of that is true. But you knew that. There is nothing illogical or impossible about evolution. If you think there is, then you don't understend it. Evolution can occur at many different rates, but even at its fastest no individual ever gives borth to a different species. That WOULD be illogical
@@mattbrook-lee7732 yes, they have. In fact, the hopeful monster hypothesis was developed to address the fossil record having a stark lack of transitionary fossils.
And because it is unbiological and therefore unclear, it is often used by one of the discussion sites to keep all possibilities open and not really have to take a stand. Guess which side!
@@nathancook2852 scientist differ quite a bit on how they define “species” and the fastest way to promote a barrow among them is to toss that subject into the conversation. “Species” is up for grabs, and the closest analogy is really “family”, i.e., the family of mammals, birds, insects, plants, et al. Cats reproduce as cats within the feline family, dogs reproduce as dogs within the canine family, birds as birds, etc.
Young earth creationist are in the same category as flat earthers. Both literally just stick their fingers in their ears and shout to avoid the actual science.
Because there’s literally more demonstrable evidence for evolution than there is for you as a human being. More PhD candidates have produced more information than you have produced or has been produced about you in your entire life. The fact that you deny it in favor of magic is personal incredulity.
You do know it's demonstrable and is the strongest scientific theory out there with medical leaps in curing previously genetic disorders and fatal hereditary problems ... deny evolution then refuse done cancer treatments because you don't believe the science behind it if you want, see where prayer alone gets you 🙏 😂
How so? All he did in this video is clarify the Creationist viewpoint, clairify the evolutionary view, and explained why he believes evolution to not be possible. He did this using research from Evolutionary studies and basic logic.
@@TacoBel No, he quote mines and misleads, and often just lies, and he clarified nothing. He also didn't study anything, because if he had he would realize his mistakes. His logic is severely lacking. All of biology and medical sciences are based on evolution occurring, and yet he tries to claim evolution is a myth. That is ignorance, or willful lying, but no where in that is there logic.
I hate it too, but I understand it. Reading the tiresomely idiotic comments of Darwinists who clearly didn't understand the argument and resort to their typical ad hominem insults gets old very fast. I can't believe I used to be one of those people.
@@jockyoung4491 I will repeat this, and hopefully you will learn something if you have an open mind: "I will lay it on the line-there is not one such [transitional] fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. (Colin Patterson FRS, British palaeontologist, Natural History Museum) "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils: (Stephen J. Gould, World renown American paleontologist evolutionary biologist) 1864: Darwin‘s book on evolution. 2024: Evidence for evolution is still not found, almost two centuries.
The reason why most creationist (and flat earther channels) do this is to maintain the echo chamber more easily. It does hurt the appearance of credibility slightly but most flat earthers and creationists still chose to control their herd's minds further.
Also creationists: all these different animal species around the Earth came from a couple thousand kinds. You guys believe in Ultra Rapid Evolution, but also claim that Rapid Evolution is not a thing? That's hilarious.
@@IslandUsurper no, there’s no lapse in comprehension going on here. Creationists are always confusing terms, making terms up, or straight up redefining them to suit their purpose. Or perhaps you’d care to clarify these terms? I don’t think you will, because you don’t know what you’re talking about, like all science deniers.
@@katamas832 What, then, is "evolution"? And "Ultra Rapid Evolution"? Be specific. I predict your definition for your comment regarding what creationists believe in does not match the one in the video title that evolutionists believe in.
So I have a question for you, so because a type of animal is in one place in the world that proves evolution? Which means you must believe that an equal amount of every single type of animal should be everywhere on earth if you’re a creationist. So I don’t get how your theory even makes any sense. What would animals who thrive in hot environments do in a cold environment? Because you’re saying that creationism means all animals must be equally spaced out on the entire planet. You commenting on a video that you didn’t even watch, tells me that you are arguing not because you have proof that you wish people seeking the truth would watch. Nor do you want to consider any evidence that you don’t have. So you must know everything and everyone else knows nothing new that you don’t already know. Which equals arrogance. I hope you can one day you can understand that no one person on earth knows everything. May my Creator bless you and your family and your children’s children for a thousand generations. May His love bring you peace, protection and happiness.
All I know is when I read scientific periodicals or research documents of evolution, the documents are still peppered with words and terms such as "we assume...", "...probably...", "maybe...", "we postulate...", "it is believed that...", "given time..." ...etc... ..This is not to say that science won't figure it out with continued research. . On the other hand, it's difficult to believe that some higher intelligent "God" just commanded everything into existence. . Honestly, I don't think anyone really knows how, when, or why. Time is the hero of everything.
More nonsense from NoAnswers in Genesis. More intellectual dishonesty from Calvin. Or, "How to talk about evolution for eighteen minutes and still deny it happens!"
@@marcj3682 Don't talk such childish nonsense! Firstly there is no devil, secondly people's actions are controlled by their brain, not their heart! I just call out ignorance!
@@marcj3682 Please provide proof that one of the 1000's of gods man created actually exists, let alone a devil, which your god is said to have created. And please provide from any source other than the Bible. Thanks!
If all life existed simultaneously at the time of Noah’s global flood as claimed, why aren’t there remains of all “kinds” of life (even for a short time after the flood) in geology since that time??? Why do we only discover remains of certain “kinds” in certain layers (sedimentary, volcanic, ice, meteroic layers etc), never all “kinds” mixed together even though they supposedly lived in the same places and died in the same flood??? Why is there tree ring and ice layer dating evidence far older than biblical creation??? Why is there no remains of all “kinds” of life (and their foods) from distant islands and continents around where Noah’s ark settled - or anywhere in between there and their sole known origin/current location??? Why do plants, fungi and animals (not qualifying as ark creatures or their foods) exist if all destroyed by god in the flood??? If Noah’s ark only held a single mating “kind” of each animal, doesn’t that suggest rapid evolution to produce the variants of “kinds” we see today (including variants that are not found in earlier geology)??? Same with plants and fungi. How did the different “kinds” of life (and their often immobile foods) from across the world (including from places then unknown) get to the ark, and return to their sole known locations after???… Noting many cannot travel far or fast, cannot swim from or back to their respective islands and continents, require different environments and foods etc etc etc
Dinosaur fossils show that they died with there heads pointing to the sky as if they were trying to stay out of the water, ND they find alot of fossils alongside mountains
First of all what is an evolutionist It is just evolution and one of the cornerstones of science If you can disprove it why don't you go get your Nobel Prize
@@oldcountryboy Your hubris has kept your comment from having any impact on anybody, because your comment is not comprehensible in the English language. Yes, I am an English teacher.
@@statutesofthelord Hey Mr. Teacher I went and had my 8-year-old nephew read what I wrote he was able to read it and understand it just fine So either you are lying that you couldn't understand it or you are not as smart as an 8-year-old
Well if rapid evolution is not real then I guess all the "kinds" that were on the ark could not have evolved into their current diversity, so Noah HAD to have taken all the current day animals onto his ark...which would have basically been unable to fit them all.
"Well if rapid evolution is not real then " - In fact NO evolution is real. Speciation instead is real (as Calvin stated) and it can be extremely fast. Speciation of course does not generate new species, only subspecies. Dogs are subspecies from wolf and wolf may be subspecies from an older member of Canis Family. The forefather of Canis Family left the Ark 4500 years ago.
@@burnttoast2790 There is no barrier between "macro" and "micro" evolution and creationists have never been able to demonstrate that there is. The only things they can and always do say about it is "we have never seen it before" and then act incredulous about it.
Some of those who comment here both subscribe and (militantly) jump to be first ones appearing to this channel's videos attacking the narrator on almost every video. I've never seen a more ridiculous bunch of keyboard warriors that have nothing better to do in life than hate those who believe in the God of the bible. To those I'm speaking of, quit the hating and the denial that you are hating and get a life.
I've seen no one here show any hatred to those who believe in God. The problem is with people like Calvin who bare-faced lie about scientific knowledge to push their beliefs. That's quite a bit different, don't you agree?
@@sciencerules2825 What exactly do you mean by Calvin cherry picking his info? First, prove it. Next, if you can't then don't make false claims that stem from hate towards the guy.
@@NoiTuLovE64 If you haven't see Calvin lying about and misrepresenting evolutionary science in virtually every video he posts you are either scientifically illiterate or haven't been watching, or both.
So you don't suppose that Calvin's blatant atheist-baiting titles have anything to do with the speed at which he gets rebuttals from atheists? He knows very well what he's doing, and you should recognise it too.
@@JesusistheonetrueGod Good heavens. Where did that come from? Why are you looking for excuses to hate people? No biologist would say that, so keep your racism imaginings to yourself. Adaptation is evolution. And everything has been evolving for exactly the same amount of time.
@@nathancook2852 men of Christian face like Galileo Galilei, Johann Kepler, Isaac newton, John Maxwell, and Michael Faraday world They looked for natural laws in the universe as they understood. God is the great lawgiver; he made moral laws to keep life from being chaotic and physical laws to keep the universe from being chaotic. as they knew they were created in the image of God, they could find the universe intelligible. The evolutionist has no such prospects; as they do not believe in and intelligent creator, they see the universe as being without cause, without purpose, with no mind behind it, no rationality. Therefore, the evolutionist must acknowledge that is they are product of that universe. Their brain is unplanned, unguided and irrational, and therefore your suspect in anything approaching logic, reason critical thinking. Others of the Christian faith who have added to science and philosophy: Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1 543) Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627) Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) Rene Descartes (1596-1 650) Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907) Max Planck (1858-1947) Without all these, science will be set back considerably more than “300 years”.
The gappy example is gold ,cause now we see that it can obviously go on for longer with more time ,and end up with even new features all together cause see what just 4 years can do
@@Jraethyme No it is not. Millions of Christians accept the science of evolution. And I'm sure there are atheists who know nothing about science. Faith and science have nothing to do with each other.
Evolution theory is an attempt to explain away the existence of God the creator. So yes, it is very correlated with atheist beliefs. That fact that you don't equate the two demonstrates that you have no clue.
@@MarkAtherton-bf4pq No it is not. Evolution is science. Science can say nothing either way about the existence of God. Equating the two is a dishonest creationist talking point. Words have meanings.
Absolutely not in Linnaean taxonomy it's largely based on traits & not genetics... eg Invertebrates vs Vertebrates, Mammals, Reptiles, Cold vs warm-blooded, Chordates etc. As far as genetic grouping, it's probably phylogenetics, cladistics & barcoding
@@easyminimal_6130 the assignments today are based on genetics. Obviously that wasn’t the case in the 1700s. It is now. The *names* often correlate with specific derived traits, but the groups themselves are based on molecular data.
AIG: No such thing as evolution Also AIG: Nioah's Ark only needed a single pair of "feline kind", all the types of felines we see today developed from them
Diversity within a kind of animal is already present in the genetic material of the animal. That's not macro evolution. He literally explained it in the video but you chose to ignore it. Interesting.
Bingo!! But they will say: "All of today's felinae are already created in the "kind" on Noah's ark". Even the South and North American types, which could have never had contact with Old World types since Noah.
They also needed beavers, termites, porcupines and woodpeckers, not to mention all the other hundreds of wood eating animals and insects to live on the ark for nearly a year. I still haven't figured out how the koala's got there knowing they sleep nearly 22 hrs. a day and only eat eucalyptus leaves, but yet they traveled from Australia to the middle east and back.
Calvin Smith's answer would be: "At that time (about 4,500 years ago) all the continents were still close together, the mountains were not yet so high and the oceans not so deep."
@@Nils-gi5bv The continental drift is less than an inch a year, which would mean in 4,500 years, the continents should all be no more than 375 feet from each other. I guess that's why the call the ocean between the US and the UK "across the pond" lol
I love when people who don't understand biology, try to debunk biology lol. If evolution didnt work, we'd have figured that out a long long time ago. Same as literally all scientific theories ever, that you also have no problem accepting as fact. Your refusal to accept specific scientific theories simply because of your bronze age beliefs is quite humorous.
Evolutionist have figured out that there is no fossil evidence to support the claim of animals changing into other kinds of animals. "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils: (Stephen J. Gould, World renown American paleontologist evolutionary biologist) "I will lay it on the line-there is not one such [transitional] fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. (Colin Patterson , British palaeontologist, Natural History Museum) 1864: Darwin publishes his book on evolution. 2024: no evidence to support evolution has been found. To this date: evolutionist cannot explain the source of biological information in DNA, the code in all living things: there is no code without a coder.
You arbitrarily chose Family as the classification level for Baramin. You're gonna have to show me how that's objectively true. No non-christian would be swayed by this argument.
Thanks so much for bringing truth in such a peaceful environment & wisdom to carry it through. Love your videos...certainly beats these bad news videos any day! God bless you
Please be specific what you mean by the term evolution in this context and provide examples. I have physical traits in common with my parents, but they’re also differences; that does not constitute evolution, it is merely an expression of revenant DNA.
@@jockyoung4491 You are confusing, recumbent DNA in the reproductive process with genetic mutation. 23 chromosomes from your mother and 23 chromosomes from your father, combine to create a new, unique human being; if you have brothers or sisters, you will all have a family resemblance, but each will be different - unless twins are involved, of course. This is not evolution, you do not “evolve” from your parents. I’m not sure where you’re getting your information but it is incorrect. Recon revenant DNA is not rapid evolution, rapid evolution is not Darwin’s descent with modification.
There is no possible way you could know the answer that question - unless you actually watch the video. Carl Linneus is the father of modern taxonomy. He found the biblical description of “kinds“ was not all inclusive so he said about to supplement it. If you don’t like it, you are free to make up your own tax on me and attempt to publish papers on the subject.
@@1MDA well, you’ll never know if they added to scripture or not unless you actually read the Bible - is that going to happen anytime soon? I have read one and a half books every week for the past 30 years; that’s in excessive 2000 books on every subject aside from the Bible. When you get up to 500 books come back and perhaps we can have a conversation about Scriptures or whatever you would like to discuss.
Except it’s been demonstrated repeatedly. The only thing untrue here is the silly old book you guys are still reading. Hey, instead of arguing against established and demonstrable facts why don’t you take the time to do the first Peter thing and prove your magic???
Looks like AIG and Calvin live rent free in your head, Chad… don’t forget to share, as you’ve already commented and I’m sure you’ve also already subscribed
@@ElectricBluJay Oof, looks like Chad lives rent free in your head. He really seems to have gotten to you. Sorry, but people are gonna call out the lies that happen on this channel in ever single video they produce.
@@nathancook2852 Nice try, but this person didn’t call out any lie - nor did you for that matter. All he did was make his disdain for those who believe differently than himself known. I figured the least I could do for the poor man was point out that he is wasting his time tilting at windmills. If there was a cult out there who posted videos about their belief in Santa Claus, I would feel quite pathetic following them around slinging half-assed insults about Rudolph the red nosed reindeer. Maybe you have little better to do…
@@ElectricBluJay Did Calvin post a video? Did this guy speak out against it? Then he called out a lie. I am just here to help stamp out science denial. Believe what you want about a god or gods, but stop spreading misinformation, or straight up lying, about science. Creating more science deniers is terrible for the future of our planet.
Specifically what is dishonest? Why do you atheists just cast general insults but never specifically refute anything? So specifically, what did he get wrong and what is your evidence to back up that it is wrong?
@@rl7012 "you atheists just cast general insults and never refute anything"... well well well if there ever was a pot calling the kettle black you just nailed it... congratulations self foot shooter oh great one
@@DuXQaK there weren’t any general insults casted at you and the refutation was the pointing out that you didn’t provide any support for your stance.. maybe you should look up what “pot calling the kettle black “ means. BUT ONLY after giving an answer, what was dishonest about this video?
Evolution is change and change is a big problem for creationists who have a man made book as their guide instead of the real world that surrounds them every day of their lives.
"The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils: (Stephen J. Gould, World renown American paleontologist evolutionary biologist) In short: no tree of life, no evolution because there is no evidence.
@@denvan3143 I met Gould. My brother worked in his lab. You have no idea how annoyed he would get when creationsts (he called them munchkins) used his words to mean something different than obviously intended. Gould was right, but that obviously does not mean there is no evidence for evolution. That would be a stupid conclusion.
@@jockyoung4491 I expressed no conclusions, I only quoted the man. If you resent my doing so it is on the basis of your personal bigotry; the root of your resentment is that from the time the statement was made to the present the situation has not changed. In fact, from Darwin’s first presentation of his theory to the present 160 years have passed in which the evidence has not been forthcoming. I am not responsible for your discontent over the situation or the annoyance of Gould. Phylogeny has proven to be a failure in this regard; don’t blame me.
They do that because everyone laughs at them for thinking all the species in the world could fit on a boat. So they claim only the general kinds were there and diversified later. Somehow they are too clueless to understand that is evolution.
I suggest you review the video. The animals taken on board the Ark Were pairs that represented families; rapid evolution is subdivision within families. Rapid evolution does not equate to common descent, which is the theory that all animals came from a common ancestor. 160 years of paleontology does not support that premise. Rapid evolution, results in species within families, but does not create new families, nor is there crossover between them; nothing will change from the cat family to the dog family, no reptile will cross over to the bird family or vice versa.
@@jockyoung4491 two things about your character, is evidence in your comment: (1) Would you have learned has been at the feet of authoritarians, before whom you have submitted in silence, hence the attitude you take here. You are not a harsh schoolmaster, your theatrics are in vain. (2) It is evident you fear ridicule above everything else and will do anything to avoid it. You appear to be rather thin skinned, to assume that is a universal reflex. As you are a collectivist, you are a herd animal: you do not determine your behavior, it is determined for you by the herd. As an alternative, I suggest you engage in personal rapid evolution and become an individualist.
@denvan3143 common descent is supported by a huge range of observable evidence. HeLa cells are a clear case of a new kind by anyones definition. Living single cell organisms that emerged from human cancer cells.
Funny. Creationists need ultra-rapid evolution for explaining the Noah´s arch story but deny cases of rapid evolution reported in scientific papers. Calvin Smith again fails to get even one thing right.
"Creationists need ultra-rapid evolution for explaining the Noah´s arch story ..." - Not true however. You are addled by the evolution theory. Listen carefully what Calvin tells. Calvin talks of speciation. Speciation has nothing to do with the fallacious "evolution". Speciation is a quick process. Evolutionists just can't distinguish speciation from evolution. Speciation is reality, evolution is a fairy tale for ignorant evolutionists. Speciation generates subspecies through gene loss, not through new genes. Less fit individuals get culled from population and they take their genes with them. When part of genes are lost from population, other genes become dominant and superficial changes happen. There are no new genes running around to be picked and used for evolution i.e. to produce the process of a taxonomic species transforming to a new taxonomic genus, family, order ... i.e. to evolution. No such evolution process has ever been scientifically proven! Natural selection COULD produce evolution if it COULD deliver to the survivors such qualitatively new genes that are not already found in the existing population. Natural selection (in fact natural elimination!) however delivers nothing, it just eliminates individuals who have less suitable genes for the environment where they live. The winners must go on with the genes they have. In the long run they can copulate only with other winners because the less fit are dead or become too rare. This means that on the population level every individual's genome gets specialized i.e. impoverished. This is adaptation. It is good for a while, but the specialized genomes make a more one-sided gene pool than the gene pool of the original population. When the living conditions change again, the specialized population suffers and goes extinct. That's why millions of species have already gone extinct and this process continues incessantly.
@@jounisuninen _Natural selection COULD produce evolution if it COULD deliver to the survivors such qualitatively new genes that are not already found in the existing population_ Oh, you mean like this paper in _Science_ documents? *Real-time evolution of new genes by innovation, amplification, and divergence*
@@samburns3329 you believe in the origination of new biological instructions in living organisms by a natural, blind mechanism? Great: I’m selling shears in my new perpetual motion machine; you don’t want to miss out. 😄 PS _Science_ used to be a reputable magazine, it went the way of woke.
Apparently everything is allowed to evolve... except Linnaeus' definitions. Throwing him out because he changed his definition of species is like throwing out all of Einstein because his view of the steady-state universe model changed.
There is very little of Linnaeus left in modern phylogenetics. We don't "throw out" a person, but science marches on. Science is not based on any person.
@@jockyoung4491 Right, just like Darwin's idea's have been updated, and many are even outdated as well. But that is what happens when you are able to analyze new evidence. Funny how AIG makes this out to be a bad thing.
@@nathancook2852 I think the video’s segment regarding Linnaeus was intended to address those who point to Linnaeus’s expanding ‘species’ to account for more variability within species as evidence that Judeo-Christian forefathers ‘moved the goal posts’ to try and ‘force’ alignment between Biblical teaching and new scientific observations
@jockyoung4491 That's a bit of a strawman as no one claimed that science is based on one person. The claim, and it is a correct one, is that the person who created and defined the term "species" also defined the term "kind". Both definitions changed based on observation.
@user-bg7fr1dz8c The term species did not exist before the late 1700s, and neither the Bible nor the "forefathers" defined what a "kind" was. Therefore, there could be neither 'alignment' nor lack of alignment thereof.
@@nathancook2852 you’re right; evolutionist first say that evolution takes hundreds of millions of years, then they say that evolution can happen within the span of human existence, but, whoops, not that fast. Pick a lane.
The only reason why you would need a concept like "baramin" is if you do not believe that God could have miraculously fitted all existing species of breathing land animals on the Ark. This is a theological issue, not a scientific one. Mr. Smith's acceptance of the modern "baramin" or "created kind" terminology shows that his ideas have evolved from past dogmas on this topic. His religious forebears used to believe that God had created all individual species as they were, and the word "min" or "kind" did not refer to the "family" level at all, but to the species level. You can easily verify this for yourself by looking at old paintings of the animals that went into the Ark; you will see both lions and tigers, donkeys and horses, foxes and wolves waiting in line.
As science is what is observable and evolution is not observable in the wild, in the laboratory or in the fossil record it is a belief system and not science. Yours is a poor position from which to critique others. Origin of species is not observed, divergence of species is. Darwin observed the ladder, as the breeders of domestic animals exploited this facet of biology to breed new phenotypes. Darwin mistakenly based his idea of evolution on the notion that divergence of species or species ation could lead to different families of animals, as different as cats and dogs. Such as not the case, no such thing has ever been discovered in the fossil record.
@@denvan3143 You said: _" As science is what is observable and evolution is not observable in the wild, in the laboratory or in the fossil record it is a belief system and not science."_ The definition of evolution is "the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." This has been observed numerous times. You may call it "adaptation" or "divergence of species", but it is evolution in accordance with its definition. You said: _"Origin of species is not observed, divergence of species is."_ If you are of the opinion that "divergence of species" is observed, then you admit that evolution is observed in accordance with its definition. If you don't agree that we can draw rational conclusions about the past based on what we observe in the present, you are opposed to all of the natural sciences. You said: _"Darwin observed the ladder, as the breeders of domestic animals exploited this facet of biology to breed new phenotypes."_ I don't know what you mean by "the ladder", but yeah, Darwin observed artificial selection and that informed his ideas about natural selection. I don't see what the problem is. You said: _"Darwin mistakenly based his idea of evolution on the notion that divergence of species or species ation could lead to different families of animals, as different as cats and dogs."_ I am not sure what you mean by "different families of animals". You seem to agree that divergence can lead to different species, so why would you not agree that species could diverge further and further until they had become so different from each other that a new classification should be introduced? That seems illogical to me. You said: _"Such as not the case, no such thing has ever been discovered in the fossil record."_ The fossil record is notoriously patchy, so if you require complete lineages to be found, you will be disappointed. The remarkable thing about the fossil record however is that what we do find invariably fits with the bigger picture. No Pre-Cambrian bunnies yet!
I like that Abbott and Costello's usage and misunderstanding of common words/phrases are being used by a guy whose side routinely trots out the "Evolution is just a theory" canard.
@@chocolatestraw3971 According to Wikipedia, a scientific theory is AN explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Seems you have mixed up theory and law. Theories open up the possibility of being proven wrong, whereas laws are universal observed constants in our world. We have a THEORY of evolution, not a LAW of evolution. And it will always stay a theory and will never be a law, because we never will find those missing links.
Ok, so just joe schmo Christian believer here. I am skeptical of evolution but have always struggled with this argument you present of "kinds."Because you speak of the Dog kind, and reference the canide family. So you mean to say the "dog kind" and family of Canide are the sams. Same thing, different terms. A rose by another name is still a rose. And you follow this wifh examples of various SPECIES(e.g. wolf, coyote, fox). But then, as proof of your argument, you reference (not examples of true speciation) but members of the same species (wolves) that have been domesticated/bred accordingly to produce various types of "breeds" (e.g. pit bull, German Shepherd, terrier). But as you say, these are all basically wolves. They are not seperate species. It seems incoherent, unless im not understanding something. Edit: you only maintain "purebreeds" by artifical means. "Hybrids" of dogs just turn into muts. And can reproduce with one another. But fox and wolves and coyotes don't need to be artificially kept pure. They do so naturally, otherwise there would be no distinct species to begin with. They can't inter breed successfully, thus different species (wolves, fox, coyotes) remain. Am I making sense?
Genuine question for creationists Considering how your apologists never adress evolution, but adress either a version of evolution that's not the scientific one, but a lie they made up, or adress stuff that has nothing to do with evolution in the first place, like the formation of life or even the universe, pretending it's about evolution, Is there any point where you start doubting the honesty of those apologists?
Well mostly I would say that apologists on average have no or little knowledge on evolutionary theory nor any particular branch of science. Most apologists argue from moral and ethical grounds.( With personal experience and "easy" talking points) Thus I listen to scientists for science and philosophical teachers for philosophy. That said, life from non-life and the origin of the universe are both important to a purely naturalistic view of the universe. It is ridiculous to assume that any one person knows enough about a topic as complex as this to perfectly present their points and avoid making false or inaccurate statements about the other sides position, thus I pool what I find reasonable and sound and try to find and clarify inconsistent points. Find my errors and I will attempt to correct them.
@@ronaldmorgan7632 Name them and their scientific fields. I bet those "scientists" have nothing to do witn anything like biology, biochemistry, or similar fields, right? 😀And they work for frauds like AiG or "discovery" institute.
All of biology and medical sciences are based on evolution occurring, and yet Calvin tries to claim evolution is a myth. That is either ignorance, or willful lying. Seeing as how Calvin is corrected in the comments of every video he makes, I'm going with lying.
“No, all of biology and medical science is patently not based on evolution; evolutionary understanding is based on processes now known to be in existence, and that is the study of biology and medical science, not on any hypothesis of how life might have been in eons past. Phylogeny does not recapitulate ontology.
@@denvan3143 First of all, why did you start with quotation marks? Secondly, yes, they are base on process known to exist, which includes evolution. Thank you for reiterating my point.
@@nathancook2852 ignore the quotation mark, it was a misty typing. There is no reiteration of your point because you have none; it is an exercise in circular reasoning. Perceiving the past in terms of processes known to be an existence is an interpretation of the past; you cannot then look at this interpretation of the past and claim projecting that onto the past has any bearing on medical science and biology. You evidence, a lack of understanding of Charles Darwin’s theory, his methods and his findings. Rather, you exhibit, the behavior of someone and scotched in religion, and, at that, a religion in which ens is rejected, and belief is cling to the zealously. I have the advantage that I approached evolution as an agnostic, having no understanding of our belief in God, but rejecting evolution because it was threadbare of the necessary evidence. as an agnostic, I approached the subject of God and then the person of God - and found him to be valid. If you don’t understand what interaction is with God, that is understandable: you have no knowledge of him, therefore you couldn’t be expected to know what a relationship with God is like. But as you give no evidence that you actually understand what evolution is, I think we are several miles away from any sort of cogent discussion of either subject.
ok, so if evolution is wrong (macro evolution since you cant dispute micro evolution) why would creatinism be right? We can see animals changing based on what is beneficial to survival (for example brazilian gekkos), so, if they change over time, when do they become to a new animal? its simple, cow moves to a colder biome. cow - cow with thicker skin - cow with tiny ammount of hair - cow with a small coat of fur - cow with fur - cow with fur, but smaller - cow with fur but smaller and one less stoamch - cow with fur but smaller but with one less stomach but with aditonal four teeth. Where do you draw a line? No where? at the end? All small changes add up over time. But you can just say 'this book says earth is 6000 years old and that is the truth' and ignore anything else.
Correct: gods (plural) are not reality; God is reality. The universe is not eternal; it had a beginning, therefore, because material could not invent itself. It was created by what is immaterial: God. Nature did not create itself, it was created by the supernatural: God. The reality is that the laws of physics must be exactly as they are or life would be impossible in the universe; it led the discover of fine-tuning, Frederick Hoyle, to understand that the universe has a theistic origin. That is the reality of physics. The biological instructions in DNA is code; without a coder there is no code: that is reality. And God is reality.
If you believe it to be Clickbait, then , as you have commented here you have taken the bait, hook, line and sinker. Your remark expresses your insecurity; if you didn’t care, you wouldn’t comment. Evidently, Fear Of Missing Out is your drug of choice.
@@denvan3143 I love how you all know what others are thinking. I guess your mythical god gave you that ability too. We just call out science deniers. Don't go thinking you all are that special. I call out flat earthers too.
@@nathancook2852 it’s not a matter of mind reading; your attitude is evident and what you write. You come to videos like this because of the fear of missing out, then become angry because you don’t like what you hear. Your anger is evident in what you write and the way you write it, and the basis of that anger is fear.
If you’re honestly looking for answers… this isn’t where you’re going to find it, whether for evolution or your faith. Although catered to faith, it’s only merited on someone else’s research and it can help but if not verified by self, can be detrimental. For an evolutionist, probably won’t watch the video unless committed to trying to refute comments as most are because they feel superior, if you haven’t ACTUALLY reviewed both sides you can’t really argue… What do I mean? Just because you were raised in a Christian household, doesn’t mean you really studied the Bible and understood what it had to say… just like how just because you attended science class meant you understood what evolution stood for. So get informed, make an assessment and do it again… and again. And repeat that until you really make a decision. If you want to stay ignorant just keep arguing on TH-cam.
Technically yes they can. With enough time and chance. But the evolutionists will claim they are being misrepresented when they know the logic is silly
@marcj3682 What does the symbiotic relationship of the living kind', mean? This isn't a scientific term, so you'll need to clarify so I can answer you.
Er, isn't it _creationists_ who need to worry about "rapid evolution" not being true? They're the ones who believe all animals descended from the original "kinds" on Noah's Ark. If that isn't rapid evolution, what is?
Calvin explains this in the video. You may not agree with him, but his point was that the various types of dogs, cats, etc. arise from reshuffling the genetic code already present in the parents. Just like one pair of human parents can have children that look significantly different from each other, the offspring of animals also experience genetic reshuffling. Mutations exist, and they do cause changes. But generally speaking, mutations are either neutral or bad. And mutations aren't the reason that there are so many different types of dogs. Just like the diversity in human appearance isn't due to mutations. Reshuffling genetics of parents can result in an incredible array of different possibilities.
@strategywizard It's not that I disagree with him: he's _wrong,_ plain and simple. The changes required for different species are impossible without mutations. And no, they're not always neutral or deleterious.
@@strategywizard Yes, children of the same parents can be very different. But they still only contain a random selection of information that the parents have inherited from the grandparents. These can be mixed in many ways, this is called recombination. However, there is no possibility beyond this offer. However, all such different children are children of this pair of parents. They are not new types! There is no biological mechanism as you imagine it.
@@strategywizard _arise from reshuffling the genetic code already present in the parents_ That nonsense was disproven decades ago. We've sequenced the genomes of ancient cats and dogs from specimens going back over 10,000 years. None of those genomes show any sign of containing all the genetic variations seen in extant dogs and cats. This is just one more made-up-on-the-spot lie from the creationist camp.
Organisms don't evolve out their "kinds" as you like to put it. We can both agree that anything descended from a dog can also be classified as a dog. The difference between you and me is that I can acknowledge that no matter how different any dog's descendants are from their ancestors, they'll still be dogs and I'd be willing to look at how they changed and diversified. Much in the same way how I can acknowledge how humans and chimpanzees are closer related to each other than either is to any other apes, how they're closer to each other than tigers are to mountain lions, and how all of them are mammals. You, on the other hand, would eyeball point A and point Z, ignore every point between them, and would only refer to those descendants as being a part of the same "created kind" based on whether or not they visually look similar enough to you and if you were told, at an early age, that they're dogs.
" Deny actual science, but believe in a non proven imaginary skyward. " "Science means "knowledge." So, history, maths, geograghy, biology, chemistry etc is "science." That said, the Bible is proven by maths, history, geography, biology etc. Evolution is not. "imaginary" is evolution.
@@marcj3682 All the Bible can claim is that a few of the places there were named are real, and a few of the characters share names with people that history can corroborate existed. NONE of the works, deeds, or "miracles" in the bible can be corroborated.
When you begin to "LIE FOR JESUS", it seems that you just cannot STOP LYING. EVOLUTION IS A FACT. GET OVER IT. CREATIONISM IS A FAIRY TALE. READ A DIFFERENT BOOK.
Thank you, Calvin, for another presentation that is very informative and enlightening! May GOD continue to bless you in your endevours to keep us aware of the beauty of GOD's Creation!!!
I am genuinely baffled as to why any religion still exists in this day and age. So much scientific factual evidence to debunk it, and only some ancient fairy tales to support it.
Fear of death. Wanting to be told how to behave and what to think. Lack of education or intelligence preventing understanding of science and just accepting "god did it" as the answer to everything.
Religion does not have to assert scientific "facts". It is only when fundamentalists insist on a literal interpretation of religious documents that they ope themselves to open refutation by science. If they kept to faith, and more value questions like purpose and morality, there need be no contradiction.
@@gregoryt8792 _First you should know 67% of all Nobel prizes have been awarded to Christian scientists._ *0%* of all Nobel Prizes have been awarded for work supporting Biblical creation. 😊
The vast majority of Christians accept evolution. Most creationists are not Christian (there are far more Muslim creationists than Christian ones). What strikes me is interesting is that most creationists do not believe me. Oh well, I guess that's what happens when you live in an isolationist bubble.
It's an attempt to patch up the sloppy terminology that scientists use. They limit their classifications to domains, phylums, classes, orders, families, genuses and species. Creationists replace the whole lot with "kind", because that's what illiterate Bronze Age goat herders would say.
Why did you use the undefined concept of Natural Selection ? Why appeal to a pagan god to explain anything related to Yahweh ‘s creation. This is unacceptable. ❤
@@Moist._Robot that’s already happened. God was born as a man, falsely arrested, convicted, crucified, and Rose again on the third day. His name is Jesus Christ. Humans condemned Him to death and he paid the price from my sins - and yours too. There’s still time for you to accept the free gift of eternal life and Jesus Christ.
Just a note on the introduction... I checked the comments that popped up on screen, and *_none_* of them quote "rapid evolution" as "undeniable proof of the story of evolution." As I am sure some commenters have used examples of rapid evolution as evidence of the modern scientific theory of evolution, the question becomes why Mr. Smith's production team didn't chose any of those comments to pop up. Are they just lazy? Or are they trying to mislead their audience?
(To original poster) Isn't there like hundreds of thousands of comments on each video? You'd need some sort of crawler to reliably find what you're looking for I think @@jockyoung4491 Teaching and believing in the Second Law of Thermodynamics (decay) is "trying to mislead"? Wow, and here I thought the SLoTD was an actual observable phenomenon in nature lol
@hansdemos6510 "Just a note on the introduction... I checked the comments that popped up on screen, and none of them quote "rapid evolution" as "undeniable proof of the story of evolution." " What on earth are you babbling about????? He's not talking about the comments here!!! They were all left here AFTER the video was posted on TH-cam! He's talking about common talking points among evolutionists!!!
@@Packhorse-bh8qn You said: _" What on earth are you babbling about?????"_ Please watch the video. At 5 seconds into the video, a number of comments pop up *_in the video,_* but *_none_* of them quote "rapid evolution" as "undeniable proof of the story of evolution" as Mr. Smith claimed. So, what do you think; are the peeps at AiG Canada too lazy to copy a few appropriate quotes, or are they trying to pull the wool over your eyes, or maybe there is some other reason? Take your time...
I used to look to religion for the truth, because that has always been the product they claim to sell. Now it seems, in order to be religious, one has to deny the truth. God's most fervent followers are his worst enemies as far as his -- and their -- credibility goes.
Dogs came from wolves through man's intervention. Other dog breeds came about from man's intervention. We end up with little wolves in our homes, well some bigger than others. We love our little wolves in our homes. Why do we call them dogs? They are still just wolves. Coyoteys are in there, too. It's just a hypothetical question or maybe phylosophical.
The article Calvin showed was called "Wolf to woof" That's a subtle pun, wolves don't bark, most dogs (except some hounds) do. Domestic dogs and wolves are separate species now,
@@jockyoung4491 as is explained in the video, rapid evolution is subdivision within a text Aime Family; dogs and wolves are in the canine family and different species, but neither developed from a simpler life form; that would require additional biological instructions in the DNA. Evolutionist have no answer to the question of the biological instructions in DNA other than to say “it just happened“ or “it’s just chemistry“, which is silliness that borders on believing in magic.
@@nathancook2852 not merely what it is called but the definition. Evolution as defined as one kind of living organism, transforming overtime into another kind of organism is not observed in nature, it is not observed in the fossil record, and it is not demonstrated in laboratory experiments. it is 1864 book on evolution. Charles Darwin put forward this theory that animals could transform over time into completely different kinds of animals, but in the 160 years since the evidence to support that theory has never been found. As to scientist, not being wrong: scientist are wrong all the time, they gonna do huge heated debates and nearly into hockey fights and agreements over their pet theories. scientists are just guys working for a paycheck, they are not selfless priests.
Its silly how people criticize this man, and yet believe in their own imagination. Namely, evolutionists that believe that "whenever the time is right" Or "After enough time and chance" Umm? So basically a circular argument? Really? I thought science was about finding the specific answers to specufic questions. And not being dogmatic about something broad and unproveable
@@taylorthetunafish5737 Another ad hominem. Can you make an argument without just objecting your bias? I do grasp science. And science doesn't prove the theory of evolution unless you mold logic to fit it that way. Please don't make arguments attempt to gaslight such as: your inability to grasp science isn't an argument against it" First off you failed to prove I have an inability to grasp science. And second of all you failed to prove that it's not a valid argument.
@@Jraethyme I would say that if you claim to "grasp science" yet reject evolutionary biology, then whatever you've grasped probably isn't science. The scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming!
@@Jraethyme All of biology is based on the fact that evolution occurs. The entire field is based on evolution occurring. Medical and pharmaceutical research is as well. They would break down completely if evolution did not occur. Believe whatever you want about a god, but stop spreading scientific falsehoods and scientific ignorance. It holds the world back.
@@statutesofthelord Yes it has, if you think that then you clearly do not understand what evolution is, we have evidence annually of flu, covid, cold evolving constantly hence our immune systems do not recognise them, we have been able to demonstrate in a lab how to make a single celled organism spontaneously evolve into a multi celled organism, by definition evidence of evolution, sorry but this ideology the church pushes is misinformation, no I cant put a cow in a lab and turn it into a sheep, evolution never claimed that and you have to ignore time itself to believe evolution does not exist. It is the strongest theory ever in science, it is backed up by several non related fields of science, it is observable, demonstrable and provable now because we can unravel the genetic code of any DNA sample, we can literally see the evidence in chemical bonds and how they relate to the evolutional tree and its branches. Just sitting there claiming i'm wrong shows you ignorance, we have been manipulating evolution for thousands of yrs in fruit and cattle etc we can show it in real time with fruit flies by triggering evolutionary cursors, but you won't know any of this because you are denying it without actually understanding the subject due to your ideology, that is sad and exposes your indoctrination.
"Evolutionists" have NOTHING to do with the creation of life in any way. Evolution is the process of change in an organism over time, not how that organism came to be initially. The video starts out by saying the terms used by the different sides aren't clearly defined for both sides to have a common starting point, then incorrectly calls people that study the origins of life evolutionists. It's as if using the incorrect terminology is intentional to help further the "Young Earth Creationist" views as being more logically sound. I believe that's what is called "gaslighting"; something those pushing this nonsensical belief continuously use in arguments. 🤔 🤨
"Evolutionists have NOTHING to do with the creation of life in any way. Evolution is the process of change in an organism over time, not how that organism came to be initially." - It is true that the evolutionist theory has no ground under it. Evolution makes no claims about the origin of life, for good reason. Evolutionists know it's impossible to prove that life could have triggered evolution. Evolution has no explainable connection to the first spark of life. Evolution is a fairy tale as long as this connection can't be found. Atheistic evasion tactics: "Origins of evolution is not part of evolution." A pathetic escape hatch ... Evolution can't happen without life, so in formal logic the origins of evolution MUST be part of evolution. Can we explain evolution without life? Of course not. The problem for evolutionists is that abiogenesis would break the 2nd law of thermodynamics, so there never could’ve been abiogenesis in the first place. No abiogenesis - no evolution because God is ruled out ... The abstract of "evolution" is like a building sketched on a paper. In that evolutionary sketch the building has no footing i.e. no scientific explanation how the assumed abiogenetic emergence of life and the emerging evolution could get connected. Of course, being a mere imaginary drawing, this "evolutionary building" doesn’t need a basement ... In real life evolution would need a basement, otherwise (macro)evolution is just fantasy - as we know it is! Evolutionists work on their imaginary evolutionary sketch, study it and add all kinds of "evidence" and details to their ”evolution building” to make it look credible. However there is still no footing under that building. Neither do evolutionists know how to draw it. This evolutionary building floating in the air is only on paper and it will forever stay on paper. The evolutionary ”building on paper” can't actualize in real life, just like the theory of evolution can't actualize in real life. All empirical studies to prove "macro" evolution (new life forms emerging from existing life forms) in laboratories have failed. Only intraspecific adaptive variation has ever happened and this the evolutionists call "evolution". We can call it ”micro evolution” if we want, but it really has nothing to do with the hypothetical ”Universal Common Ancestor” i.e. with evolution.
Evolutionist stridently disclaim any connection to origin of life for a simple reason: there is no evidence of it and no theory how it could’ve happened and yet it is essential to evolution, as life is necessary for life to possibly have evolved from one form to another. Your disclaimer is desperation. It is hypocrisy: on the one hand, you demand the source of life for creation, but on the other hand, you deny in responsibility for providing the source of life for evolution. It is a double standard that is unsupportable.
Why you have your own opinion concerning the young earth idea, creation is logical, evolution is not, in its aspects of cosmology, physics, and biology. After 1927 evolutionist could no longer say that the universe was eternal, therefore there was no need of an eternal creator. Edwin Hubbles disclosure of the red shift, demonstrated the universe had a beginning. Evolutionist cannot explain creation without the creator; they can only say “it just happened“ a complete disassociation from cause and effect, a failure of logic, no more than an embrace of magic. Frederick Hoyles, discovery of fine-tuning demonstrates the adjusting of the laws of physics by supreme being so that life is possible. The evolutionist explanation is “it just happened”: magic. The source of biological instructions in DNA, the code and all living things is explained by evolutionist as “it just happened“: magic. I don’t believe in magic, I believe in cause and effect. a conscious creator is a logical explanation for the universe, the laws of physics and the biological instructions in all living things. I will leave the magic to you.
Evolutionists would love to have evidence for the creation of life, they don’t have it, even though they have been searching for it, have failed and so have sought to disown it. But with no explanation of how life could arrive spontaneously, there can be no evolution in which life forms evolve from other life forms. It is a double standard: on the one hand, evolutionist demand evidence of the source of life for creation, but any responsibility to provide evidence of the source of life for evolution. That isn’t science, that is dogma.
17:16 i dont understand why you cant imagine that you repeat this proccess enough times, you get something new? repeat it over and over and over again and you'll get widly different forms. and btw, all genetic information is new information. any change, gives new information, even if that information gets rid of traits.
Where do the biological instructions in DNA originate? If you tell me, your shoes got scuffed up, that indicates a change in issues, but it does not explain how your shoes came into existence. You could sit at a computer at the prompt screen and press keys at random; that is information of a sword. I could sit at the same screen, prompt, and write instructions that would execute a program. That is a set of instructions as opposed to random characters on the screen. For lizard to become a bird where require a massive new set of instructions that direct the structure, function and metabolism of the wings, feathers and the unique lung structure of a bird. That’s not the result of random genetic mutation.
@denvan3143 thats abiogenesis, which is not related to darwin evolution but also, this idea that changing DNA randomly doesnt give new information is just wrong. any change is new information. DNA is not code nor a language, it is its own thing. you have strings of codans that come in 3 pairs, and all pairs can make something, even if its nonsense. you take ATA and take it to ATC or whatever, it becomes a new protein. new proteins can have new shapes, make new functions, etc. for example, fur and feathers are the same kind of protein shaped differently. for a lizard to become a bird, it can take either massive changes really fast (no biologist claims this) or it was slow changes over time. therapods began to grow plumage to stay warm, then glide from tree to tree, then fly on their own. each step moves slower to be better, the lungs slowly change, the bones slowly get more hollow, etc. the point between a lizard (therapode specifically) becoming a bird can't be scientifically pinpointed. i assume you believe in micro evolution as most creationists do, so im wondering wjy that just cant keep going into macro
@@denvan3143”lizard changing into a bird,” is exactly why you people don’t get laughed at. You’re right. I hate creationists. Plain and simple. They are some of the worst, most intellectually bankrupt people on this plant. No different from the Muslim creationists who use the exact same arguments to prove Allah is real. There’s a reason you people are called the Christian taliban.
@@Bomtombadi1 well, at least you admit you’re a bigot; that’s refreshing honesty from an evolutionist. But men are the Christian faith like Galileo Galilei, Johann Kepler, Isaac newton, John Maxwell, and Michael Faraday were fundamental to modern science; from their knowledge of the Bible, they knew that God is the great lawgiver, who made moral laws so life would not be chaotic and physical laws so the universe would not be chaotic. That is why we call them “laws of nature“” laws of science”. These men understood from the Bible that they are made in the image of their creator, and for that reason can find the universe intelligible. Evolutionist do not believe in the creator and believe somehow there is order in the universe, although it is a result of mindless, unguided, and irrational process. Evolutionist, who have to believe that their brain is a product of that blind, unguided, irrational process, still believe that somehow they will find the universe intelligible. It is one of the myriad contradictions evolutionists struggle with. Others of the Christian faith who have added to science and philosophy: Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1 543) Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627) Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) Rene Descartes (1596-1 650) Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907) Max Planck (1858-1947)
“There is [now no distinction in regard to salvation] neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you [who believe] are all one in Christ Jesus [no one can claim a spiritual superiority].” Galatians 3:28 you hate people, Christianity teaches us to love people. “Early Christians liberate slaves at their own expense. In the second and third centuries after Christ, tens of thousands of slaves were freed by people who converted the Christ, and then understood the inherent wrongness of the slave condition. Melania is said to have freed 8,000 slaves, Ovidus 5,000, Chromatius 1400, and Hermes 1200.” In the 1800s 90% of slaves sold by black slave kings went to the Muslim market; your problem is with them. Christians are taught to love, who taught you to hate?
@@anthonycope1662is evolving a single celled organism into a multiple celled organism good? Scientist did that in a lab,just by external stimuli...in 2 years...
@@logicalatheist1065 Would you consider Evolutionary Creation thru a reincarnation recycling process which explains every thing. A three dimensional thinker resolve conflicts by seeing them as Paradoxical and by adding a 3rd perspective finds a Tri - Unity that shows that duel conflicting arguments can be both right or wrong at the same time. It take Two to Tango but it takes 3 to prove and witness to Facts. Unity in Diversity takes asking important questions and then diligent seeking for answers that make a wise student of wisdom and understanding possible. Guest what I keep my shoes on and used my God given brain. Could it be both Atheist as well as Creationist need to take off both shoes and count there Blessing Moment by Moment Daily that contribute to the well being of all things including one's self. Blessing to you. AMEN
I love your videos, you have such an incredible way of intelligently explain what some of us already believe. I have questioned the idea of evolution right from day 1. I have always thought the scientific explanation for fossils was fishy as well it just didn't seem logical.
What separates the Christian God (Yahweh) from any other, are the prophecies of the Bible. The Bible is the only religious book that has never failed to have any of it's prophecies fulfilled.
@@RealHooksy Actually many of the prophecies have been fulfilled by enemies of God's people. For example, in Jeremiah 51:39 God says of the Babylonians "In their heat I will make their feasts, and I will make them drunken, that they may rejoice, and sleep a perpetual sleep". Secular history shows us that the Babylonians didn't put up a fight against the Persians due to their being asleep and drunk. Surely they didn't hear the prophecy and decided to sleep when they were being attacked.
@5:15: no, it doesn't 'beg the question' Begging the question is arguing in a circle, assuming the truth of what you seek to prove. I think he means 'raises the question'. "operational science"? Surely you mean empirical science? No one uses the term 'operational' for science. If you used regular English you might have more credibility.
A few questions. A. What makes you state that, do you disagree? Thats fine, I disagree with you but that does not give me any right to call you a “lier without shame” B. How can you prive that everyone who works for them is knowingly lying, correct or incorrect.
@@TacoBel Because every video quote mines and twists facts. They give no context and never provide the full article or work they claim to cite. That is dishonest...
@@nathancook2852 I mean, they're probably assuming their viewers aren't lazy and don't need to be spoonfed, but I suppose they could improve a bit on that. Still, it's important for us to do our own research, too. We can't just take everything a video says at face value. Heck, even I disagree with the video when it says that foxes are a kind of dog. I don't _strongly_ disagree, they're certainly quite similar to dogs and wolves, but I still think foxes are their own thing.
@@grapesofmath1539 It is intentional when they do it in every video. They absolutely believe their viewers are lazy and need to be spoon fed. In fact, they count on it. Which is why this comment section, and all their comment sections, are full of people with zero scientific literacy.
Speaking of evolution, hasn't religion evolved an awful lot, from buckets full of gods in mountains and tree's, causing thunder or stopping rain, living in clouds, sending plagues or erupting volcanos and sending earthquakes. Those angry gods that needed to be appeased with offerings or cash given to the priests. Anyone would think that if there was a god he could manage to get his story straight. But what we actually have is every tribe and its aunt with different versions of creation. What we should see is exactly the same version of creation and exactly the same commandments in every civilization from the Aztecs to the Zulus, but it would appear that the priests, left right and centre all over the globe are just making whatever fairy stories it takes to get cash out of their gullible followers. Imagine if a Nigerian prince told you that he had a place for you in a fancy afterlife hotel... And that all you had to do to gain entry was to follow his rules and pay him a small amount of cash every weekend and he would guarantee your room, oh and if you do break any of the rules, don't worry, just pay extra cash and he will still let you in.
You may give your attention to whatever god you wish, mine is focused on the god of the Bible. The Bible states in the beginning, God created the heavens in the earth; Evan Hubbles disclosure in 1927 of the red shift demonstrated the universe is expanding, therefore had an origin: evidence supports the Bible The Bible states God stretched out the heavens like a fabric; astronomical observations the universe is expanding more rapidly every moment: evidence confirms the Bible. The Bible states God created all living things; the fossil record shows the sudden appearance of life forms, not a gradual chain of ancestral forms that would be necessary for evolution: evidence confirms the Bible The Bible states the waters were gathered into one place and the dry land appeared; geologist have determined there was once a single giant supercontinent and a single ocean: evidence supports the Bible. The Bible states the Earth hangs unsuspended in space; astronomical observations confirm the earth is held in its orbit around the sun via gravitational effect: confirms the Bible. The Bible states that sin entered the world through man’s rebellion, and with it came death; the fossil record shows the extinction of more than 90% of all life forms that ever existed on the earth: evidence supports the Bible. The Bible states that as sin and the world, so did corruption; the second law of thermodynamics states that the energy level of the universe is descending to a low, common level (it being understood the universe is a closed) and that comp city is degenerating into chaos: evidence confirms the Bible. The Bible states the mountains were thrust up, and the valleys were cast down; plate tectonics demonstrates collision zones produce mountain ranges, and subduction zones produce rift and valleys: evidence supports the Bible. The Bible states that all humans are members of the same race; DNA confirms all humans are members of the same race: evidence support supports the Bible. The Bible states Jesus Christ was the active agent of creation; Frederick Hoyle’s discovery of finding let him to believe in a supreme being who has adjusted the laws of physics so that life is possible: evidence supports the Bible.
@@denvan3143 Not a single thing you listed actually supports a literal Bible. That was an amazing exhibition of trying to make the evidence fit your predrawn conclusions.
@@denvan3143 the bible is deliberately vague and meant to be reinterpreted, just like an astrological prediction it plays so loose with the facts anyone can 'read' whatever they want in it. You can watch the different versions of god evolve from one testament to the next and that's before you start reading texts from other religions. If you want to know the true origins of religions and gods just look at the money that's extracted and see where it goes. A god capable of creating a vast universe in a few days wouldn't need any of your cash... Though if you do need a priest to tell you every weekend not to kill or you would do so, it's probably best that you keep paying him to remind you.
@@samburns3329 actually, no: men of the Christian faith like Galileo Galilei, Johann Kepler, Isaac newton, John Maxwell, and Michael Faraday we’re foundations in modern science. Having read their Bible thoroughly and with the understanding that God is the great lawgiver, who created moral laws to keep life from being chaotic and physical laws to keep the universe from being chaotic, looked for laws of nature, which is precisely why we called them “laws of nature “” laws of science”. It’s odd that you would say I’m trying to make the evidence fit the Bible, since each of these events as I related them took place before evidence confirmed what was in the Bible. I suggest you step beyond the boundaries of your ideology and examine the findings of science and what the scripture says in an objective fashion. While my parents attended church until I was nine years old, I had no idea who God was nor any notion of why Jesus was his son and why that was relevant. I was an agnostic who began to study the Bible in my teams because it is a significant document in world history. I also studied the claims of evolution because it also is significant, concerning the past two centuries. I found the Bible to be credible and evolution to be deficient in evidence to the point of it being irrelevant.
@@denvan3143 The one thing all of those famous scientists you named have in common is *they all kept their religious beliefs out of their scientific work.* You creationists always forget that part while trying to cram your religious beliefs into science. _I found the Bible to be credible and evolution to be deficient in evidence_ That's a testimony to your ignorance of the scientific evidence for evolution, not a reflection on the evidence itself.
"Kind" is a colloquial term that has no biological meaning, it is far too imprecise. However, it is often used in discussions on these pages to deliberately remain unclear and keep all possibilities open. Sometimes it means "species", sometimes "family", sometimes even "order". In biological discussions, however, it is essential to distinguish clearly, very clearly, between these different levels of relationship. But this is often deliberately not wanted by certain people! What is your definition of "kind"? Wolves and dogs are subspecies, humans and primates not, but share the same subfamily (Homininae), what is really close.
I know others have already said this, but none of the references that calvin puts up at the start relate to rapid evolution if you actually look them up. There's lies, damn lies, and then calvin
Almighty God controls every aspect of the universe and the universe is God's Living Waters restructured in many different ways. It's inside atoms, inside all sciences, inside the living cell and inside the teaching of Jesus Christ. It has to be, so that the genetic repair Jesus initiates to restore us back to the original state of Adam and Eve works. Some could try and make evolution out of it but I prefer Almighty God's version based upon electromagnetic truth and Biblical veracity.
I wouldnt call God an trickster, and ife theres evidence for evolution its our duty to accept truth and not try to make God into our image and desire. You wouldnt say the fossils are just there because God liked the idea of bones underground, youd infer from observation and evidence that they are real remains of real creatures, not divine fabrications.
@@1MDA What I would say about evolution is that it is part of the electromagnetic repair mechanism built into every replicating living cell...but not here on Planet Earth in it's current orbital status, but in a previous life, that, before Wormwood passed last time, was very active here. After Wormwood left, this planet was lifeless...totally void, and with darkness on the face of the watery deep...or as we might say today, tidally locked...but with all the life supporting chemistry stalled, awaiting Creation.
@@1MDA I'll say it again so that it can be struck out again...the living cell, as made by Almighty God, can alter its genetics...its part of the repair cycle and is well worth studying, because Jesus Christ's teaching shows us how to repair our genetic health...to how Almighty God created it.
"cheetah and a kitten" They are of the parental "cat" kind. A "hyena" doesn't belong to the cat kind; preflood/postflood, the hyena/cat belonged to *and still do) their own DNA program kind. Eg - you can only reproduce a man kind - not a dog kind.
@marcj3682 thank you but that doesn't answer the question. What is the criteria by which you are making that distinction? If you had never cone across any of these animals before, how would you go about categorising them?
@@mattbrook-lee7732“kind” is equivalent to Family, in taxonomy. If that presents you with the problem, then I suggest you create your own tax on me. Write a paper on it and submit it for publication. Cats are in the feline family, hyenas are in the canine family.
![[Full Episode] The Restaurant War Thailand ศึกพ่อค้าซ่าแม่ค้าแซ่บ Episode 2 | 29 ก.ย. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/r3lfLNH6Ke4/mqdefault.jpg)
"rapid evolution"
ecoli after 80,000 generations remain ecoli. 😂😂
Yet they've evolved into over a dozen completely different strains of _E coli._ 🙂
@@Moist._Robot you actually referred to a yt video for science. tells me everything I need to know about you 😂😂
@@HS-zk5nn We have to post summaries. If we post the actual published science research you just soil yourself and run away. 😄
you obviously aren't very intelligent haha
@@Moist._Robot ofc you have been "educating" yourself with Naked Science on yt. try picking up an actual text book sometime 😂😂
He's right. Definition of terms and labels is a frequent basis for argument. So, exact what is a "kind"?
A kind is kinda whatever a creationist needs it to be at that particular moment.
Calvin actually came the closest I've seen to actually defining it here. He said it was roughly at the family level. I'd like to know on what basis that was decided though. Since no kinds seem to be named in the bible
@@mattbrook-lee7732 But they are: Leviticus clearly describes birds as kinds as we would call them species.
@@richardgregory3684 what verse please. I'll check it
@@mattbrook-lee7732 Leviticus 11:13 where it clearly describes birds like black kites, herons, ravens as "kinds". If you're goign to describe ravens as being multiple kinds, which is exactly what it does, it is evidend: when the bible says "kind" it is what we would call "species". But believers in the Noah nonense want us to believe that "kind" would sit far above species level, perhaps even to the point where all birds would simpyl be "bird kind".
God please continue to protect me and my two children. Father keep me encouraged because being a single mother with autistic children is overwhelming and challenging especially now because I’m homeschooling them so my hours to work are limited. I’m desperately trying to provide for them. Lord give me strength As I continue to struggle to buy groceries and as I struggle to pay rent. I know you are with me Heavenly Father. You are the God of possible. Please change my situation.
You again? Seen your pleas for attention in other threads. The woman who keeps asking for prayers and takes no action
Yeah, I don't know what the deal is. This person's been on numerous channels for years. At least 3 or 4 years with exact same message. By now some of those kids must be out of school seriously. I'm not exaggerating. I don't know what I don't know if they're looking for money. I don't know if they're just confused. I don't know what it is. I used to think it was real but now I don't.@@Bomtombadi1
“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”
Try praying to God not the TH-cam comment section
@Ray-vb5mg I second this.
If you want us to pray for you, you can ask ma’am. If you’re here to pray aloud so that all may hear, I’m not sure this is the place for that, if any place.
@Bomtombadi1 I’m afraid that’s exactly what it’s for. I’m surprised there’s no CashApp or PayPal here either.
I am a follower of Christ, and even I know that He doesn’t call us to sit back lazily and wait for things to happen. Jesus calls us to take action, taking up our cross daily-not posting “woe is me” videos for donations.
The ignorance and stupidity exhibited by this site never ceases to amuse. 🙂
This latest brain fart about "rapid speciation" is like watching runoff from a heavy rainstorm rapidly erode a soft dirt hillside, then claiming that proves *all erosion everywhere* (like the wearing smooth of the Appalachian Mountains) must have happened rapidly too. 🤪
just dont be rude about it
@@1MDA
I agree, but these videos do insult our intelligence with their illogical arguments amnd outright lies.
@@Lightbearer616 Lying its not a crime, its not agression, its free speech. Id side with flat earthers over people like you who think have a right to tell others what to think and do, and puting them in jail for having diferent opinions.
Play nice now 😂
@@1MDA If lying is free speech then calling out liars is free speech too. Can't have it both ways.
Atheism has nothing to do with science. The title is a red herring. And I hate to break it to ya, Calvin, but evolution is supported by over a century and a half of empirical evidence. No version of any religion on earth can say that. At least, not honestly... You really are blatant in your Commandment breaking.
yeah--the us against them mentality in the very title is rather detrimental to their position. i've never seen a biology book that goes out of its way to refute religion
@@AMC2283
It is Calvin's method. It is INTENDED to be offensive.
@@jockyoung4491 which is what you’d expect from someone who knows their position is weak
@@jockyoung4491 his style is polemic, which is inherently neither good nor bad, but simply a mechanism to promote dialogue. If you perceive it as offensive, it may be because you have nothing of substance to add to the conversation.
All that century and a half of "evidence" has been disproven and the story of the bible has 6000 years of never disproven evidence.
Odd, I thought YEC were the biggest proponents of rapid evolution, looking at evolution from the time of Noah until today, which mainstream science thinks is way too fast in theory to have been possible.
"I thought YEC were the biggest proponents of rapid evolution," - There was no evolution, only speciation just as Calvin explained.
Speciation generates subspecies through gene loss, not through new genes. There are no new genes running around to be picked and used for evolution i.e. to produce the process of a taxonomic species transforming to a new taxonomic genus, family, order ... i.e. to evolution. No such process has ever been scientifically proven.
Natural selection COULD generate evolution by speciation if it COULD deliver the survivors such qualitatively new genes that are not already found in the existing population. Natural selection (in fact natural elimination!) however delivers nothing. It just eliminates individuals who have less suitable genes for the environment where they live. The winners must go on with the genes they have. This is adaptation through gene loss as lost genes give room for the genes that are more useful in the new environment.
This is good for a while, but the specialized genomes make a more one-sided gene pool than the gene pool of the original population. When the living conditions change again, the specialized population suffers and goes extinct. That's why millions of species have already gone extinct and this process continues incessantly. Repeat: Specialization by devolution, not evolution.
They don't even realize their own contradiction. Or care.
They’re too busy being contrarian to realize they contradict themselves. Calvin does that constantly
@@jockyoung4491 No you ignoramus. Rapid speciation is what YECs would support not rapid evolution . There is a difference. You simply dont understand whats being said .
Its probably because you don't understand speciation isn't evolution...
God's word is a fountain of success and truth. Darwin's theory is a dumpster fire of consistent failure.
@@vantagepoint9270 the Bible doesn't say that all snakes talk, it says that one snake talked. That event is not something we would be able to verify through the scientific method. We do know that people can communicate with animals and there are even animals who can talk (parrots). You said snakes are consistent with evolution? Nope. No scientist has observed the transition of a snake to a non-snake. All we actually can observe is that snakes always produce more snakes just like Genesis 1 says God designed them to. Please accept observable science and documented history; receive Christ.
@@vantagepoint9270 "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils: (Stephen J. Gould, World renown American paleontologist evolutionary biologist)
So, no: scientists are not agreed regarding evidence for evolution. They agreed there is no evidence.
@@denvan3143
That is not what the quote says. Why are you lying?
And that's why one's religious book with dozens of translations and countless interpretations whereas the other is a scientific theory with global scientific support and a variety of applications?
You knew you were watching AiG Canada when you heard "aboot" multiple times. 😆
As a Canadian… I am still confused but very proud aboot that
And seeing Calvin wearing seven layers of clothing in Spring.
And when the talking head didn't talk to you but to some imaginary person behind your left shoulder: breaks any intimacy with the viewer and just looks kooky.
Truth is truth regardless of accent or language. Thats aboot all I have to say on that.
@@TheSaintFrenzy LOL!
Mr Smith: Evolutionists claim "rapid evolution", while showing an study that shows a type for bird got 15% bigger in the last 30.000 years.
Also Mr Smith: The cat kind that was on the ark changed into all these amazingly diverse cat-like animals in 5000 years.
This is just stupid.
Hyper evolution am I right?
@@1MDA
That is not a widely accepted scientific term. But evolutionary rates are relative. Even at its fastest, no individual ever gives birth to a different species, and nobody has ever claimed it could.
That was my first thought. If there isnt rapid evolution how did 1000 “kinds” microevolve to million+ species in a few 1000 years?
Im not saying anything about rapid evolution, just showing internal inconsistency in the logic.
And the jelly fish didn't evolve at all in millions
And what?Did it show the particle to human evolution?It is called speciation. The parent population split off to offsprings that share the traits of the parent population. Is that a surprise?
So i looked up the articles at the start that say "rapid evolution".
The first one about Sulawesi Babblers is about a 15% size increase in males over females on an island. within the timespan of 30.000 years since they split from the Babblers on the mainland. Rapid by evolutionary standards does not mean rapid by human standards.
The second is about severe natural selection on a bird species because an invasive new type of larger snail that took over the eco system and all birds with smaller beaks had a hard time eating them. Those with larger beaks (that were already around) flourished and within a decade or so only the birds with the large beaks were still around and that gene that caused the large beaks was present in most birds when it wasn't before. This is natural selection at work.
None of the comments that pop up actually mention rapid evolution or anything of the kind.
Calvin lying? How very dare you 🤣
I do have a question about the birds with larger beaks surviving, which I understand and makes sense in the scenario you mentioned, but what confuses me is this:
Lets say you have the same ecosystem with the snail species and all the birds had smaller beaks originally, wouldn't this lead to the all the birds dying out before any of them could have developed beaks strong enough to break through the shells?
There is potential for the smaller birds using rocks to smash the snails onto, but then why didn't the smaller birds do this in this situation? This is where I have an issue with evolution over a long period of time, in a isolated ecosystem where a food source is not accessible due to a inability of the prey, surely the prey would die out before being able to adapt to the environment?
@@pathblazerstudios indeed when the environment changes too quickly and evolution can't keep up species do die out. In fact there have been 5 mass extinctions throughout earth's history where exactly that has happened on a huge scale
@@mattbrook-lee7732 but then if everything died out, wouldn't it automatically suggest a reset on everything and starting all over again. If all the birds die out, then whatever controls the size of the beak would reset to 0 again as there is no knowledge remaining that the birds needed a bigger beak, as evolution doesn't keep a backup file somewhere of what it had previously accomplished just in case something goes wrong. which still makes me wonder, either the smaller birds found a way to sustain themselves over a period of time and develop a larger beak, or the larger beak has always been around.
@pathblazerstudios I don't understand your problem. If a species goes extinct its not a reset, its the end if the line
This is the most desperate and pathetic attempt at invalidating a proven scientific theory.
When they realize that evolution is impossible, even with immeasurable time, they then switch gears and go with "it happens super fast!" 🤣😂🤣
Absolutely none of that is true. But you knew that.
There is nothing illogical or impossible about evolution. If you think there is, then you don't understend it.
Evolution can occur at many different rates, but even at its fastest no individual ever gives borth to a different species. That WOULD be illogical
No-one has ever claimed it happens super fast
@@mattbrook-lee7732 yes, they have. In fact, the hopeful monster hypothesis was developed to address the fossil record having a stark lack of transitionary fossils.
@@noneyabidness9644 Only if by "fast" you mean fast on a geological scale.
We do know that you’re a little baby who runs away from arguments and can’t get his fallacy accusations straight, let alone right.
Still dont know what a "kind" is. Heard you mention "family" and "genus". Which is it?
None of the above. "Kind" is not a scientific term. It is a general term that can apply to ANY categories.
And because it is unbiological and therefore unclear, it is often used by one of the discussion sites to keep all possibilities open and not really have to take a stand. Guess which side!
350 the barimen created kind is about the family level
In Leviticus 11:13 Kind is used in a way scientists would call "species." So once again, Calvin's claim for "family" is wrong.
@@nathancook2852 scientist differ quite a bit on how they define “species” and the fastest way to promote a barrow among them is to toss that subject into the conversation. “Species” is up for grabs, and the closest analogy is really “family”, i.e., the family of mammals, birds, insects, plants, et al. Cats reproduce as cats within the feline family, dogs reproduce as dogs within the canine family, birds as birds, etc.
Young earth creationist are in the same category as flat earthers. Both literally just stick their fingers in their ears and shout to avoid the actual science.
That's a misrepresentation of what creationism stands for
Yeah, no
Then please explain what all the quoted persons actually meant for every quote in the video.
@@TacoBel Everyone here knows Calvin quote mines and misrepresents evidence and doesn't give context. Stop trying to defend him.
"actual science"
LOL. OK.
one day earth will look back at evolution and wonder how was this ever a theory people believed.
Because there’s literally more demonstrable evidence for evolution than there is for you as a human being. More PhD candidates have produced more information than you have produced or has been produced about you in your entire life. The fact that you deny it in favor of magic is personal incredulity.
You do know it's demonstrable and is the strongest scientific theory out there with medical leaps in curing previously genetic disorders and fatal hereditary problems ... deny evolution then refuse done cancer treatments because you don't believe the science behind it if you want, see where prayer alone gets you 🙏 😂
It's because there's evidence.....religious people just want to stick their heads in the sand and act like it doesn't exist
No, that's genesis. And that day is already here
No that's Genesis. And that day is already here
If to you evolution = atheism then you really have no clue. One have nothing to do with the other. Clickbite at best.
All atheists are evolutionists...that's the connection.
Keep making video's like this, you are a great asset to the atheism movement.
How so? All he did in this video is clarify the Creationist viewpoint, clairify the evolutionary view, and explained why he believes evolution to not be possible. He did this using research from Evolutionary studies and basic logic.
@@TacoBel Creationism is mythology. He has an agenda, to deny science, and promote religion.
@@TacoBel No, he quote mines and misleads, and often just lies, and he clarified nothing. He also didn't study anything, because if he had he would realize his mistakes. His logic is severely lacking. All of biology and medical sciences are based on evolution occurring, and yet he tries to claim evolution is a myth. That is ignorance, or willful lying, but no where in that is there logic.
Richard Dawkins is trying to push "Cultural Christianity" now
You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means 🤔
Pond scum, protozoa, pine trees, parrots, pandas, people 🔥🔥🔥🔥 Calvin was cooking 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽 8:00
Thanks for keeping the comment section open, I hate how a lot of fellow creationists block comments.
I hate it too, but I understand it. Reading the tiresomely idiotic comments of Darwinists who clearly didn't understand the argument and resort to their typical ad hominem insults gets old very fast. I can't believe I used to be one of those people.
@@SalvableRuin
Maybe if you listened with an open mind you might learn something. Or is that exactly why you don't?
@@jockyoung4491 I will repeat this, and hopefully you will learn something if you have an open mind:
"I will lay it on the line-there is not
one such [transitional] fossil for
which one could make a watertight argument. (Colin Patterson FRS,
British palaeontologist, Natural
History Museum)
"The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils: (Stephen J. Gould, World renown American paleontologist evolutionary biologist)
1864: Darwin‘s book on evolution.
2024: Evidence for evolution is still not found, almost two centuries.
@@SalvableRuin You're being hilariously hypocritical.
The reason why most creationist (and flat earther channels) do this is to maintain the echo chamber more easily. It does hurt the appearance of credibility slightly but most flat earthers and creationists still chose to control their herd's minds further.
Also creationists: all these different animal species around the Earth came from a couple thousand kinds.
You guys believe in Ultra Rapid Evolution, but also claim that Rapid Evolution is not a thing? That's hilarious.
The irony is amazing. These people don’t know what to think
Good job demonstrating the confusion of terms the video talked about. Truly top-notch comprehension.
@@IslandUsurper no, there’s no lapse in comprehension going on here. Creationists are always confusing terms, making terms up, or straight up redefining them to suit their purpose.
Or perhaps you’d care to clarify these terms?
I don’t think you will, because you don’t know what you’re talking about, like all science deniers.
@@IslandUsurper Only creationists are confused about terms usually. They make up their own terms, instead of using scientific terms.
@@katamas832 What, then, is "evolution"? And "Ultra Rapid Evolution"? Be specific. I predict your definition for your comment regarding what creationists believe in does not match the one in the video title that evolutionists believe in.
This guy is able to lie with dry eyes at a constant pace, never witnessed before, evolved quickly into a very slick creature
Always appreciate your humble and informative talks. They help me hone my apologetic and witness to evolutionists. Thank you.
Glad you are enjoying them! 🙂
Please don't raise any if this with anyone who understands evolution. You will make a fool of yourself
@@Lightbearer616 How did you come to that conclusion?
@@mattbrook-lee7732 How did you come to that conclusion?
@@futtermanfarms6791 I've seen people try it. They invariably end up looking either foolish or just stubborn
I believe in evolution because certain animals are only located at one spot
You totally missed the whole point of this video
I didn’t even watch the hole video,I just comment about evolution
@@eckobrown7902 that explains it
@@stillraven9415 yup 👍🏻
So I have a question for you, so because a type of animal is in one place in the world that proves evolution? Which means you must believe that an equal amount of every single type of animal should be everywhere on earth if you’re a creationist. So I don’t get how your theory even makes any sense.
What would animals who thrive in hot environments do in a cold environment? Because you’re saying that creationism means all animals must be equally spaced out on the entire planet.
You commenting on a video that you didn’t even watch, tells me that you are arguing not because you have proof that you wish people seeking the truth would watch. Nor do you want to consider any evidence that you don’t have.
So you must know everything and everyone else knows nothing new that you don’t already know. Which equals arrogance. I hope you can one day you can understand that no one person on earth knows everything.
May my Creator bless you and your family and your children’s children for a thousand generations. May His love bring you peace, protection and happiness.
All I know is when I read scientific periodicals or research documents of evolution, the documents are still peppered with words and terms such as "we assume...", "...probably...", "maybe...", "we postulate...", "it is believed that...", "given time..." ...etc... ..This is not to say that science won't figure it out with continued research.
.
On the other hand, it's difficult to believe that some higher intelligent "God" just commanded everything into existence.
.
Honestly, I don't think anyone really knows how, when, or why.
Time is the hero of everything.
Brilliant as always.
It took man 40,000 years to change wolves into the dogs of today. Perhaps you might notice the problem with that timeline?
@@Ottawa411 If it really took that long, then explain to us how there are 500 dog breeds in less 500 years.
@@denatajasper That is irrelevant, if it is even true. The fact remains that it took that long.
More nonsense from NoAnswers in Genesis.
More intellectual dishonesty from Calvin.
Or, "How to talk about evolution for eighteen minutes and still deny it happens!"
Please explain what was nonsense about it.
@@TacoBel Most of the 18 min
It's clear, miranda, you are seeking truth, with all the comments you post.
You do realise that the devil has your heart?
@@marcj3682 Don't talk such childish nonsense! Firstly there is no devil, secondly people's actions are controlled by their brain, not their heart! I just call out ignorance!
@@marcj3682 Please provide proof that one of the 1000's of gods man created actually exists, let alone a devil, which your god is said to have created. And please provide from any source other than the Bible. Thanks!
If all life existed simultaneously at the time of Noah’s global flood as claimed, why aren’t there remains of all “kinds” of life (even for a short time after the flood) in geology since that time???
Why do we only discover remains of certain “kinds” in certain layers (sedimentary, volcanic, ice, meteroic layers etc), never all “kinds” mixed together even though they supposedly lived in the same places and died in the same flood???
Why is there tree ring and ice layer dating evidence far older than biblical creation???
Why is there no remains of all “kinds” of life (and their foods) from distant islands and continents around where Noah’s ark settled - or anywhere in between there and their sole known origin/current location???
Why do plants, fungi and animals (not qualifying as ark creatures or their foods) exist if all destroyed by god in the flood???
If Noah’s ark only held a single mating “kind” of each animal, doesn’t that suggest rapid evolution to produce the variants of “kinds” we see today (including variants that are not found in earlier geology)??? Same with plants and fungi.
How did the different “kinds” of life (and their often immobile foods) from across the world (including from places then unknown) get to the ark, and return to their sole known locations after???… Noting many cannot travel far or fast, cannot swim from or back to their respective islands and continents, require different environments and foods etc etc etc
Dinosaur fossils show that they died with there heads pointing to the sky as if they were trying to stay out of the water, ND they find alot of fossils alongside mountains
First of all what is an evolutionist It is just evolution and one of the cornerstones of science If you can disprove it why don't you go get your Nobel Prize
Your comment makes no sense in the English language.
@@statutesofthelord I am sorry it didn't make sense to you if you are a Christian I understand why Most other people will be able to understand
@@oldcountryboy Your hubris has kept your comment from having any impact on anybody, because your comment is not comprehensible in the English language.
Yes, I am an English teacher.
@@statutesofthelord Hey Mr. Teacher I went and had my 8-year-old nephew read what I wrote he was able to read it and understand it just fine So either you are lying that you couldn't understand it or you are not as smart as an 8-year-old
Because the people that hand out the Noble Prizes disagree with the conclusions based on the reason that it is not evolution.
Well if rapid evolution is not real then I guess all the "kinds" that were on the ark could not have evolved into their current diversity, so Noah HAD to have taken all the current day animals onto his ark...which would have basically been unable to fit them all.
"Well if rapid evolution is not real then " - In fact NO evolution is real. Speciation instead is real (as Calvin stated) and it can be extremely fast.
Speciation of course does not generate new species, only subspecies. Dogs are subspecies from wolf and wolf may be subspecies from an older member of Canis Family. The forefather of Canis Family left the Ark 4500 years ago.
@@jounisuninen Speciation is macroevolution, by definition.
By a creationists definition perhaps. Macroevolution is not even a scientific term.
@@all_bets_on_Ganesh Indeed. It's purely a creationist term.
@@burnttoast2790 There is no barrier between "macro" and "micro" evolution and creationists have never been able to demonstrate that there is. The only things they can and always do say about it is "we have never seen it before" and then act incredulous about it.
Some of those who comment here both subscribe and (militantly) jump to be first ones appearing to this channel's videos attacking the narrator on almost every video. I've never seen a more ridiculous bunch of keyboard warriors that have nothing better to do in life than hate those who believe in the God of the bible. To those I'm speaking of, quit the hating and the denial that you are hating and get a life.
I've seen no one here show any hatred to those who believe in God. The problem is with people like Calvin who bare-faced lie about scientific knowledge to push their beliefs. That's quite a bit different, don't you agree?
@@sciencerules2825 What exactly do you mean by Calvin cherry picking his info? First, prove it. Next, if you can't then don't make false claims that stem from hate towards the guy.
@@NoiTuLovE64 If you haven't see Calvin lying about and misrepresenting evolutionary science in virtually every video he posts you are either scientifically illiterate or haven't been watching, or both.
So you don't suppose that Calvin's blatant atheist-baiting titles have anything to do with the speed at which he gets rebuttals from atheists?
He knows very well what he's doing, and you should recognise it too.
@@MrReasonabubbleI like how rebuttals and admittedly atheist baiting means hatred to you.
So a rapid evolution after the flood is not possible.
Yeah, they always forget about that one.
@@D.B-x2s
That is evolution.
@@jockyoung4491 how so? Are you saying humans are at different stages of evolution because of the color of their skin?
@@JesusistheonetrueGod
Good heavens. Where did that come from? Why are you looking for excuses to hate people? No biologist would say that, so keep your racism imaginings to yourself.
Adaptation is evolution. And everything has been evolving for exactly the same amount of time.
@@jockyoung4491Evolutionary theory has propelled a lot of racism. Probably more than anything else.
VERY valuable presentation, THANKS a lot!
Only if you want to take health care and other advances in science back 300 yrs.
@@nathancook2852 men of Christian face like Galileo Galilei, Johann Kepler, Isaac newton, John Maxwell, and Michael Faraday world They looked for natural laws in the universe as they understood. God is the great lawgiver; he made moral laws to keep life from being chaotic and physical laws to keep the universe from being chaotic. as they knew they were created in the image of God, they could find the universe intelligible. The evolutionist has no such prospects; as they do not believe in and intelligent creator, they see the universe as being without cause, without purpose, with no mind behind it, no rationality. Therefore, the evolutionist must acknowledge that is they are product of that universe. Their brain is unplanned, unguided and irrational, and therefore your suspect in anything approaching logic, reason critical thinking. Others of the Christian faith who have added to science and philosophy:
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1 543) Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627) Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) Rene Descartes (1596-1 650) Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907) Max Planck (1858-1947)
Without all these, science will be set back considerably more than “300 years”.
Only valuable to science deniers maybe
@@leroyjenkins3744 Your comment has no argument, just shows that you think you are the smart one.
@@JoergBthat’s bold coming from someone without an argument too lol
In nature, there have been frogs that gave birth through their mouths!!
Great to see that almost all the comments here are calling out these appalling liars.
The gappy example is gold ,cause now we see that it can obviously go on for longer with more time ,and end up with even new features all together cause see what just 4 years can do
Again, what does atheism have to do with evolution? The fact that you equate the two just demonstrates that you have no clue.
One ad hominem. And also atheism has much to do with the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is correlated with atheist beliefs.
@@Jraethyme
No it is not. Millions of Christians accept the science of evolution. And I'm sure there are atheists who know nothing about science. Faith and science have nothing to do with each other.
Evolution theory is an attempt to explain away the existence of God the creator. So yes, it is very correlated with atheist beliefs. That fact that you don't equate the two demonstrates that you have no clue.
@@MarkAtherton-bf4pq
No it is not. Evolution is science. Science can say nothing either way about the existence of God. Equating the two is a dishonest creationist talking point. Words have meanings.
@@MarkAtherton-bf4pq Most who believe in evolution are not atheists. Unless you label all who believe in evolution as atheists.
The hierarchy is based on genetics not physical traits. Please get the basic facts right.
Absolutely not in Linnaean taxonomy
it's largely based on traits & not genetics... eg Invertebrates vs Vertebrates, Mammals, Reptiles, Cold vs warm-blooded, Chordates etc.
As far as genetic grouping, it's probably phylogenetics, cladistics & barcoding
@@easyminimal_6130 the assignments today are based on genetics. Obviously that wasn’t the case in the 1700s. It is now. The *names* often correlate with specific derived traits, but the groups themselves are based on molecular data.
@@CreationMyths
It can be based on either or both. Genetics is usually favored these days, but not exclusively.
@@jockyoung4491 in cases where we have molecular data, that’s what we use.
@@CreationMyths
It is generally favored, except in paleontology
I'll demonstrate evolution is backwards in my video 'Begining of understanding '
AIG: No such thing as evolution
Also AIG: Nioah's Ark only needed a single pair of "feline kind", all the types of felines we see today developed from them
Diversity within a kind of animal is already present in the genetic material of the animal. That's not macro evolution. He literally explained it in the video but you chose to ignore it. Interesting.
Bingo!! But they will say: "All of today's felinae are already created in the "kind" on Noah's ark". Even the South and North American types, which could have never had contact with Old World types since Noah.
They also needed beavers, termites, porcupines and woodpeckers, not to mention all the other hundreds of wood eating animals and insects to live on the ark for nearly a year. I still haven't figured out how the koala's got there knowing they sleep nearly 22 hrs. a day and only eat eucalyptus leaves, but yet they traveled from Australia to the middle east and back.
Calvin Smith's answer would be: "At that time (about 4,500 years ago) all the continents were still close together, the mountains were not yet so high and the oceans not so deep."
@@Nils-gi5bv The continental drift is less than an inch a year, which would mean in 4,500 years, the continents should all be no more than 375 feet from each other. I guess that's why the call the ocean between the US and the UK "across the pond" lol
I love when people who don't understand biology, try to debunk biology lol. If evolution didnt work, we'd have figured that out a long long time ago. Same as literally all scientific theories ever, that you also have no problem accepting as fact. Your refusal to accept specific scientific theories simply because of your bronze age beliefs is quite humorous.
Evolutionist have figured out that there is no fossil evidence to support the claim of animals changing into other kinds of animals.
"The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils: (Stephen J. Gould, World renown American paleontologist evolutionary biologist)
"I will lay it on the line-there is not
one such [transitional] fossil for
which one could make a watertight argument. (Colin Patterson ,
British palaeontologist, Natural
History Museum)
1864: Darwin publishes his book on evolution.
2024: no evidence to support evolution has been found.
To this date: evolutionist cannot explain the source of biological information in DNA, the code in all living things: there is no code without a coder.
You arbitrarily chose Family as the classification level for Baramin. You're gonna have to show me how that's objectively true. No non-christian would be swayed by this argument.
Thanks so much for bringing truth in such a peaceful environment & wisdom to carry it through. Love your videos...certainly beats these bad news videos any day! God bless you
AiG provides you deliberate misinformation and propaganda.
Evolution happens every generation, but major changes take more time.
Please be specific what you mean by the term evolution in this context and provide examples. I have physical traits in common with my parents, but they’re also differences; that does not constitute evolution, it is merely an expression of revenant DNA.
@@denvan3143 It wold still be evolution, which is a chage in the heritable characteristics in a biological population.
@@denvan3143
Biological evolution is a change in gene frequencies. It happens every generation. It HAS to.
@@denvan3143
Biological evolution is a change in gene frequencies. It happens every generation. It HAS to.
@@jockyoung4491 You are confusing, recumbent DNA in the reproductive process with genetic mutation. 23 chromosomes from your mother and 23 chromosomes from your father, combine to create a new, unique human being; if you have brothers or sisters, you will all have a family resemblance, but each will be different - unless twins are involved, of course. This is not evolution, you do not “evolve” from your parents. I’m not sure where you’re getting your information but it is incorrect. Recon revenant DNA is not rapid evolution, rapid evolution is not Darwin’s descent with modification.
If all current animals evolved from the animals on Noah's ark evolution isn't just rapid. It's supercharged.
None of the kinds are named in the bible. So who decided that it sits at the family level of taxonomy?
And they claim they dont add to scripture.
@1MDA indeed. Its all about making the evidence fit the bill.
There is no possible way you could know the answer that question - unless you actually watch the video. Carl Linneus is the father of modern taxonomy. He found the biblical description of “kinds“ was not all inclusive so he said about to supplement it. If you don’t like it, you are free to make up your own tax on me and attempt to publish papers on the subject.
@@1MDA well, you’ll never know if they added to scripture or not unless you actually read the Bible - is that going to happen anytime soon? I have read one and a half books every week for the past 30 years; that’s in excessive 2000 books on every subject aside from the Bible. When you get up to 500 books come back and perhaps we can have a conversation about Scriptures or whatever you would like to discuss.
@@denvan3143 bully for you
Except it’s been demonstrated repeatedly. The only thing untrue here is the silly old book you guys are still reading. Hey, instead of arguing against established and demonstrable facts why don’t you take the time to do the first Peter thing and prove your magic???
Seeing is not believing... if we were living in the time before electricity was discovered, would you have ever imagined it existed?
Looks like AIG and Calvin live rent free in your head, Chad… don’t forget to share, as you’ve already commented and I’m sure you’ve also already subscribed
@@ElectricBluJay Oof, looks like Chad lives rent free in your head. He really seems to have gotten to you. Sorry, but people are gonna call out the lies that happen on this channel in ever single video they produce.
@@nathancook2852 Nice try, but this person didn’t call out any lie - nor did you for that matter. All he did was make his disdain for those who believe differently than himself known. I figured the least I could do for the poor man was point out that he is wasting his time tilting at windmills.
If there was a cult out there who posted videos about their belief in Santa Claus, I would feel quite pathetic following them around slinging half-assed insults about Rudolph the red nosed reindeer.
Maybe you have little better to do…
@@ElectricBluJay Did Calvin post a video? Did this guy speak out against it? Then he called out a lie. I am just here to help stamp out science denial. Believe what you want about a god or gods, but stop spreading misinformation, or straight up lying, about science. Creating more science deniers is terrible for the future of our planet.
The fact that Noah’s Ark is plugged into this is fucking hilarious. What a joke
Dumb, delusion and dishonesty... the holy trinity of apologetics
Specifically what is dishonest? Why do you atheists just cast general insults but never specifically refute anything? So specifically, what did he get wrong and what is your evidence to back up that it is wrong?
@@rl7012 "you atheists just cast general insults and never refute anything"... well well well if there ever was a pot calling the kettle black you just nailed it... congratulations self foot shooter oh great one
Wow, you're all over the creationist's feed just 'Qakking' away
@@Loading....99.99 Um... ok. Bizarro
@@DuXQaK there weren’t any general insults casted at you and the refutation was the pointing out that you didn’t provide any support for your stance.. maybe you should look up what “pot calling the kettle black “ means. BUT ONLY after giving an answer, what was dishonest about this video?
Evolution is change and change is a big problem for creationists
who have a man made book as their guide instead of the real world that surrounds them every day of their lives.
"The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils: (Stephen J. Gould, World renown American paleontologist evolutionary biologist)
In short: no tree of life, no evolution because there is no evidence.
@@denvan3143in short, another Gould quote. A man who supported evolution but not gradualism.
Nice try though, a-whipe
@@denvan3143
I met Gould. My brother worked in his lab. You have no idea how annoyed he would get when creationsts (he called them munchkins) used his words to mean something different than obviously intended. Gould was right, but that obviously does not mean there is no evidence for evolution. That would be a stupid conclusion.
@@denvan3143 Gould stated creationists who quote-mined him were either stupid or deliberately dishonest. Which are you?
@@jockyoung4491 I expressed no conclusions, I only quoted the man. If you resent my doing so it is on the basis of your personal bigotry; the root of your resentment is that from the time the statement was made to the present the situation has not changed. In fact, from Darwin’s first presentation of his theory to the present 160 years have passed in which the evidence has not been forthcoming. I am not responsible for your discontent over the situation or the annoyance of Gould. Phylogeny has proven to be a failure in this regard; don’t blame me.
Leviticus chapter 11 talks about kinds and clearly means what we would call a species. Not sure why calvin thinks it means a family
They do that because everyone laughs at them for thinking all the species in the world could fit on a boat. So they claim only the general kinds were there and diversified later. Somehow they are too clueless to understand that is evolution.
I suggest you review the video. The animals taken on board the Ark Were pairs that represented families; rapid evolution is subdivision within families. Rapid evolution does not equate to common descent, which is the theory that all animals came from a common ancestor. 160 years of paleontology does not support that premise.
Rapid evolution, results in species within families, but does not create new families, nor is there crossover between them; nothing will change from the cat family to the dog family, no reptile will cross over to the bird family or vice versa.
@@jockyoung4491 two things about your character, is evidence in your comment: (1) Would you have learned has been at the feet of authoritarians, before whom you have submitted in silence, hence the attitude you take here. You are not a harsh schoolmaster, your theatrics are in vain. (2) It is evident you fear ridicule above everything else and will do anything to avoid it. You appear to be rather thin skinned, to assume that is a universal reflex. As you are a collectivist, you are a herd animal: you do not determine your behavior, it is determined for you by the herd. As an alternative, I suggest you engage in personal rapid evolution and become an individualist.
@denvan3143 everything you said about families going onto the ark is contradicted by leviticus chapter 11. Kind clearly means species there
@denvan3143 common descent is supported by a huge range of observable evidence.
HeLa cells are a clear case of a new kind by anyones definition. Living single cell organisms that emerged from human cancer cells.
Funny. Creationists need ultra-rapid evolution for explaining the Noah´s arch story but deny cases of rapid evolution reported in scientific papers.
Calvin Smith again fails to get even one thing right.
If it wasn't for fallacious logic creationists wouldn't have any logic at all. 🙂
"Creationists need ultra-rapid evolution for explaining the Noah´s arch story ..." - Not true however. You are addled by the evolution theory. Listen carefully what Calvin tells.
Calvin talks of speciation. Speciation has nothing to do with the fallacious "evolution". Speciation is a quick process. Evolutionists just can't distinguish speciation from evolution. Speciation is reality, evolution is a fairy tale for ignorant evolutionists.
Speciation generates subspecies through gene loss, not through new genes. Less fit individuals get culled from population and they take their genes with them. When part of genes are lost from population, other genes become dominant and superficial changes happen. There are no new genes running around to be picked and used for evolution i.e. to produce the process of a taxonomic species transforming to a new taxonomic genus, family, order ... i.e. to evolution. No such evolution process has ever been scientifically proven!
Natural selection COULD produce evolution if it COULD deliver to the survivors such qualitatively new genes that are not already found in the existing population. Natural selection (in fact natural elimination!) however delivers nothing, it just eliminates individuals who have less suitable genes for the environment where they live. The winners must go on with the genes they have. In the long run they can copulate only with other winners because the less fit are dead or become too rare. This means that on the population level every individual's genome gets specialized i.e. impoverished. This is adaptation.
It is good for a while, but the specialized genomes make a more one-sided gene pool than the gene pool of the original population. When the living conditions change again, the specialized population suffers and goes extinct. That's why millions of species have already gone extinct and this process continues incessantly.
@@jounisuninen _Speciation is reality,_ Speciation is also macroevolution by definition. Thanks for confirming macroevolution is reality. 😊
@@jounisuninen _Natural selection COULD produce evolution if it COULD deliver to the survivors such qualitatively new genes that are not already found in the existing population_
Oh, you mean like this paper in _Science_ documents?
*Real-time evolution of new genes by innovation, amplification, and divergence*
@@samburns3329 you believe in the origination of new biological instructions in living organisms by a natural, blind mechanism? Great: I’m selling shears in my new perpetual motion machine; you don’t want to miss out. 😄
PS _Science_ used to be a reputable magazine, it went the way of woke.
Apparently everything is allowed to evolve... except Linnaeus' definitions. Throwing him out because he changed his definition of species is like throwing out all of Einstein because his view of the steady-state universe model changed.
There is very little of Linnaeus left in modern phylogenetics. We don't "throw out" a person, but science marches on. Science is not based on any person.
@@jockyoung4491 Right, just like Darwin's idea's have been updated, and many are even outdated as well. But that is what happens when you are able to analyze new evidence. Funny how AIG makes this out to be a bad thing.
@@nathancook2852 I think the video’s segment regarding Linnaeus was intended to address those who point to Linnaeus’s expanding ‘species’ to account for more variability within species as evidence that Judeo-Christian forefathers ‘moved the goal posts’ to try and ‘force’ alignment between Biblical teaching and new scientific observations
@jockyoung4491 That's a bit of a strawman as no one claimed that science is based on one person. The claim, and it is a correct one, is that the person who created and defined the term "species" also defined the term "kind". Both definitions changed based on observation.
@user-bg7fr1dz8c The term species did not exist before the late 1700s, and neither the Bible nor the "forefathers" defined what a "kind" was. Therefore, there could be neither 'alignment' nor lack of alignment thereof.
Don't you believe that all the species evolved from a few types on the ark in a couple thousand years? I would call that rapid.
Except as explained in the video- speciation isn't evolution... : )
@@calvinsmith7575 You all just like to change the names of things you don't like/agree with. It is certainly evolution.
@@calvinsmith7575
Obviously speciation is evolution. Get an education.
@@jockyoung4491 Obviously speciation isnot evolution. Get an education. : )
But its not evolution. How hard is that concept? Speciation doesn't equal evolution...period....
"sorry atheists"?
Wow this channel is so cringe
Your comment is cringe. No one is forcing you to watch the video or make a comments.
@@denvan3143
But can't we point out when Calvin is purposely offensive? (as well as ignorant enough to confuse atheism with evolution)
@@jockyoung4491 your obsession with Calvin is disturbing.
@@denvan3143 I know they're not 😂
@@denvan3143 Your obsession with baseless religious texts is disturbing. Atheism has nothing to do you with evolution. These videos are cringe 😬.
So Ken Ham's Hyper Evolution theory about all the animals evolving within 2.000 years after the Ark is wrong then.
Good to know.
They like to talk out of both sides of their mouth.
I would say Ken Ham is an dniot, but I would be rightly accused of ad hominem, so I will let you decide for yourself
2000 years ago is the era of the Roman Empire and the time in which Jesus walked in the Earth. I think your watch is running slow. 😄
@@nathancook2852 you’re right; evolutionist first say that evolution takes hundreds of millions of years, then they say that evolution can happen within the span of human existence, but, whoops, not that fast. Pick a lane.
@@denvan3143 I think Ken Ham's watch stopped running years ago.
The only reason why you would need a concept like "baramin" is if you do not believe that God could have miraculously fitted all existing species of breathing land animals on the Ark. This is a theological issue, not a scientific one.
Mr. Smith's acceptance of the modern "baramin" or "created kind" terminology shows that his ideas have evolved from past dogmas on this topic. His religious forebears used to believe that God had created all individual species as they were, and the word "min" or "kind" did not refer to the "family" level at all, but to the species level. You can easily verify this for yourself by looking at old paintings of the animals that went into the Ark; you will see both lions and tigers, donkeys and horses, foxes and wolves waiting in line.
As science is what is observable and evolution is not observable in the wild, in the laboratory or in the fossil record it is a belief system and not science. Yours is a poor position from which to critique others.
Origin of species is not observed, divergence of species is. Darwin observed the ladder, as the breeders of domestic animals exploited this facet of biology to breed new phenotypes. Darwin mistakenly based his idea of evolution on the notion that divergence of species or species ation could lead to different families of animals, as different as cats and dogs. Such as not the case, no such thing has ever been discovered in the fossil record.
@@denvan3143 You said: _" As science is what is observable and evolution is not observable in the wild, in the laboratory or in the fossil record it is a belief system and not science."_
The definition of evolution is "the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations." This has been observed numerous times. You may call it "adaptation" or "divergence of species", but it is evolution in accordance with its definition.
You said: _"Origin of species is not observed, divergence of species is."_
If you are of the opinion that "divergence of species" is observed, then you admit that evolution is observed in accordance with its definition.
If you don't agree that we can draw rational conclusions about the past based on what we observe in the present, you are opposed to all of the natural sciences.
You said: _"Darwin observed the ladder, as the breeders of domestic animals exploited this facet of biology to breed new phenotypes."_
I don't know what you mean by "the ladder", but yeah, Darwin observed artificial selection and that informed his ideas about natural selection. I don't see what the problem is.
You said: _"Darwin mistakenly based his idea of evolution on the notion that divergence of species or species ation could lead to different families of animals, as different as cats and dogs."_
I am not sure what you mean by "different families of animals". You seem to agree that divergence can lead to different species, so why would you not agree that species could diverge further and further until they had become so different from each other that a new classification should be introduced? That seems illogical to me.
You said: _"Such as not the case, no such thing has ever been discovered in the fossil record."_
The fossil record is notoriously patchy, so if you require complete lineages to be found, you will be disappointed. The remarkable thing about the fossil record however is that what we do find invariably fits with the bigger picture. No Pre-Cambrian bunnies yet!
I like that Abbott and Costello's usage and misunderstanding of common words/phrases are being used by a guy whose side routinely trots out the "Evolution is just a theory" canard.
It literally is just a theory tho. Seems like you don't know what that word means yet 🤔
@@bctalicorn809 Why don't you tell me what you think a theory is, junior? 🤣
@@chocolatestraw3971 According to Wikipedia, a scientific theory is AN explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.
Seems you have mixed up theory and law. Theories open up the possibility of being proven wrong, whereas laws are universal observed constants in our world. We have a THEORY of evolution, not a LAW of evolution. And it will always stay a theory and will never be a law, because we never will find those missing links.
@@chocolatestraw3971 Like the theory of evolution, it's a collection of facts and conjecture.
@@bctalicorn809 It's not just a theory, it's scientific theory.
I would love to own a wolf. Magnificent creature.
You cannot "own " a Wolf.
Do you "own " your wife and kids ?
@@martinc6987 they dont. but you get owned every time you post here 😂
Just because you feel it is "magnificent" does not mean you should "own" one.
@@martinc6987 why can't he own a wolf? Wife and kids are not wolves.
@@JesusistheonetrueGod He can own a wolf when he finds a wolf that wants to be owned.
Ok, so just joe schmo Christian believer here. I am skeptical of evolution but have always struggled with this argument you present of "kinds."Because you speak of the Dog kind, and reference the canide family. So you mean to say the "dog kind" and family of Canide are the sams. Same thing, different terms. A rose by another name is still a rose. And you follow this wifh examples of various SPECIES(e.g. wolf, coyote, fox). But then, as proof of your argument, you reference (not examples of true speciation) but members of the same species (wolves) that have been domesticated/bred accordingly to produce various types of "breeds" (e.g. pit bull, German Shepherd, terrier). But as you say, these are all basically wolves. They are not seperate species. It seems incoherent, unless im not understanding something.
Edit: you only maintain "purebreeds" by artifical means. "Hybrids" of dogs just turn into muts. And can reproduce with one another. But fox and wolves and coyotes don't need to be artificially kept pure. They do so naturally, otherwise there would be no distinct species to begin with. They can't inter breed successfully, thus different species (wolves, fox, coyotes) remain.
Am I making sense?
Genuine question for creationists
Considering how your apologists never adress evolution, but adress either a version of evolution that's not the scientific one, but a lie they made up, or adress stuff that has nothing to do with evolution in the first place, like the formation of life or even the universe, pretending it's about evolution,
Is there any point where you start doubting the honesty of those apologists?
Well mostly I would say that apologists on average have no or little knowledge on evolutionary theory nor any particular branch of science. Most apologists argue from moral and ethical grounds.( With personal experience and "easy" talking points) Thus I listen to scientists for science and philosophical teachers for philosophy. That said, life from non-life and the origin of the universe are both important to a purely naturalistic view of the universe.
It is ridiculous to assume that any one person knows enough about a topic as complex as this to perfectly present their points and avoid making false or inaccurate statements about the other sides position, thus I pool what I find reasonable and sound and try to find and clarify inconsistent points.
Find my errors and I will attempt to correct them.
If you look you can find very accomplished scientists who have big problems with the theory of evolution.
@@ronaldmorgan7632 Like who?
@@ronaldmorgan7632 Name them and their scientific fields. I bet those "scientists" have nothing to do witn anything like biology, biochemistry, or similar fields, right? 😀And they work for frauds like AiG or "discovery" institute.
"Genuine question for creationists..." - proceeds to strawman and demean creationists. Go gaslight somewhere else Mr 'Genuine'...
All of biology and medical sciences are based on evolution occurring, and yet Calvin tries to claim evolution is a myth. That is either ignorance, or willful lying. Seeing as how Calvin is corrected in the comments of every video he makes, I'm going with lying.
That's pretty much the surest bet you'll find.
“No, all of biology and medical science is patently not based on evolution; evolutionary understanding is based on processes now known to be in existence, and that is the study of biology and medical science, not on any hypothesis of how life might have been in eons past. Phylogeny does not recapitulate ontology.
@@denvan3143 First of all, why did you start with quotation marks? Secondly, yes, they are base on process known to exist, which includes evolution. Thank you for reiterating my point.
@@nathancook2852 ignore the quotation mark, it was a misty typing.
There is no reiteration of your point because you have none; it is an exercise in circular reasoning. Perceiving the past in terms of processes known to be an existence is an interpretation of the past; you cannot then look at this interpretation of the past and claim projecting that onto the past has any bearing on medical science and biology. You evidence, a lack of understanding of Charles Darwin’s theory, his methods and his findings. Rather, you exhibit, the behavior of someone and scotched in religion, and, at that, a religion in which ens is rejected, and belief is cling to the zealously.
I have the advantage that I approached evolution as an agnostic, having no understanding of our belief in God, but rejecting evolution because it was threadbare of the necessary evidence. as an agnostic, I approached the subject of God and then the person of God - and found him to be valid. If you don’t understand what interaction is with God, that is understandable: you have no knowledge of him, therefore you couldn’t be expected to know what a relationship with God is like. But as you give no evidence that you actually understand what evolution is, I think we are several miles away from any sort of cogent discussion of either subject.
Evolution has never been observed...
ok, so if evolution is wrong (macro evolution since you cant dispute micro evolution) why would creatinism be right? We can see animals changing based on what is beneficial to survival (for example brazilian gekkos), so, if they change over time, when do they become to a new animal? its simple, cow moves to a colder biome. cow - cow with thicker skin - cow with tiny ammount of hair - cow with a small coat of fur - cow with fur - cow with fur, but smaller - cow with fur but smaller and one less stoamch - cow with fur but smaller but with one less stomach but with aditonal four teeth. Where do you draw a line? No where? at the end? All small changes add up over time. But you can just say 'this book says earth is 6000 years old and that is the truth' and ignore anything else.
Sorry, theists. Gods are not realities.
Correct: gods (plural) are not reality; God is reality.
The universe is not eternal; it had a beginning, therefore, because material could not invent itself. It was created by what is immaterial: God. Nature did not create itself, it was created by the supernatural: God.
The reality is that the laws of physics must be exactly as they are or life would be impossible in the universe; it led the discover of fine-tuning, Frederick Hoyle, to understand that the universe has a theistic origin. That is the reality of physics.
The biological instructions in DNA is code; without a coder there is no code: that is reality. And God is reality.
Do you think.that house cats and tigers are the same "kind"?
@@tobias4411 The same "kind" of what?
Bible says "kind" about animals. So are they the same kinds of two different kinds of animals?
@@tobias4411 The bible states all sorts of ridiculous things. So, the same "kind" of what?
The click bait photo saying its all a lie pretty much sums up this video
If you believe it to be Clickbait, then , as you have commented here you have taken the bait, hook, line and sinker. Your remark expresses your insecurity; if you didn’t care, you wouldn’t comment. Evidently, Fear Of Missing Out is your drug of choice.
@@denvan3143 I love how you all know what others are thinking. I guess your mythical god gave you that ability too. We just call out science deniers. Don't go thinking you all are that special. I call out flat earthers too.
@@nathancook2852 it’s not a matter of mind reading; your attitude is evident and what you write. You come to videos like this because of the fear of missing out, then become angry because you don’t like what you hear. Your anger is evident in what you write and the way you write it, and the basis of that anger is fear.
@@denvan3143 look at Doosh Van trying to defend Calvin's anti-science idiocy and egregious lies. Too funny!
If you’re honestly looking for answers… this isn’t where you’re going to find it, whether for evolution or your faith. Although catered to faith, it’s only merited on someone else’s research and it can help but if not verified by self, can be detrimental.
For an evolutionist, probably won’t watch the video unless committed to trying to refute comments as most are because they feel superior, if you haven’t ACTUALLY reviewed both sides you can’t really argue…
What do I mean? Just because you were raised in a Christian household, doesn’t mean you really studied the Bible and understood what it had to say… just like how just because you attended science class meant you understood what evolution stood for.
So get informed, make an assessment and do it again… and again. And repeat that until you really make a decision.
If you want to stay ignorant just keep arguing on TH-cam.
So the evolutionist want to tell me that the whale can turn into a dog ?
No? What about evolution is confusing you?
Technically yes they can. With enough time and chance. But the evolutionists will claim they are being misrepresented when they know the logic is silly
@@Jraethyme "Technically yes they can"
LOL.
@@LordMathious "What about evolution is confusing you?" Please do explain the symbiotic relationship of the living kind. Start with the blood. Go...
@marcj3682 What does the symbiotic relationship of the living kind', mean? This isn't a scientific term, so you'll need to clarify so I can answer you.
Er, isn't it _creationists_ who need to worry about "rapid evolution" not being true? They're the ones who believe all animals descended from the original "kinds" on Noah's Ark. If that isn't rapid evolution, what is?
Bingo! Only 4.500 years!
Calvin explains this in the video. You may not agree with him, but his point was that the various types of dogs, cats, etc. arise from reshuffling the genetic code already present in the parents. Just like one pair of human parents can have children that look significantly different from each other, the offspring of animals also experience genetic reshuffling. Mutations exist, and they do cause changes. But generally speaking, mutations are either neutral or bad. And mutations aren't the reason that there are so many different types of dogs. Just like the diversity in human appearance isn't due to mutations. Reshuffling genetics of parents can result in an incredible array of different possibilities.
@strategywizard It's not that I disagree with him: he's _wrong,_ plain and simple. The changes required for different species are impossible without mutations. And no, they're not always neutral or deleterious.
@@strategywizard Yes, children of the same parents can be very different. But they still only contain a random selection of information that the parents have inherited from the grandparents. These can be mixed in many ways, this is called recombination. However, there is no possibility beyond this offer. However, all such different children are children of this pair of parents. They are not new types!
There is no biological mechanism as you imagine it.
@@strategywizard _arise from reshuffling the genetic code already present in the parents_ That nonsense was disproven decades ago. We've sequenced the genomes of ancient cats and dogs from specimens going back over 10,000 years. None of those genomes show any sign of containing all the genetic variations seen in extant dogs and cats. This is just one more made-up-on-the-spot lie from the creationist camp.
Organisms don't evolve out their "kinds" as you like to put it. We can both agree that anything descended from a dog can also be classified as a dog.
The difference between you and me is that I can acknowledge that no matter how different any dog's descendants are from their ancestors, they'll still be dogs and I'd be willing to look at how they changed and diversified. Much in the same way how I can acknowledge how humans and chimpanzees are closer related to each other than either is to any other apes, how they're closer to each other than tigers are to mountain lions, and how all of them are mammals.
You, on the other hand, would eyeball point A and point Z, ignore every point between them, and would only refer to those descendants as being a part of the same "created kind" based on whether or not they visually look similar enough to you and if you were told, at an early age, that they're dogs.
That's not how genetics works.
What isn’t?
Modern genetics has put a splinter In the eye of molecules to man evolution.
This is ridiculous. Deny actual science, but believe in a non proven imaginary skyward. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
" Deny actual science, but believe in a non proven imaginary skyward. "
"Science means "knowledge."
So, history, maths, geograghy, biology, chemistry etc is "science."
That said, the Bible is proven by maths, history, geography, biology etc.
Evolution is not.
"imaginary" is evolution.
@@marcj3682 All the Bible can claim is that a few of the places there were named are real, and a few of the characters share names with people that history can corroborate existed. NONE of the works, deeds, or "miracles" in the bible can be corroborated.
Do you recognize all 140+ families of birds; which then result in over 2,000 species? How are the marsupials divided up? The marine mammals?
When you begin to "LIE FOR JESUS", it seems that you just cannot STOP LYING.
EVOLUTION IS A FACT.
GET OVER IT.
CREATIONISM IS A FAIRY TALE.
READ A DIFFERENT BOOK.
The theory of evolution, explains the fact of evolution.
I think that many of them simply lie for money, not jesus. I would, for their income!
Evolution is not a fact--it's a theory--a theory in crisis. You wouldn't know if creationism is a fairy tale or not.
Well, you should stop doing lies and show the "facts" of evolution. and stop looking at your blind faith.
Why don't you show us the "lies" we're saying instead of just saying it
Thank you, Calvin, for another presentation that is very informative and enlightening! May GOD continue to bless you in your endevours to keep us aware of the beauty of GOD's Creation!!!
But if the few "kinds" on the ark transformed into the multitude of types that exist today within only about 4,500 years, is that not evolution?
You mean misinformative. This is as always anti-science religious propaganda.
Lies, quote mines, and misrepresentation of evidence. And you bought it hook, line, and sinker.
I am genuinely baffled as to why any religion still exists in this day and age. So much scientific factual evidence to debunk it, and only some ancient fairy tales to support it.
Fear of death. Wanting to be told how to behave and what to think. Lack of education or intelligence preventing understanding of science and just accepting "god did it" as the answer to everything.
Religion does not have to assert scientific "facts". It is only when fundamentalists insist on a literal interpretation of religious documents that they ope themselves to open refutation by science. If they kept to faith, and more value questions like purpose and morality, there need be no contradiction.
@@gregoryt8792 _First you should know 67% of all Nobel prizes have been awarded to Christian scientists._ *0%* of all Nobel Prizes have been awarded for work supporting Biblical creation. 😊
@@gregoryt8792 none of them won nobel prize with « god did it»
@@samburns3329 Got 'em
The vast majority of Christians accept evolution.
Most creationists are not Christian (there are far more Muslim creationists than Christian ones).
What strikes me is interesting is that most creationists do not believe me.
Oh well, I guess that's what happens when you live in an isolationist bubble.
I debunk all evolutionists in less than 5 min.✝️
Seeing as how "evolutionist" is not a type of person, no, you can't. Also, you can not debunk evolution, period, given all the time in the world.
I’m sure, in your head, you believe that you can.
@@nathancook2852 evolution can't happen,. Are you a 1st grader?
@@stevenbatke2475 Anyone with a head knows evolution is impossible..duh
@@YECBIB cool. When will you debunk evolution in 5 min? In another 2-3 hours?
So is "kind" = "family" ?
It's an attempt to patch up the sloppy terminology that scientists use. They limit their classifications to domains, phylums, classes, orders, families, genuses and species. Creationists replace the whole lot with "kind", because that's what illiterate Bronze Age goat herders would say.
👍
It’s whatever the creationist says it is under the circumstances.
No. Kind is not a scientific term. Only creationists use it.
No. Kind is not a scientific term. Only creationists use it.
Why did you use the undefined concept of Natural Selection ? Why appeal to a pagan god to explain anything related to Yahweh ‘s creation. This is unacceptable. ❤
The God haters love trolling this channel. Apparently they have no life.😂
I know. They're destined for the pit.
The easiest thing to do is to turn them over to God for judgement.
@@Moist._Robot
They are. They are both in the Carnivore order.
@@nathanjohnwade2289 God dosent ask us to do that.
@@Moist._Robot that’s already happened. God was born as a man, falsely arrested, convicted, crucified, and Rose again on the third day. His name is Jesus Christ. Humans condemned Him to death and he paid the price from my sins - and yours too. There’s still time for you to accept the free gift of eternal life and Jesus Christ.
Just a note on the introduction... I checked the comments that popped up on screen, and *_none_* of them quote "rapid evolution" as "undeniable proof of the story of evolution."
As I am sure some commenters have used examples of rapid evolution as evidence of the modern scientific theory of evolution, the question becomes why Mr. Smith's production team didn't chose any of those comments to pop up. Are they just lazy? Or are they trying to mislead their audience?
Of course they are trying to mislead their audience. That's what creationists do.
(To original poster) Isn't there like hundreds of thousands of comments on each video? You'd need some sort of crawler to reliably find what you're looking for I think
@@jockyoung4491 Teaching and believing in the Second Law of Thermodynamics (decay) is "trying to mislead"? Wow, and here I thought the SLoTD was an actual observable phenomenon in nature lol
@hansdemos6510 "Just a note on the introduction... I checked the comments that popped up on screen, and none of them quote "rapid evolution" as "undeniable proof of the story of evolution." "
What on earth are you babbling about????? He's not talking about the comments here!!! They were all left here AFTER the video was posted on TH-cam!
He's talking about common talking points among evolutionists!!!
@@Packhorse-bh8qn You said: _" What on earth are you babbling about?????"_
Please watch the video. At 5 seconds into the video, a number of comments pop up *_in the video,_* but *_none_* of them quote "rapid evolution" as "undeniable proof of the story of evolution" as Mr. Smith claimed. So, what do you think; are the peeps at AiG Canada too lazy to copy a few appropriate quotes, or are they trying to pull the wool over your eyes, or maybe there is some other reason? Take your time...
@@hansdemos6510 Oh, please. That's all you have?
That's what's known as, "grasping at straws".
I used to look to religion for the truth, because that has always been the product they claim to sell. Now it seems, in order to be religious, one has to deny the truth. God's most fervent followers are his worst enemies as far as his -- and their -- credibility goes.
Dogs came from wolves through man's intervention. Other dog breeds came about from man's intervention. We end up with little wolves in our homes, well some bigger than others. We love our little wolves in our homes. Why do we call them dogs? They are still just wolves. Coyoteys are in there, too. It's just a hypothetical question or maybe phylosophical.
The article Calvin showed was called "Wolf to woof" That's a subtle pun, wolves don't bark, most dogs (except some hounds) do. Domestic dogs and wolves are separate species now,
Yes. That's evolution.
@@jockyoung4491 as is explained in the video, rapid evolution is subdivision within a text Aime Family; dogs and wolves are in the canine family and different species, but neither developed from a simpler life form; that would require additional biological instructions in the DNA. Evolutionist have no answer to the question of the biological instructions in DNA other than to say “it just happened“ or “it’s just chemistry“, which is silliness that borders on believing in magic.
@@denvan3143 So, evolution. Just because you call it something else doesn't mean scientists are wrong.
@@nathancook2852 not merely what it is called but the definition. Evolution as defined as one kind of living organism, transforming overtime into another kind of organism is not observed in nature, it is not observed in the fossil record, and it is not demonstrated in laboratory experiments. it is 1864 book on evolution. Charles Darwin put forward this theory that animals could transform over time into completely different kinds of animals, but in the 160 years since the evidence to support that theory has never been found.
As to scientist, not being wrong: scientist are wrong all the time, they gonna do huge heated debates and nearly into hockey fights and agreements over their pet theories. scientists are just guys working for a paycheck, they are not selfless priests.
Its silly how people criticize this man, and yet believe in their own imagination. Namely, evolutionists that believe that "whenever the time is right"
Or
"After enough time and chance"
Umm? So basically a circular argument? Really?
I thought science was about finding the specific answers to specufic questions. And not being dogmatic about something broad and unproveable
There is nothing circular in the theory of evolution by natural selection.
Nothing.
Your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.
@@taylorthetunafish5737 Another ad hominem. Can you make an argument without just objecting your bias?
I do grasp science. And science doesn't prove the theory of evolution unless you mold logic to fit it that way.
Please don't make arguments attempt to gaslight such as: your inability to grasp science isn't an argument against it"
First off you failed to prove I have an inability to grasp science.
And second of all you failed to prove that it's not a valid argument.
@@Jraethyme I would say that if you claim to "grasp science" yet reject evolutionary biology, then whatever you've grasped probably isn't science.
The scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming!
@@Jraethyme All of biology is based on the fact that evolution occurs. The entire field is based on evolution occurring. Medical and pharmaceutical research is as well. They would break down completely if evolution did not occur. Believe whatever you want about a god, but stop spreading scientific falsehoods and scientific ignorance. It holds the world back.
I'm more upset that this video brought to light several problems unrelated to the actual argument being made than the argument itself.
I beg to differ because it's demonstrable repeatedly but you need to ignore that because it doesn't make your case!
"Evolution hasn't been observed while it's happening."
@@statutesofthelord Yes it has, if you think that then you clearly do not understand what evolution is, we have evidence annually of flu, covid, cold evolving constantly hence our immune systems do not recognise them, we have been able to demonstrate in a lab how to make a single celled organism spontaneously evolve into a multi celled organism, by definition evidence of evolution, sorry but this ideology the church pushes is misinformation, no I cant put a cow in a lab and turn it into a sheep, evolution never claimed that and you have to ignore time itself to believe evolution does not exist.
It is the strongest theory ever in science, it is backed up by several non related fields of science, it is observable, demonstrable and provable now because we can unravel the genetic code of any DNA sample, we can literally see the evidence in chemical bonds and how they relate to the evolutional tree and its branches.
Just sitting there claiming i'm wrong shows you ignorance, we have been manipulating evolution for thousands of yrs in fruit and cattle etc we can show it in real time with fruit flies by triggering evolutionary cursors, but you won't know any of this because you are denying it without actually understanding the subject due to your ideology, that is sad and exposes your indoctrination.
@@statutesofthelord How many transitional fossils do you need?
A god hasn't been observed doing anything.
"demonstrable repeatedly "
LOL.
@@marcj3682 I love an ignorant reply, it shows me why you are clueless in your own opinion.
"Evolutionists" have NOTHING to do with the creation of life in any way. Evolution is the process of change in an organism over time, not how that organism came to be initially.
The video starts out by saying the terms used by the different sides aren't clearly defined for both sides to have a common starting point, then incorrectly calls people that study the origins of life evolutionists. It's as if using the incorrect terminology is intentional to help further the "Young Earth Creationist" views as being more logically sound. I believe that's what is called "gaslighting"; something those pushing this nonsensical belief continuously use in arguments. 🤔 🤨
"Evolutionists have NOTHING to do with the creation of life in any way. Evolution is the process of change in an organism over time, not how that organism came to be initially."
- It is true that the evolutionist theory has no ground under it. Evolution makes no claims about the origin of life, for good reason. Evolutionists know it's impossible to prove that life could have triggered evolution. Evolution has no explainable connection to the first spark of life. Evolution is a fairy tale as long as this connection can't be found.
Atheistic evasion tactics: "Origins of evolution is not part of evolution." A pathetic escape hatch ...
Evolution can't happen without life, so in formal logic the origins of evolution MUST be part of evolution. Can we explain evolution without life? Of course not. The problem for evolutionists is that abiogenesis would break the 2nd law of thermodynamics, so there never could’ve been abiogenesis in the first place. No abiogenesis - no evolution because God is ruled out ...
The abstract of "evolution" is like a building sketched on a paper. In that evolutionary sketch the building has no footing i.e. no scientific explanation how the assumed abiogenetic emergence of life and the emerging evolution could get connected. Of course, being a mere imaginary drawing, this "evolutionary building" doesn’t need a basement ... In real life evolution would need a basement, otherwise (macro)evolution is just fantasy - as we know it is!
Evolutionists work on their imaginary evolutionary sketch, study it and add all kinds of "evidence" and details to their ”evolution building” to make it look credible. However there is still no footing under that building. Neither do evolutionists know how to draw it. This evolutionary building floating in the air is only on paper and it will forever stay on paper.
The evolutionary ”building on paper” can't actualize in real life, just like the theory of evolution can't actualize in real life. All empirical studies to prove "macro" evolution (new life forms emerging from existing life forms) in laboratories have failed. Only intraspecific adaptive variation has ever happened and this the evolutionists call "evolution". We can call it ”micro evolution” if we want, but it really has nothing to do with the hypothetical ”Universal Common Ancestor” i.e. with evolution.
👏👏👏 ..Your comment makes a lot of sense (unlike this video which is a jumbled mess of obfuscation).
Evolutionist stridently disclaim any connection to origin of life for a simple reason: there is no evidence of it and no theory how it could’ve happened and yet it is essential to evolution, as life is necessary for life to possibly have evolved from one form to another. Your disclaimer is desperation.
It is hypocrisy: on the one hand, you demand the source of life for creation, but on the other hand, you deny in responsibility for providing the source of life for evolution. It is a double standard that is unsupportable.
Why you have your own opinion concerning the young earth idea, creation is logical, evolution is not, in its aspects of cosmology, physics, and biology.
After 1927 evolutionist could no longer say that the universe was eternal, therefore there was no need of an eternal creator. Edwin Hubbles disclosure of the red shift, demonstrated the universe had a beginning. Evolutionist cannot explain creation without the creator; they can only say “it just happened“ a complete disassociation from cause and effect, a failure of logic, no more than an embrace of magic.
Frederick Hoyles, discovery of fine-tuning demonstrates the adjusting of the laws of physics by supreme being so that life is possible. The evolutionist explanation is “it just happened”: magic.
The source of biological instructions in DNA, the code and all living things is explained by evolutionist as “it just happened“: magic.
I don’t believe in magic, I believe in cause and effect. a conscious creator is a logical explanation for the universe, the laws of physics and the biological instructions in all living things.
I will leave the magic to you.
Evolutionists would love to have evidence for the creation of life, they don’t have it, even though they have been searching for it, have failed and so have sought to disown it. But with no explanation of how life could arrive spontaneously, there can be no evolution in which life forms evolve from other life forms. It is a double standard: on the one hand, evolutionist demand evidence of the source of life for creation, but any responsibility to provide evidence of the source of life for evolution. That isn’t science, that is dogma.
17:16 i dont understand why you cant imagine that you repeat this proccess enough times, you get something new? repeat it over and over and over again and you'll get widly different forms.
and btw, all genetic information is new information. any change, gives new information, even if that information gets rid of traits.
Where do the biological instructions in DNA originate? If you tell me, your shoes got scuffed up, that indicates a change in issues, but it does not explain how your shoes came into existence.
You could sit at a computer at the prompt screen and press keys at random; that is information of a sword. I could sit at the same screen, prompt, and write instructions that would execute a program. That is a set of instructions as opposed to random characters on the screen.
For lizard to become a bird where require a massive new set of instructions that direct the structure, function and metabolism of the wings, feathers and the unique lung structure of a bird. That’s not the result of random genetic mutation.
@denvan3143 thats abiogenesis, which is not related to darwin evolution
but also, this idea that changing DNA randomly doesnt give new information is just wrong. any change is new information. DNA is not code nor a language, it is its own thing. you have strings of codans that come in 3 pairs, and all pairs can make something, even if its nonsense. you take ATA and take it to ATC or whatever, it becomes a new protein. new proteins can have new shapes, make new functions, etc. for example, fur and feathers are the same kind of protein shaped differently. for a lizard to become a bird, it can take either massive changes really fast (no biologist claims this) or it was slow changes over time. therapods began to grow plumage to stay warm, then glide from tree to tree, then fly on their own. each step moves slower to be better, the lungs slowly change, the bones slowly get more hollow, etc. the point between a lizard (therapode specifically) becoming a bird can't be scientifically pinpointed. i assume you believe in micro evolution as most creationists do, so im wondering wjy that just cant keep going into macro
@@denvan3143”lizard changing into a bird,” is exactly why you people don’t get laughed at.
You’re right. I hate creationists. Plain and simple. They are some of the worst, most intellectually bankrupt people on this plant. No different from the Muslim creationists who use the exact same arguments to prove Allah is real.
There’s a reason you people are called the Christian taliban.
@@Bomtombadi1 well, at least you admit you’re a bigot; that’s refreshing honesty from an evolutionist. But men are the Christian faith like Galileo Galilei, Johann Kepler, Isaac newton, John Maxwell, and Michael Faraday were fundamental to modern science; from their knowledge of the Bible, they knew that God is the great lawgiver, who made moral laws so life would not be chaotic and physical laws so the universe would not be chaotic. That is why we call them “laws of nature“” laws of science”. These men understood from the Bible that they are made in the image of their creator, and for that reason can find the universe intelligible. Evolutionist do not believe in the creator and believe somehow there is order in the universe, although it is a result of mindless, unguided, and irrational process. Evolutionist, who have to believe that their brain is a product of that blind, unguided, irrational process, still believe that somehow they will find the universe intelligible. It is one of the myriad contradictions evolutionists struggle with. Others of the Christian faith who have added to science and philosophy:
Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1 543) Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627) Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) Rene Descartes (1596-1 650) Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907) Max Planck (1858-1947)
“There is [now no distinction in regard to salvation] neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you [who believe] are all one in Christ Jesus [no one can claim a spiritual superiority].” Galatians 3:28
you hate people, Christianity teaches us to love people.
“Early Christians liberate slaves at their own expense. In the second and third centuries after Christ, tens of thousands of slaves were freed by people who converted the Christ, and then understood the inherent wrongness of the slave condition. Melania is said to have freed 8,000 slaves, Ovidus 5,000, Chromatius 1400, and Hermes 1200.”
In the 1800s 90% of slaves sold by black slave kings went to the Muslim market; your problem is with them. Christians are taught to love, who taught you to hate?
How do creationists explain ever-evolving new viruses?
Creationists cant explain anything... They can't even count to 11 without taking their shoes off
When a virus evolves into a fish, come talk to me.
@@anthonycope1662 ... What? Lol 🤣
@@anthonycope1662is evolving a single celled organism into a multiple celled organism good? Scientist did that in a lab,just by external stimuli...in 2 years...
@@logicalatheist1065 Would you consider Evolutionary Creation thru a reincarnation recycling process which explains every thing. A three dimensional thinker resolve conflicts by seeing them as Paradoxical and by adding a 3rd perspective finds a Tri - Unity that shows that duel conflicting arguments can be both right or wrong at the same time. It take Two to Tango but it takes 3 to prove and witness to Facts. Unity in Diversity takes asking important questions and then diligent seeking for answers that make a wise student of wisdom and understanding possible. Guest what I keep my shoes on and used my God given brain. Could it be both Atheist as well as Creationist need to take off both shoes and count there Blessing Moment by Moment Daily that contribute to the well being of all things including one's self. Blessing to you. AMEN
I always enjoy these videos. Very well done.
Eh it was mid as best
@@leroyjenkins3744 What life do you have if you have to comment on videos you don't like. Go back to CNN.
I love your videos, you have such an incredible way of intelligently explain what some of us already believe. I have questioned the idea of evolution right from day 1. I have always thought the scientific explanation for fossils was fishy as well it just didn't seem logical.
Calvin doesn't intelligently explain anything. He misrepresents, quote mines, and more often than not just flat out lies.
Calvin likes to make up definitions of words to make it seem like he knows more than actual biologists. He is a con man
@@leroyjenkins3744 your obsession with Calvin is disturbing.
So many personal attacks yet no offers of evidence, examples or specific quotes? Why is that?
@@denvan3143my obsession? I see you here every video I watch lol
Sorry aig, even if that’s true, this doesn’t prove that your god exists.
What separates the Christian God (Yahweh) from any other, are the prophecies of the Bible. The Bible is the only religious book that has never failed to have any of it's prophecies fulfilled.
@@colinpierre3441 self fulfilling prophecies
@@colinpierre3441 Like Jesus prophesising he would return while some of his disciples were still alive?
@@colinpierre3441 No prophesy has been corroborated by anything other than the Bible. That doesn't count as being fulfilled...
@@RealHooksy Actually many of the prophecies have been fulfilled by enemies of God's people. For example, in Jeremiah 51:39 God says of the Babylonians "In their heat I will make their feasts, and I will make them drunken, that they may rejoice, and sleep a perpetual sleep". Secular history shows us that the Babylonians didn't put up a fight against the Persians due to their being asleep and drunk. Surely they didn't hear the prophecy and decided to sleep when they were being attacked.
@5:15: no, it doesn't 'beg the question' Begging the question is arguing in a circle, assuming the truth of what you seek to prove. I think he means 'raises the question'.
"operational science"? Surely you mean empirical science? No one uses the term 'operational' for science.
If you used regular English you might have more credibility.
"However when you dig a little deeper you will find that anyone who works for AIG is a liar wthout shame"
A few questions.
A. What makes you state that, do you disagree? Thats fine, I disagree with you but that does not give me any right to call you a “lier without shame”
B. How can you prive that everyone who works for them is knowingly lying, correct or incorrect.
@@TacoBel Because every video quote mines and twists facts. They give no context and never provide the full article or work they claim to cite. That is dishonest...
@@nathancook2852 I mean, they're probably assuming their viewers aren't lazy and don't need to be spoonfed, but I suppose they could improve a bit on that.
Still, it's important for us to do our own research, too. We can't just take everything a video says at face value. Heck, even I disagree with the video when it says that foxes are a kind of dog. I don't _strongly_ disagree, they're certainly quite similar to dogs and wolves, but I still think foxes are their own thing.
@@grapesofmath1539 It is intentional when they do it in every video. They absolutely believe their viewers are lazy and need to be spoon fed. In fact, they count on it. Which is why this comment section, and all their comment sections, are full of people with zero scientific literacy.
Speaking of evolution, hasn't religion evolved an awful lot, from buckets full of gods in mountains and tree's, causing thunder or stopping rain, living in clouds, sending plagues or erupting volcanos and sending earthquakes. Those angry gods that needed to be appeased with offerings or cash given to the priests. Anyone would think that if there was a god he could manage to get his story straight. But what we actually have is every tribe and its aunt with different versions of creation. What we should see is exactly the same version of creation and exactly the same commandments in every civilization from the Aztecs to the Zulus, but it would appear that the priests, left right and centre all over the globe are just making whatever fairy stories it takes to get cash out of their gullible followers. Imagine if a Nigerian prince told you that he had a place for you in a fancy afterlife hotel... And that all you had to do to gain entry was to follow his rules and pay him a small amount of cash every weekend and he would guarantee your room, oh and if you do break any of the rules, don't worry, just pay extra cash and he will still let you in.
You may give your attention to whatever god you wish, mine is focused on the god of the Bible.
The Bible states in the beginning, God created the heavens in the earth; Evan Hubbles disclosure in 1927 of the red shift demonstrated the universe is expanding, therefore had an origin: evidence supports the Bible
The Bible states God stretched out the heavens like a fabric; astronomical observations the universe is expanding more rapidly every moment: evidence confirms the Bible.
The Bible states God created all living things; the fossil record shows the sudden appearance of life forms, not a gradual chain of ancestral forms that would be necessary for evolution: evidence confirms the Bible
The Bible states the waters were gathered into one place and the dry land appeared; geologist have determined there was once a single giant supercontinent and a single ocean: evidence supports the Bible.
The Bible states the Earth hangs unsuspended in space; astronomical observations confirm the earth is held in its orbit around the sun via gravitational effect: confirms the Bible.
The Bible states that sin entered the world through man’s rebellion, and with it came death; the fossil record shows the extinction of more than 90% of all life forms that ever existed on the earth: evidence supports the Bible.
The Bible states that as sin and the world, so did corruption; the second law of thermodynamics states that the energy level of the universe is descending to a low, common level (it being understood the universe is a closed) and that comp city is degenerating into chaos: evidence confirms the Bible.
The Bible states the mountains were thrust up, and the valleys were cast down; plate tectonics demonstrates collision zones produce mountain ranges, and subduction zones produce rift and valleys: evidence supports the Bible.
The Bible states that all humans are members of the same race; DNA confirms all humans are members of the same race: evidence support supports the Bible.
The Bible states Jesus Christ was the active agent of creation; Frederick Hoyle’s discovery of finding let him to believe in a supreme being who has adjusted the laws of physics so that life is possible: evidence supports the Bible.
@@denvan3143 Not a single thing you listed actually supports a literal Bible. That was an amazing exhibition of trying to make the evidence fit your predrawn conclusions.
@@denvan3143 the bible is deliberately vague and meant to be reinterpreted, just like an astrological prediction it plays so loose with the facts anyone can 'read' whatever they want in it. You can watch the different versions of god evolve from one testament to the next and that's before you start reading texts from other religions. If you want to know the true origins of religions and gods just look at the money that's extracted and see where it goes. A god capable of creating a vast universe in a few days wouldn't need any of your cash... Though if you do need a priest to tell you every weekend not to kill or you would do so, it's probably best that you keep paying him to remind you.
@@samburns3329 actually, no: men of the Christian faith like Galileo Galilei, Johann Kepler, Isaac newton, John Maxwell, and Michael Faraday we’re foundations in modern science. Having read their Bible thoroughly and with the understanding that God is the great lawgiver, who created moral laws to keep life from being chaotic and physical laws to keep the universe from being chaotic, looked for laws of nature, which is precisely why we called them “laws of nature “” laws of science”.
It’s odd that you would say I’m trying to make the evidence fit the Bible, since each of these events as I related them took place before evidence confirmed what was in the Bible. I suggest you step beyond the boundaries of your ideology and examine the findings of science and what the scripture says in an objective fashion.
While my parents attended church until I was nine years old, I had no idea who God was nor any notion of why Jesus was his son and why that was relevant. I was an agnostic who began to study the Bible in my teams because it is a significant document in world history. I also studied the claims of evolution because it also is significant, concerning the past two centuries. I found the Bible to be credible and evolution to be deficient in evidence to the point of it being irrelevant.
@@denvan3143 The one thing all of those famous scientists you named have in common is *they all kept their religious beliefs out of their scientific work.* You creationists always forget that part while trying to cram your religious beliefs into science.
_I found the Bible to be credible and evolution to be deficient in evidence_ That's a testimony to your ignorance of the scientific evidence for evolution, not a reflection on the evidence itself.
Ok. if wolves and dogs are in the same kind than humans and primates are two.
"Kind" is a colloquial term that has no biological meaning, it is far too imprecise. However, it is often used in discussions on these pages to deliberately remain unclear and keep all possibilities open. Sometimes it means "species", sometimes "family", sometimes even "order". In biological discussions, however, it is essential to distinguish clearly, very clearly, between these different levels of relationship. But this is often deliberately not wanted by certain people!
What is your definition of "kind"?
Wolves and dogs are subspecies, humans and primates not, but share the same subfamily (Homininae), what is really close.
@@h.gonyaulax2190 Dude i'm a evolutionist
When you say dogs only produce dogs, cats only produce cats etc, you do realise that evolution would absolutely agree with that right?
But what he's saying is that all of these different types couldn't come from one life form.
@colinpierre3441 what would be the criteria then for saying a hyena and a cheetah cannot be in the same kind, but a cheetah and a kitten can
@colinpierre3441 no he is stating it as if this is where evolution and creation differ, and it isn't
mattbrook, you do understand that Evolution states that there used to be a Universal Common Ancestor, don't you?
@@statutesofthelord yes of course I do. Why would that contradict what I have said?
I know others have already said this, but none of the references that calvin puts up at the start relate to rapid evolution if you actually look them up. There's lies, damn lies, and then calvin
Ironically, if he is correct, then "damned lies" would be a perfect description.
Almighty God controls every aspect of the universe and the universe is God's Living Waters restructured in many different ways. It's inside atoms, inside all sciences, inside the living cell and inside the teaching of Jesus Christ. It has to be, so that the genetic repair Jesus initiates to restore us back to the original state of Adam and Eve works. Some could try and make evolution out of it but I prefer Almighty God's version based upon electromagnetic truth and Biblical veracity.
I wouldnt call God an trickster, and ife theres evidence for evolution its our duty to accept truth and not try to make God into our image and desire. You wouldnt say the fossils are just there because God liked the idea of bones underground, youd infer from observation and evidence that they are real remains of real creatures, not divine fabrications.
@@1MDA What I would say about evolution is that it is part of the electromagnetic repair mechanism built into every replicating living cell...but not here on Planet Earth in it's current orbital status, but in a previous life, that, before Wormwood passed last time, was very active here. After Wormwood left, this planet was lifeless...totally void, and with darkness on the face of the watery deep...or as we might say today, tidally locked...but with all the life supporting chemistry stalled, awaiting Creation.
@@1MDA I'll say it again so that it can be struck out again...the living cell, as made by Almighty God, can alter its genetics...its part of the repair cycle and is well worth studying, because Jesus Christ's teaching shows us how to repair our genetic health...to how Almighty God created it.
By what criteria do you decide that a hyena and a cheetah cannot be in the same kind, but a cheetah and a kitten are in the same kind.
"cheetah and a kitten"
They are of the parental "cat" kind.
A "hyena" doesn't belong to the cat kind; preflood/postflood, the hyena/cat belonged to *and still do) their own DNA program kind. Eg - you can only reproduce a man kind - not a dog kind.
@marcj3682 thank you but that doesn't answer the question. What is the criteria by which you are making that distinction? If you had never cone across any of these animals before, how would you go about categorising them?
@@mattbrook-lee7732“kind” is equivalent to Family, in taxonomy. If that presents you with the problem, then I suggest you create your own tax on me. Write a paper on it and submit it for publication. Cats are in the feline family, hyenas are in the canine family.
@@denvan3143 Leviticus 11:13 uses "kind" to mean species. So is the Bible wrong? Oh heavens...
Hey pals, even if evolution was disproved tomorrow.. your god is still just a character in a fairy tale. 😅
***it is just your opinion, matt***
@@adelinomorte7421 correct. Just like the rambling nonsense of AiG.