Every generation thinks that it is better than the previous generation. As is the case were the pharisees in the time of Christ thought they were much better than the people in the time of Moses. There is nothing new under the sun.
Yep, it's called "presentism". The erroneous belief that your generation is far more civilized and circumscribed than your forebears. Looking at society nowadays, we can see quite clearly that isn't the case.
@@tup4443 Except that we do not have the technology to replicate the Shroud of Turin. Linen cloth with stable, superficial photo negative image. Or the Pyramid of Giza for that matter
I like to consider this. It's not man that evolves, but merely his methods of preserving information/knowledge/science. This has left the future generations with greater tools to improve upon, but with these better tools comes greater arrogance as greater accomplishments are achieved. Without history, we would forget the men who got us here in the first place. Evolution presents a strong disdain for ancient men, touting them as primitive bronze age peoples or barbarians only capable of violence. But comparing to the current generation, there can be found people of lower reasoning and more diabolical imaginations of tormenting their peers. We have hardly changed in anything but efficiency and appearance.
@@DARamosYT Michael Knowles from the Daily Wire put it succinctly in a debate with a leftist college student. "You're standing on the shoulders of giants and you think you're flying."
G.K. Chesterton had fun mocking darwinians in a early chapter of his book, The Everlasting Man. He pointed out that skillful artists drew finely detailed portraits of the Piltdown man, with wistful, thoughtful expressions. Talented writers created whole biographies for him, describing his habits and preferences. The public never realized that they were viewing the portrait and reading the biography of a piece of a cranium, part of a jaw bone, and a tooth!
ah yes. because some people drew and wrote some stuff 2000 odd years ago, the universe was created by an all-powerful being and we have to worship him or something
When Einstein's theories are proven wrong he won't turn in his grave he will smile. That's the cool thing about science. It's true whether or not you believe in it.
For uh - religion- there is only really trust- with science there's physical proof- knowing it exists with proof would hold more then "just trust me on this" right?
I found a dead squirrel in the forest. 1000 kilometres away I found a book lying on the ground. I can't be sure if the squirrel wrote the book or if it was just reading it, but this is nonetheless evidence that squirrels are literate, and are far more human than previously thought.
@@pup1008 i knew exactly the comparison they were making the first time i read it. i don’t think it’s a waste of time it shows just how absurd their arguments are
We're somewhere in the middle to the end of Matthew 24 where Jesus said watch and deception would be rampant so as a follower of Christ we need to be warning people The Wiles of the wicked one which are getting stronger by the day
Brothers and sisters what I am saying is we are in the end times oh, they are not coming they are here so in the name of Jesus Christ please wake up and that's soldier that God calls us to be. The Bible is clear this is a military organization not a social club or a debating Club. It's best to read and find that out now then at the last minute when you could lose your very salvation. May God bless you all and your families with the truth the life and the way and may you be ready to lose your life and sacrifice everything for him as the first church did Jesus our lord will return for nothing less than the church he left. That would be a a church meeting in the homes and small groups on the ground persecuted and on the Run not these big pseudo Christian organizations we see in buildings today as those buildings are owned by the bank and will be taken away or targeted as enemies of the state. Get your small groups and me and homes now now not later as you will regret waiting until the last minute because you could lose yourself ation and Jesus said he could blot you out of the book. He also said few find the Narrow Path leading to eternal life and few can endure until the end. That puts the fear of the Lord into me in a healthy way and causes me to be more serious about Christ everyday. I may lose my bank accounts everything I own but I will serve him with my head on on my head off. Problem is we think we're different from the first believers. That's brothers and sisters is a very grave mistake. Again God bless you with the truth the life and the way Jesus Christ Alone Hallelujah God bless you all
@perfectblindguy By denying John you deny the Holy Spirit, as he spoke of Him and His words. You have just condemned yourself. There will be no forgiveness.
@@notnotiron "Mathematically" proven though, is that life could not have come about by chance, simply an impossible task. Also evolution, the hypothesis, has zero evidence whatsoever, just assertions, speculations, pipedreams and downright lies.
A person does Not need to have a Phd (or even an undergraduate degree) to question the validity of the Abiogenesis Hypothesis, or any hypothesis. As long as people have an understanding of basic scientific principles, common sense, and open mindedness to seek the truth, they can come to a more accurate conclusion for themselves. Basic Science 101: Wikipedia 2021, *_“A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the Scientific Method requires that one can Test It … Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is Not the same as a scientific theory.”_* Hypothesis is also referred to as a Hypothetical or Educated Guess. Wikipedia 2021, *_"In evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life (OoL),is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process Are Still Unknown, the prevailing scientific Hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event [i.e. spontaneous generation]... There are several principles and Hypothesis for how abiogenesis Could Have occurred."_* One of the reasons that abiogensis is merely a "hypothesis" and has not advanced to the status of being a "scientific theory", is that abiogenesis hypotheses still lack the experimental data required by the scientific method. Abiogenesis Hypothesis has passed the scientific method process zero (0) times.
THAT is the Dunning Kruger effect perfectly stated. You were doing great, no you don't need a Phd to question anything; however, stating that an understanding of basic scientific principles can get you to "more accurate conclusion" is just absurd. That sounds like the guy who takes his car to the mechanic and says they know what's wrong, despite having no training or experience, only a basic understanding of how cars work! Sure, that basic understanding can be helpful, especially in preventing being ripped off; however, it does not mean you can more accurately diagnose a car problem than the ASC certified mechanic with years of experience.
@@gilmarjunior7700 The 'primordial soup' is an idiom that refers to the conditions on early Earth out of which life arose. As such, it has nothing to do with evolution which is a biological concept that posits that populations of living organisms change (evolve). Even in high school, the concept of the primordial soup is discussed in abiogenesis, not in biological evolution.
@@andycole5957 yeah but let's be real, scientists don't treat it like it's a theory, but like it's fact when they and everyone else know it's not scientists exposed themselves during covid - and you won't live down that stigma for a long long time - hate all you want - and say that no one has a right to question you because they didn't go to the schools you did - scientists and hte gov't actively suppressed the truth and pushed lies - such as 'wearing a mask thta doesn't have any effect on micro ogranisms is effective against a micro organism' - science is guesswork and funding - saying it's the truth or the search for the truth is a blatant lie
How is this video not completely misleading? No evolutionary scientist in their right mind would use any of these examples as evidence for evolution(Outside of Lucy, which the video completely misrepresents). Even if you take out Lucy, there have been tons of other fossils found of proposed transitional forms. Where is the mention of those?
In order for humans to evolve from apes their would have to be millions of transitional skeletons between them museums should be stocked full of these examples not a few supposed examples here and there
I think the fossil examples given in this video aren’t meant to be comprehensive, but instead to demonstrate a pattern of misleading evidence historically used to support evolution. You could say “cherry-picking,” but whether all fossil evidence falls into this category or not is the crux of the debate, and the video doesn’t really get much into that.
It isn't arguing against evolution in general, just against the evidence of human evolution. It would be easier to name the evidence, then what you said
People will do mental gymnastics to make the world Fit the narrative they want. Genesis is not only silly, its basically impossible and doesnt make sense in the context of the Universe.
@@reedplaysgames I agree. But why does AiG care about a select few times where some random evolutionists made false claims? That would be like pointing to false claims made by only young earth creationists and then saying “aha the evidence for YEC is terrible!” How is it news to anyone that people do immoral things some time? What about the 30 other times where the proposed ape to man fossils aren’t fake? (That doesn’t mean we should conclude that evolution is true. The point is that no evolutionists today use what was mentioned in the video as evidence) The title of the video implies that the things mentioned in the video are the only reasons to believe in evolution which as noted in my above comment, is the farthest from truth. There are tons of people that only listen to videos like this from AiG and then go to college and lose their faith because they realize that they were misled by videos like this. For many, that puts people on a track to doubting everything they were ever taught which eventually ends in people not being Christians anymore.
My Husband visited the Neanderthal Museum in the Neander Valley, Germany which was named after Joachim Neander. He wrote the great hymn, “Praise to the Lord, the Almighty, the King of CREATION”. That was the hymn that was being played when my husband toured the museum. Obviously, the museum curators weren’t familiar with Joachim Neander!
@@henno3889 the Valley was named after Joachim Neander, the writer of the famous hymn "Lobet den Herren, den mächtigen König der Ehren", as already mentioned above. There is no river called Neander. The river running through the Neander Valley is called Düssel, which gave Düsseldorf ("Düssel Village") its name.
Anyone who believes in a God that created everything has a LOT of FAITH, but if you believe in random chance evolved into everything I conclude that those people have a major problem with fantasy OR a complete insane refusal to Believe in GOD!
Their staple line is often that there is no way to verify. Essentially, if I can't see it physically with my own two eyes, then it's false, or whatever the equivalent of that is. I question what's the point of them having friends and other forms of connections.
A person doesn't need to have a lot of faith to believe God created everything. Just common sense and some understanding of the science. All the matter in the universe didn't just appear out of nothing, it was created by God!
Try a scientific experiment yourself. Put the parts in a shoe box. Put a lid on said box. Shock it! Shake it! Put water in it! In your life time see if you can have it evolve into the object the parts were designed for? It’s never going to happen for you! And you started out with all the designed parts. Hahaha 🤣
🔥 🔥 fire 🔥 🔥! Yes 👍 speaking about 🔥 fire amazing how 🔥 fire burns in a vacuum of space the third heaven 🔥 fire 🔥 the astronauts said space itself smells like a burnt odor. 🔥 heat it up Lord God in Heaven 🔥 their now science touches the very throne of GOD. Thanks for the reminder!
While this video correctly points out cases where scientific understanding has evolved or where errors have been made, it fails to acknowledge that these are not evidence against evolution, but rather examples of how science improves and refines its theories over time. The script also appears to conflate science with belief systems, implying that acceptance of evolution equates to disbelief in a god or higher power. However, science doesn’t claim to disprove the existence of God. Many people find ways to reconcile their religious beliefs with the scientific understanding of the world, including the theory of evolution. Lastly, the video could be more explicit in communicating that the study of human evolution involves ongoing research and discoveries, and it’s normal for understanding to change as new data becomes available. Missteps, while they do occur, do not invalidate the substantial body of evidence supporting human evolution.
Alex I appreciate your post is at least a rational one, however you use the word, "substantial" evidence for human evolution. But really the evidence they put forward is scant, really the bones wouldn't add up to a very small population of a town of people. Recently there was a study showing that pithecines are their own distinct group away from both modern apes and humans. when you consider that both apes, monkeys and humans as well as extinct apes like pithecines, all have a primate body plan with collar bone, arms, forward vision, then is it really unlikely since these are the organisms with a body plan most similar to ours, that we would find coarse similarity that might portray a circumstantial and misleading case for human evolution? But the scientists would never consider then null hypothesis, they simply never consider the possibility that evolution did not happen. So even if we do not even talk about creation or God, that doesn't change the fact that scientists never consider even the possibility they could be wrong, which seems much more dogmatic than scientific considering the fact there are no repeatable experimental data to test the claims of macro evolution. In fact it is all inferred from circumstantial evidence. The problem is that to believe every design on the planet designed itself by evolution is to believe in an extraordinary claim without extraordinary proof. Phantasticus axioma. For example, imagine if I claimed a ferrari designed itself, don't you think my evidence would have to be extraordinary? So then why isn't evolution held to the same standard given the design in life is so much greater of that of a ferrari? Think about it.
Any honest biologist will tell you there were other hominids besides homo sapien and modern man is a hybrid of these hominids it doesn't mean there isn't a God
Because there's no extraordinary evidence for creationism either. There's no scientific evidence for it whatsoever. In science, we accept the theory that has the most evidence. Not the one that's absolutely perfect. Now we know that Newtonian physics were wrong. We know the break down at extreme scales and don't describe correctly our observations. But until we had better scientific theories, this was the best one. It worked for our everyday lives. Just because it wasn't completely right, doesn't mean it was useless and that we should've said "It's the God that creates gravity and makes the sun rise!". Because that's nonsense that has zero evidence. Some evidence is always better than zero evidence. Some logical explanation is always better than a completely illogical one.
@michael baba "ferrari has made itself" sounds ridiculous because you KNOW FOR A FACT that it was made in a factory. You can go to the factory and see with your own eyes engineers designing it, and workers and machines creating it. But you CAN'T see the God creating living beings. You have zero evidence for that. So a better comparison would be a ferrari that a caveman sees for the first time. And this ferrari can somehow change its colors, the size and shape of its wheels, etc. in order to adapt to its environment. So a logical conclusion for the caveman would be that the ferrari assembled itself. It's not logical for the caveman to throw his hands in the air and say "I don't know exactly how this works! Therefore it must've been God who created it!". Or maybe not God, but fairies. Or demons. Or pagan spirits. Or ascended Buddha who can control the reality. Would you accept these other spiritual or religious explanations? Nope. Because now they have no evidence for you. But if it's an explanation without evidence that agrees with your religion, then it's suddenly the most logical one for you.
@@med2904 Med2904, that's incorrect. The ferrari is just an example of an extraordinary claim, the point I was making was that evolution and it's ancestor of all life, which has no cause and therefore is science-fiction, is a fantastic claim. It wasn't meant to be a comparison between life's design and a ferrari. The evidence God designed life is staggering because like the ferrari all of life's forms has specified complexity, information code, correct materials, contingency planning, integrated systems and astounding inventiveness. But don't believe me, instead believe a non-theist science-field called, "biomimetics". so Med, no offence but I was looking for rational discourse with that other poster, not the usual sophistry you get thrown at you by the standard average IQ atheist that uses the LAME and vague, "religous comparison" game. So you question-beg Buddha and pagan spirits because what you have done there is called the fallacy of false equivalence, where instead of showing these claims equal to God, you just lump God in with them because you haven't the intellectual ability to see that each claim is judged on it's own merit. Anyone can play that game. For example you believe in natural magic, where cells assemble themselves for no reason whatsoever that just happen to be more intelligent by design than anything we can come up with. LOL. So keep burying your head in the sand by pretending there is only evidence of evolution and none for God for that lame and false binary propaganda is all the feeble minds of atheism can come up with.In fact evidence for God is qualified by logical rules such as using the consequent in a modus ponen (aka Popper), so we can intellectually qualify evidence using logical rules, not using aggressive atheist opinions. LOL
Noted evolutionist Richard Dawkins (now 82 years old, and published "The God Delusion" in 2006) said over 30 years ago: "If you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane.” Similarly, Professor René Dubos (1901-82 C.E.) once said: “Most enlightened persons now accept as a fact that everything in the cosmos-from heavenly bodies to human beings-has developed and continues to develop through evolutionary processes." For example, by the late 1800’s, some 20 years after Charles Darwin published his Origin of the Species in 1859, the American public was already becoming convinced that science (and not the Bible) could improve every aspect of human life, and in which all the major universities had said yes to the theory of evolution. In modern times, some have propounded the belief that it was about 350,000 years ago that humans started evolving, other say 2 million years ago when humans came on the scene, while in an article by the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History entitled "Introduction to Human Evolution", dated July 11, 2022, it said that "people originated from apelike ancestors and evolved over a period of approximately six million years", so there is NO consensus, and should cause a sincere person to realize the inconsistency and flaws of human views, even from scientific sources, such as "research papers". To show how gullible even the most astute scientific minds are, consider the case of the Piltdown Man in 1912 supposedly an evolutionary link found at Piltdown Village in Sussex, England. Many are quick to accept what scientists, paleontologists or even politicians say about a certain fossil without carefully verifying their words, so in their desire to find evidence of “ape-men,” some scientists had been taken in by outright fraud, as the Piltdown man was found to be. For about 40 years it was accepted as genuine by most of the evolutionary community. Finally, in 1953, the hoax was uncovered when modern techniques revealed that human and ape bones had been put together and artificially aged and perpetrated by A. C. Hinton, a former curator of zoology at London’s Natural History Museum, who died in 1961. In another instance, an apelike “missing link” was drawn up and presented in the press. But it was later acknowledged that the “evidence” consisted of only one tooth that belonged to an extinct form of pig.(Missing Links, by John Reader, 1981, pgs 109, 110) Or the "Man of Orce" that was "found" near Orce, Spain in southern Spain (Andalusia) and jumped to national headlines in 1983 and was based on an 8 cm (about 3 1/2 inches) wide skullcap fragment.(article "A fistful of fossils: The rise and fall of the Orce Man and the politics of paleoanthropological science", Journal of Human Evolution, April 2022) Prominent Spanish, French and British scientists had already vouched for its authenticity. However, on May 12, 1984, two weeks before an international seminar on the subject was to occur, serious doubts arose as to the fragment's origin. After the meticulous removal of calcareous deposits from the interior part of the skull, paleontologists found a disconcerting or "unusual crest". Human skulls do not have such a crest. The seminar was quickly postponed. Despite the fossil’s meager proportions, the “Man of Orce” was hailed as “the greatest paleontological find of recent years, as well as the missing link between the typical African man (Homo habilis) and the oldest man of the Eurasian continent (Homo erectus).” Fertile imagination and not-so-scientific guesswork sufficed to fill in the details about the appearance and way of life of the “Man of Orce.” Finally, in 1987, a scientific paper written by Jordi Agusti and Salvador Moya' , two paleontologists involved in the original discovery, said that x-ray analysis had indeed confirmed that the fossil belonged to a kind of horse, not a man.(the latest information says that it "was most likely a skull fragment from a four-month-old donkey") So, where does this put noted evolutionists with their "theory (or speculation, hypothesis, conjecture, personal view) of evolution" ? As something NOT to be trusted, but looked upon with doubt. Proverbs 14:15 in the Bible states: "The naive person believes every word ("its in a research or scientific paper, so it must be true"), but the shrewd one ponders each step."
@@RealHooksy I understand that a fact is a truth, well established as something a person can accept, while a "scientific theory" is just that, someone's hypothesis, speculation, conjecture on a matter, and NOT established as a FACT. It is like playing the stock market, whereby a person can never be sure of whether they will gain or "lose their shirt". So many use the words "maybe", "possibility", "could", of a matter happening, but they cannot say CONCLUSIVELY that such an event or matter will happen or has happened. Being gullible is everywhere, but having EMPIRICAL (or proven) evidence (that can physically established) puts a matter as a fact. As astrophysicist Guillermo Gonzales, a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, once stated: "My work, in part, deals with astrobiology from an astronomers viewpoint. I simply follow the empirical evidence wherever it will lead me, and I try not to let philosophical preconceptions color my interpretations". So, the WISE person does NOT accept anything based on speculation, conjecture, hypothesis, on a "hunch", on a theory. It is as a Bible proverb states: "The naive person believes every word, but the shrewd one ponders each step."(Prov 14:15) A "shrewd" person can see when something is a fact and when it is NOT a fact, when it is someone's personal view or interpretation, in which you and I both know that personal views and interpretations are just that, personal and NOT necessarily factual. Here is a list of some theories that were proven as wrong (in which the list could go on and on) (1) Pon's Nuclear fusion or "cold fusion", (2) that mass is destroyed in nuclear reactions, (3) Einstein's static or stationary universe, proven wrong by Edwin Hubble in 1929 C.E. (4) spontaneous generation, proven wrong by Louis Pasteur in 1859 C.E.(5) that the earth is the center of the universe, known as the geocentricism, proven wrong by Galileo in 1610 C.E.(6) luminiferous aether, that a "medium" of aether pervaded the universe and is the carrier of light waves, but was proven wrong in 1887 by the Mickelson-Morley experiment. So, if you want to be gullible, go right ahead, but the wise person will NEVER accept a theory as fact, until proven by empirical evidence, beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is as New York banker David Hannum said in 1868, that "there's a sucker born every minute", speaking about "The Cardiff Giant", in which about 50 percent said it was a fake, while the other 50 percent thought it was a fossilized human giant, and in the end, it proved to be a hoax. With the Bible (an accurate Bible), this never presents a theory, "only the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth".
There are actually billions of “missing links” across the biosphere. Not a single organism observed today has any kind of evolutionary chain in evidence. There are however almost innumerable examples of adaptation within ‘kinds’ observed which are touted as “evolution”. Even Darwin’s finches we’re all finches, they just had adapted beaks built from pre existent genomic information. Variation of phenotype is not evidence of generation of novel genotype. Just observe the life cycle of the butterfly for a profound example of such.
This. I find it baffling the Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian theories still has its power. I guess the corruption within academia is so immense to the point of criminal.
@@duckman554 They’re actually significantly lacking in actual evidence. The whale story is lacking in the transitional forms and the horse story is comprised of contemporaneous phenotypic examples presented as gradual change.
@@mrchoon2010 I assume this is saying I’ve just refused to read the stories? If so, quite the contrary. The difference is I’ve compared the claims to the actual evidence. There’s an enormous gap between the two. Do this as an experiment- Whenever you see some kind of evolutionary representative depiction (like the ascent of man), remove all the elements not based on actual evidence. I think you’ll find the pretty graph gets very empty very quickly, and the few items left are examples of completely different animals or variations of the exact same animal. If you do this with the ascent of man drawing for example, you’re left with a primate on one end and a human on the other. Everything in between is made up.
@@natec4133 Exactly. You said "Not a single organism" then the only organism you can think of is "man" Showing that you know nothing outside that tiny spectrum.
Today, we know that blood letting is in fact dangerous and isn't a good way to cure diseased. But back then, physicians didn't know, and so many died. If only they had read the scriptures. Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you on the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul.
THAT statement (disgusting as it is) is dealing with how to sacrifice an animal and how to sprinkle the tabernacle with its blood.....no better than the Aztecs in my opinion.
@@highroller-jq3ix a person seeking God, lol you’ll find him if you want to don’t have to get on the internet and be rude to people to feel alive my friend
@@SpaceEagle93 Great lol bomb, goofball. Yes, if I want to find a fantasy god, like so many gullible imbeciles, I will. Instead, I want to use the rational capacity of my mind and maintain an intelligent, valid world view. You don't need a god fantasy to live out your humanity, random creeper who shouldn't be desperately throwing around terms of endearment on the internet.
@@Benjaminbumblebee the only dogma christianity presents is that sin separates us from god’s righteousness and through christ you are brought back to gods love.
@@jerrylong6238 Where's the evolution? Oops. "None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another…Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic [e.g., bacterial] to eukaryotic [e.g., plant and animal] cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. - Alan Linton, phd bacteriologist
All you need do is walk around a crowd and notice the different skull and facial structures to know that one or even two old skulls do not prove anything, let alone Evolution.
Absolutely true... However, there are thousands from dozens of different species, not just the couple that were hoaxes. 1 baboon bone out "Lucy" does not disqualify the over 100 good bones, let alone the dozens of other skeletons we've found from her species since.
@@Alien1375 except she won’t debate anymore. After her three consecutive losses against our team she runs from debates. Most people never even knows she debated us because she never put them on her channel. Just imagine how badly she would lose to a scientist from AIG. Nothing is stopping her from debating any of them either, but her and her team are far to afraid. We remind them all the time, why not submit to a written debate then if you are so scared to open mic debate ? They are even more afraid of that because then it’s written down for everyone to see forever and posted on AIG s website. At least YT debates they can hide from much easier. Anytime you think she has a good point against AIG tell her to submit to a written debate or else it’s nothing but a bunch of hot air to an atheist audience who doesn’t understand anything she is saying anyway
@@dooglitas really? Dismissing footprints attributed to Lucy because other sets were found 900 miles away? That is like dismissing American automotive use because cars are also found in Europe! These arguments are extremely weak and many are just plain false!
@@jerrylong6238 In the naturalist worldview, everything living dies and stays dead. Knowing "truth" offers no benefit in any way. "Truth" is not even a scientifically verifiable concept. If naturalism were accurate, everyone might as well believe anything they want because all we religious would end up in the same place as those who "knew the truth." It's almost like naturalism is the precursor to the satanic philosophy of "do what thou wilt" ... hmmm.
@@jasonpenn5476 Oops. Millions of years never happened. "It’s a pattern in the fossil record that footprints are found in strata millions of years before foot bones, and evolutionists never explain how the critter survived millions of years after leaving its footprints until it finally got buried." "It was first presented in detail in a paper by Adventist Leonard Brand and a co-author J. Florence in 1982. The evolutionists have never answered this challenge in the 38 years since. The pattern is the same for reptiles, amphibians, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals."
13:28 So you're saying their walking style was between ape and human? It's almost like that was what scientists were saying all along and supports the fact that they descended from earlier apes and were the ancestors (or were related to the ancestors) of modern humans.
My greatest advance regret is that they won't let me be buried untreated under a tree, to return to the dirt from whence I came and provide food for a new tree.
Did Neanderthals really exist. Did science make up stories with bones from different dead people like have done so many times. And you believe that propaganda. Ok if that works for you. Hahaha 🤣
@@roberttrough6439 Its not propaganda. Its science. Neanderthals did exist. You should not laugh at peoples beliefs. You should instead come up with reasonably structured arguments against them. You are probably evolving into a less intelligent grass eating creature as we speak. I would not even expect you to reply back due to the rate of evolution you are experiencing.
There’s an absurd lack of scientific evidence to the whole inter-dimensional creation man claim you made at the end, got any missing links for that one?
You remember incorrectly. It was a German paleontology student, who was later killed at Verdun. That student pointed out the Piltdown man was impossible, because it contradicted the predictions of the theory of evolution. But because he was German, the clergy of England rallied around Piltdown Man, as the true ancestor of all good and loyal Englishmen. As a result, religion and politics, forced science to conform to patriotic pressure. To question Piltdown, was unpatriotic. And unchristian. So it was until after WW2, when new technology let scientists finally test the age of the skull. The tests confirmed what scientists had been whispering for years.
@@danbeaulieu2130explain the 20 other “early human ancestors” that have been debunked. Evolution is religion just like communism was a religion to atheist Stalin and Mao and Marx was their God. Or how Social Darwanism was a religion to atheist Hitler. Without God people develop their own religion.
@@danbeaulieu2130essentially hitler said he was christian but didn't often speak about it and devoted his life to eugenics and creating the "Aryan race". These are not the actions of a person who believes in God but rather believes himself to be a god or believes he has the power of a god. And stalin was basically the same way how they both sort of worshipped their work and objectives despite it being in a different way from what we think of as religion.
@@perennem_equitem_57 Adolf Hitler remained a christian, that is a person who believes the core doctrines of christianity, all his life. Playing with the definition to posthumously exclude him, is dishonest at best. The man was baptized into the faith, and never renounced his faith. Hitler was a christian. None of his ideas were unique to him. All were traceable to earlier christian figures, including Luther. Especialy Luther.
When I was a child ion school, I was taught--through highschool and college--that neanderthal was able to harness 1 chemical reaction, that being fire. Now, because the archeology doesn't lie--mainly from caves found in South-Eastern Europe--neanderthal was now, apparently, able to ferment, including beer, meats and other alcoholic drinks.
So what? It's just a proof that science isn't a religion or an ideology. The conclusions and theories can change over time as more evidence is found to prove otherwise. What do you expect? Scientists to say that any new evidence can't be real because their initial conclusions have to be absolutely correct? Or maybe archeologists correctly predicting everything about the lives of neanderthals before they can start collecting physical evidence? If your argument is "all science is wrong because it's not always making correct predictions", then creationists can't make ANY predictions. Can you predict when God will create another new species of animal and show it pop up into existence? Do you have any explanation why God created so many hominid species that homo sapiens had to compete with, when according to the Bible God has created just one type of human and to rule over Earth?
@@Drakemiser there are no truths regarding gods existence, you have 0 proof which means you should not believe God, ever heard of old testament vs new testament? Oh wait, because he's god he's allowed to change his understandings and teaching but we can't? Yeah, you're just brainwashed. Science doesn't change truths it changes understandings, you not understanding the difference makes perfect sense to me considering.
So your argument is....that science is iterative, that it makes mistakes sometimes because it works based on predictions from a developing body of evidence, and corrects itself when new evidence emerges to falsify its hypotheses? That's literally the whole point of science.
The archaic term of science is "knowledge of any kind". This is not limited to having false information. Truth, however, is something that isn't supposed to change. Our understanding of it - our science - will change over time. This principle of acquiring more understanding applies both to evolution and creationism. There is a truth both worldviews are striving to understand, and the understanding of individuals will update over time, whether toward truth, or away from it. The issue is that there can be only one truth, and our finite capacity to know things leaves us with a leap of faith to cover that incapacity.
Basic question, which is more likely 1.. creatures slowly changed over millions of years to produce the curent iteration of man or 2..an invisible omnipotent being magicked a sentient creature out of nothing, just as it is now.
Isolated island habitats, like the Hawaiian Islands, allow species to evolve from mainland ancestors and become increasingly different over time. For example, Darwin's finches on the Galápagos Islands are unique to the islands but have distant relationships to mainland species
@@hawk7466 I have. And I have to agree here; there is a LOT of unreliability in many Bible accounts being considered "historical". There is far to much actually for, in my opinion, anyone to consider the entire thing a reliable accounting.
The people who believe in the goo zoo also invented your phone, and the internet, and your tv, and your car, and the medicine that will probably keep you alive past 30 lol. You know, before modern science, the childhood mortality rate was close to 50%? Thanks to modern science and medicine, more than half of all people live past their 5th birthday. Thank you vaccines and modern birthing procedures. Sorry Ruth, but if you wanted to make a baby for the lord 200 years ago, there was at least a 50% chance you would have died. No C-sections. You are backing the wrong team here. A team that is literally comparing modern science to science from the 1800s lol. Like Darwin didn't have the internet or even high quality microscopes. Any modern scientist will freely say "Darwin made a lot of mistakes and was limited by his time in history." The Origin of Species is not our bible lol. We know as scientists that that book was a good starting point, but unlike the bible, science doesn't just stop with one book. Science never stops discovering new things, and that's why you are able to disagree with science right now on the internet lol.
@@smartsimplefit You mean no evolution in religion don't you? I agree with that, God is the same yesterday today and forever. People evolve, but religions do not.
@@smartsimplefit You do know that evolution is the reason why jaguars and domestic cats are so physically different, right? The domestication of _Felis domesticus_ allowed it to evolve to become a smaller and less aggressive feline.
Interesting video, I like the historical points in this video, but It only refers to apes and humans. I liked how it rebuttled evolution from a historical standpoint, but it ignores the stuff we've seen recently, i.e. isolated gene pools. There's an island of finches that were brought to it by mistake. They've transformed quite a bite in the short period of time being there. But the shape of their beak transformed during drought seasons that spanned a few years. Would've liked to hear more rebuttles referring to isolated gene pools and evolution or results of natural cross breeding, resulting in changes in gene structure to counter the evolution argument.
What you described there is simply adaptation, due to changing environment, the cross breeding is usually a fatal disaster when we talk about animals, they usually cannot reproduce after, and 3rd it’s simply man induced changes, “ trying to be like God” what the serpent told us in the garden
@@charlieboy1017 "so every other animal evolve but not humans? Is that what you are saying?" The video is saying that there is no solid evidence that humans evolved. Not saying there is no possibility. The evidence put forth, has been debunked, so it appears (according to the evidence) that humans suddenly appeared. This could be from a god, or it could be from alien meddling, or from humans landing here, only to be almost wiped out. Other animals had many years to adapt, due to different environmental pressures. Humans living in the same location, for an extended period, would not have a need to radically adapt from monkey to modern man. This is the argument. Personally, I think it's meddling aliens, but you know.. the difference between conspiracy and fact... is Time.
The entire theory is inaccurate. It’s not observable or replicable in a lab that’s science. You can’t show one species of animals producing a new speices of animals. It’s religion.
"They're lying and manipulating you, let the church lie and manipulate you instead" 😂 great production value though guys, P.s. Yes, theres problems with determining human evolution, also with deep history archeology and the like, but thats no excuse to put your faith in the church to hand you down your world view. God gave you capscity to learn, think independently, and be discerning and he wants you to use that capacity.
@@studblud I love how you guys just stereotype atheists as being the worst things possible. You do realise your literal messiah, Jesus, tells you to not do that - as in, when he says, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her". Don't throw stones at atheists and shame them for being an atheist and follow your own scripture. According to your religion, it is not your job to do God's job for him. You, by doing so, is as much a sinner as atheists, by your own standards 😂
@@Trabunkle That's called a hoax, so no, you should believe the people who actually debunked the hoax. One crazy guy in NE making a sketch of anything based on a tooth is not exactly a source anyone should believe!
@@andycole5957 The problem is not the sketch, the problem is that a lot of people from the "Scientific" community went along with it until it was proven that the tooth came from a pig! The same thing happened with the Skull! The same has happened with a lot of "discoveries" from the "scientific" community! Too many mistakes and hoaxes! The "discoveries" get a lot of press, while the mistakes and hoaxes don't!
Ken Ham: Ham earned a bachelor's degree in applied science (with an emphasis on environmental biology) from the Queensland Institute of Technology and holds a Diploma in Education from the University of Queensland. In other words, he is not a foremost expert on literally anything on this planet. Bill Nye out-debated him lol. Bill Nye people.... You are taking the word of "experts" against the word of EXPERTS if you actually believe what this video is propagating. Scientists are 100% transparent with their findings if they are true scientists, and you can look up every scrap of their data and research online at literally any time you want. There are WAREHOUSES full of fossils ranging in age from a few millenia to millions of years. Literally go to any mountain on this planet that scientists believe were once under the ocean. YOU YOURSELF CAN FIND SEA SHELLS ALL OVER MOUNTAINS ALL OVER THE WORLD. Our fossil records are based on observable data that even the average person can find in the natural world. You are being led like flies to the zapper folks!
Bill Nye is not the expert you claim he is. Case in point: he claims each layer of ice on Greenland or anywhere else accounts for one year. WRONG! Each layer of snow/ice accounts for one snow storm! Dig through a pile of snow at winter's end and see for yourself. Further, if you have any evidence that the info in this video is false please state it. Claiming the video is wrong without saying why is nonsense!
People who want to limit what God can do and what He can't do amaze me. Because these people can't themselves imagine things greater than themselves, they want to put God in a box and confine Him to being capable of only certain powers and concepts. I am indeed amazed.
So why did god limit himself? Why did he make the universe in 7 whole days? Why did he make Noah build a boat to store the animals instead of just magicking them into stasis while the flood happened? Why have a flood at all instead of just magically eliminating the “bad” people? Those are limitations that religious people themselves have set their god tox
I'm amazed how many people get this stuff confused, especially religious types. 'Evolution' is the thing that is occurring all the time and from generation to generation, it's passed through the mother. 'Creation' is what you were at the the beginning, before Evolution occurred or what you were before merging with the egg in your mother... a 'sperm' or 'perfectly balanced being' sort of...
It is not evidence of evolution that different ethnicities have different skin color, or eye color or eye shape or abundant skin hair?. Bible tells the story of Noah's son Ham which was cursed for having black skin and this story was used to justify slavery of black people. I had an acquaintance that stated that black people did not belong to the human race, and I said to him that it was my understanding that 2 different species could not have an offspring and that there were many children born from parents from different ethnicities, so that means that all ethnicities have a common ancestor which asserts that human evolution is a fact, regardless of any discussion about discovery of bones.
@Electric Spark what a profoundly ignorant and stupid thing to say. So you're saying he looks like a caveman? How would you know what his skull looks like without an x-ray? I guarantee you wouldn't say that to his face too
Your information is at least a half century out of date. How about the over 300 specimens of Australopithecus afarensis from different individuals found since Lucy? You act as if there have been no advancements in the last 50 years.
Bringing up Piltdown man is scraping the bottom of the barrel. No scientifically literate person is going to be gullible enough to swallow this recycled insult to science.
How do we know this is true? • It's part of a historical progression of discoveries in which successive testable young-earth creation predictions keep working
@@Moniticethat is simply not true. We always hear this DNA explanation from people who don’t really understand DNA to the degree they need to. The complexity of DNA variants and where they are found have dismantled that thought of some kind of evolutionary process or relation.
"In early times, it was easier to control a million people than to kill a million. Today, it is infinitely easier to to kill a million people than to control a million." - Zbigniew Brzezinski
It’s almost 50 years to the day of the the perpetuation of the Lucy hoax. November 24, 1974. My wife’s pop-sci magazine arrived the other day with a drawing of a monkey proposed to be “Lucy” on the cover and the puffiest of puff pieces in the pages with only a line in the last paragraph saying that there is, as yet, no scientific consensus regarding “Lucy” being a genuine “missing link.”
@@SoCoolScience How could living beings reproduce without complexity? See the living beings as machines by the complexity. Now u realize zero chances of abiogenesis??
I dont know what the video is babling about honestly, keeps on saying that The Neanderthals skeleton has nothing to differ from modern human skeleton doesnt make it true. And Neanderthals arent even our direct ancestor, its a distinct branch on the human family tree that share the common ancestor with Homo Sapiens, and that branch has gone extincted already. Totally dissappeared from our fossil record since 40 000 years ago. It is only considered as close relatives in the broader context of human evolution. That video clearly doesnt under what evolution theory means. They probably think that a chimpanzees all of a sudden give birth to a human i guess.
"We're not special" You're typing on a phone or computer to thousands of people across the globe 😂 something is special about us compared to the rest of nature
@@coast_gaurd nature is more complex than you would think, I agree that we have achieved special things, but complexity within animals is greater than what we have made
DNA science shows the Neanderthal man's DNA was purer than ours is today. Faster stronger more intelligent and lived longer according to their findings
That has nothing to do with DNA's "purity" (what does that even mean?). Yes, Neanderthals were much stronger than us - just like a gorilla or chimpanzee is, for the same reasons. There is no evidence Nanderthals lived longer; their life expectancy had a maximum of about 45 years, largely because for all their strength and robustness, they suffered terrible injuries and infections; they live din a cold climate and relied on hunting large animals for food, using short spears. Which was very dangerous.
@@calvinsmith7575 not that i am an expert but could be some anti bible white folks saw some african tribe and went like thought oh! that's how we evolved from.
It's ironic that Genesis 1 completely contradicts the pseudoscience of evolution. For example, evolution says, the birds EVOLVED from dinosaurs over millions of years, which were land animals, but Genesis 1 says, the birds (Day 5) were CREATED before the land animals (Day 6). Also, evolution says, the whales EVOLVED from a land animal over millions of years, but Genesis 1 says, whales (Day 5) were CREATED before the land animals (Day 6).
It points to the FACT that science has become a religion as well…. It requires hypothesis based on little evidence. And unfortunately because it has the title of “Science”, it’s taken as concrete. Not even to mention that studies are now being questioned due to biases from donors and finders for research…..
You know that we literally commonly use evolution as a tool right? We genetically modify plants and animals in order to make them better for us which is using evolution
You mean adaptations like making a fruit more resistant? Evolution would be making a strawberry into a whole new fruit that looks entirely different with a new way to work
@@Shakiahjprod No? For example dogs evolved from wild dogs, that is 2 species who are very similar, not entirely different from each other in terms of appearance and functionallity. And adapting to the enviroment and becoming more resistant is literally what evolution entails
@@grayokay you did not understand my point. Fine let's say they came from wolves, domestic dogs and wolves afe not entirely different creatures that function entirely differently, they are very similar. That guy who responded to me said that if strawberries evolved they would be entirely different and function in a whole different way, but nobody claimed evolution makes creatures change so much like he said, for example wolves evolved but did not change so drastically
Science is both the body of knowledge about the world we've amassed over the centuries, and the process by which we derive that knowledge. Science observes facts, and derives Theories from them. We don't call our explanatory models "facts", we call them Theories. Hence there is no "Fact of Gravity" or "Germ Fact of Disease" or "Fact of Relativity" or "Heliocentric Fact" or "Fact of Evolution", despite these being the best models to explain reality.
Imagining thinking the fact that science is self correcting and always changing based on new evidence is a bad thing. Creationists didnt expose frauds... other scientists did. Dunce. 8:37
@@paulgarrett4474 they can’t lol they generally just point to something that’s unknown to science saying people are just making it up, regardless of how much the evidence supports the theory
People think evolution has the answer to the origin of life. I thought they had hope and an answer. But that was until an evolutionist came to me saying "Evolution doesn't claim to hold the origin of life at all. It says how life changed through stages."
Nobody thinks this. Anyone who understands evolution, knows that evolution is a process that only begins once life is already established. There is no such thing as a "evolutionist".
Regarding Lucy walking upright, I don't think that is correct. A "scientist" at Indiana University had to take an electric sander to her pelvic bone sockets in order to make the femurs appear to fit correctly for an upright, humanlike stance.
@@jockyoung4491 No, it isn't clear from the anatomy that she walked upright. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The IU "scientist"having to "help the science" aside, she had long curved fingers, long arms, a funnel-shaped chest and her hand bones show that she knuckle-walked like modern apes. You are extraordinarily poorly-informed on the position to which you are clinging. Take care.
@@johndoe-ln4oi You are free to believe anything you want to, but don't lie about science. Why did you believe the "IU scientist lie anyway? because you head it from creationists and it fit what you already wanted to believe. ALL experts on hominid agree that Lucy could walk upright, although she could also still climb in trees. But even if she couldn't, that wouldn't refute anythind about evolution. What about the other 20 species of transitional hominids, most of which could obviously walk upright? They show a progression of changes between Lucy and modern humans. Why would that be? All you have is "I bet it's not." Sorry, you are not going to bring down 150 years of biology that way
I always thought looking for 'evidence of walking' was just stupid. Finding something thousands of years old with WRITING on it, showing an obvious LANGUAGE, is more reasonable. I don't hear anyone talking about how all the 'lucy's' walked all the way northeast to Mesopotamia. How could anyone claim how much walking a fossil would do, moment to moment? I've seen bears walk, poodles walk, and when they're not swimming, all penguins ever do is walk around. Why isn't their walking changing them into something different? 'ok, here we found LUCY and she could walk, so walking equals Darwin' I'm almost 50, anymore I just hate all things Darwin. They need to dig him up and get him away from Newton
@@johndoe-ln4oi Can you cite the DOI paper where this is stated? Or did you just make that up? That's how science work. You back up your claims with (documented) evidence - not popular apologist rumors.
To reply to the “sucker born every minute” crack. I’d postulate there’s not only one born every minute, but that they’ve been born every minute for the last 2023 years.
@@CR-yd4qe yeah social media is a double edged sword. For one, it had made access to information much easier, but it also gave access to misinformation like this TH-cam channel
Every time you breathe inhaling and exhaling you’re saying the name of GOD! So hold your breath! Hahaha 🤣 you can’t do that either! Hahaha 🤣 that’s creation at work! Not being mean exposing you to truth.
I was at a "Lucy" lecture at Rockford College in the 1980s, which was given by Richard Leaky, Jr. He had very little to say, actually. It was unconvincing.
They very rarely have that much to say. And if pressed hard with real questions they mostly just roll their eyes and ignore them cause they don't have a good answer.
@@topcover7390 Yes, "they" never have a good answer except for literally billions of words of good answers in the form of 98%+ of published and accepted science.
Cain and Abel were the first two children on the planet according to Genesis. Yet Cain went to live with a different tribe of people called the nod. Answers in genesis, indeed. If Adam and Eve were the first to humans and Keenan and Abel were the first kids… Where did this other tribe of people come from?
Excellent content... However, as a relative of PT Barnum (My mother's maiden name), I researched the "sucker born every day" accusation... He never said this. A contentious newspaperman once tried to smear him in an article with this. PT Barnum never got saved, as far as we can tell; however, surprisingly, he was an extremely honest businessman. I don't think you should correct this, but if you use this phrase again someday, please attribute it to a cranky newspaperman.
@@LordMathious I have had a front-row seat on this war to defend the faux science that Darwin cooked up, and Marxists slopped down without even recognizing how they violated everything they claimed to embrace. In the late sixties and early seventies, the Christian community was put on their heels and began drinking this Marist Kool-Aid. Then slowly, bright Christians went into the sciences and began questioning the "evidence." To everybody's surprise, the evidence for something that Darwin himself said we should be able to find outside our backdoors. This fraud became more and more embarrassing to those who kept this joke going; thus, they stopped debating or interacting with the Christian scientific community and turned to the old tried and true Marxist strategy of mocking and deriding those who make them look like intellectual monkeys. One of my best friends, growing up, was recruited into the research department of a large pharmaceutical company in the Midwest. While walking along with one of the many PHDs responsible for getting him orientated with the company, my friend brought up evolution. The Ph.D. scientist said, "nobody here believes that stuff (he was not a Christian), for we couldn't do our jobs if we believed that stuff." My stunned friend shot back, "Then why was it taught over and over throughout my education?", The scientist shrugged his shoulders and said, "Ya, academia is into that, but no one out here believes that stuff." I recently heard that each of our 70 trillion (est.) cells do 1,000 different chemical reactions every second. To think these cells all simultaneously developed the ability to self-regulate and then properly replace dead cells in the exact place in the body kind of makes evolution seem ridiculous... Unless that person has a vested interest in pretending that their Creator doesn't exist. I recently heard an expert on the genome speak about what they are learning... He said that when they track back to what they mockingly call Adam & Even, they find the genealogies in the Bible fit, and billions of years become ridiculous. An analogy was used to understand how complex and interdependent our genetic instructions are; he said, "Take an owner's manual for your cell phone and write it so when read normally from front to back, it provides instructions on the phone itself. Then using the same letters in the same order, start from the back and write the instructions for the apps going to the front of the manual. Then add another dimension to this code, with each letter going down, providing more instructions for other processes. Then start from the bottom and work the same line of information to the top with more instructions. He then laughed at each time our arrogant scientific community goes in and cuts out small sections, which then disrupts all of the instructions using those letters, which they don't even yet know what they regulate. The same banal approach that Darwin had, thinking cells were just these big blobs of stuff... infantile thoughts about an infinite Creator. The more the scientific community learns of God's creation, the more angry and embarrassed they become... this anger is rooted in a conscience that is not clear. Romans 1 speaks of those who volitionally refuse to recognize the God of the Bible as Creator, and it is horrendous. I appreciate AIG, for they are serious scientists while keeping the good news of the Gospel front and center as the most important information that a person can convey to another.
@@mr.commonsense Although I wholeheartedly agree, the OP is technically correct. "Lesson" can refer specifically to a biblical religious study, so this vid could count as a lesson (even though almost no factual information is learned) 😂
We are part of the Great Ape family, with a common ancestor. Science develops as new fossils are found, and now we know there were a number of different human-like apes, all branches from the same tree. Trying to debunk these facts by saying science proceeds by theory which is then proven or disproven - and therefore makes errors - is simply misunderstanding the nature of science and substituting superstition for it.
That's not his point. He argues that the theory has evolved from evolutionary biases and hoaxes. He provides the evidence for these falsifications that led many to believe the scientific theory. One thing is sure, neanderthals were human.
@@skeletorlikespotatoes7846 I have yet to see a serious discussion about evolution, when involving the Piltdown man, maybe you know something that I don’t know, or maybe you are trolling.
Why? Are you afraid of all the people finding out about all the lies that evolutionists and the myth pushers have told us? It's just one of the uncountable number of times you people twist the so-called evidence because you can't handle the truth
I remember discuss evolution in RE and Science at school basically it fell on me to play devil's advocate and argue against evolution as its the default stance and I was doing well with my science work . At the end I was told that I had made pretty convincing argument almost like I believed in the biblical creation. I explained that it is because I do and they were flabbergasted at the idea of a person being religious and understanding science. But evolution is full of missing links, taxonomy is useful for classification but it is not really an indicator of how life was created. Evolution cannot explain marcupials or the platypus
Missing links are not exactly an argument against Evolution, it is expected. We cannot expect every link to fossilize. Classical taxonomy not so much, phylogenetic taxonomy does show how the tree of life is. Evolution doesn't explain how life came to be. Platypuses are mammals that split off from the mammal we generally know, same with marsupials.
@@katamas832 India has removed the theory of Evolution from their schools because it has been proven that the theory is standing right now only on words without any evidence
Good proof of evolution is looking at the evolution in the microbial life, since they generate a new generation in 20 mins, unlike humans who generate a new generation in 20-30 years, so in the time it took for a 1 new generation of humans, some microbe could have gone through 500.000, making it much easier for us humans to observe changes. For example bacterias over relatively short time gain immunity on certain antibiotics and that is a good example for natural selection where those bacteria which mutated the immunity will reproduce more and more and push out those that didn't grow the immunity. Its simmilar with viruses (covid and all its strains over time which it evolved).
No matter how long these micro organisms are studied they are still bacteria and viruses not some higher form of life. What you described is variability within a species not evolution!!!
The ONLY reason those bacteria are immune to the antibiotic is from the overuse of those! Our bodies also have an immune system that becomes immune to diseases and bacteria.
@@chrisrendon461 so that's your big argument? I hope you have something better than that. I can let you go first, or I can go straight ahead and annihilate you (your support of an empty fraud). I'll let you choose.
Religious folks should really accept that science allows them to communicate using the machine we are looking at so maybe that should say a bit more than "what if's" from the bible. A book that has been ridiculously modified and whole books removed from it
A few questions, if you don't mind: Why do human embryos have gills at early stages? Why do we get goosebumps? Why are some humans born with rare conditons like dry skin (burned looking), with a tail or with colorblindness? Why do we share 99% of our DNA with Chimpanzees? Why do we get hernias? Why do women carry babys for 9 months and is childbirth (without modern pharmaceuticals) so painful + why do our kids remain so helpless for many years compared to most species? Why does our skin have glands that secrete oil to keep our skin hydrated & why do reptiles not have it? Why do humans & mammals have a specific bite and why don't we regrow our teeth after one falls out (yet why do reptiles)? Why do humans have a pretty louzy sense of smell, but the same tima a unique wide range of color vision? Is the answer this: "Because god wants it that way"? Or are there tons of universities & researchers (who also answer these questions) just making jokes and deliberately fabricating stuff in their work?
some of your questions converge to circular reasoning, similarity doesn't imply evolution. and most of them are presumptuous and converge to: if I was God I wouldn't make this way. If God wants humans eating plants and other animals, inevitably we must have some similarities to other species, we need the aminoacids, fats, carbs and vitamins.
@@VictorD264 You are abusing the "correlation does not mean causation" fallacy as if this is never applicable. These questions are legit and based on real life in nature. The question is WHY. Do you know?
@@Tyrant_Boi A God who warned Adam and Eve that if they ate of the forbidden fruit, they would die. They ate the fruit, and the rest is history. If they had not eaten that fruit, there would be no suffering. It was a test and they failed it.
Every generation thinks that it is better than the previous generation. As is the case were the pharisees in the time of Christ thought they were much better than the people in the time of Moses.
There is nothing new under the sun.
no, the generation is not better, but thery are more cientific advances so it isn't the generation thats better, its the time.
Yep, it's called "presentism". The erroneous belief that your generation is far more civilized and circumscribed than your forebears. Looking at society nowadays, we can see quite clearly that isn't the case.
@@tup4443 Except that we do not have the technology to replicate the Shroud of Turin. Linen cloth with stable, superficial photo negative image. Or the Pyramid of Giza for that matter
I like to consider this. It's not man that evolves, but merely his methods of preserving information/knowledge/science. This has left the future generations with greater tools to improve upon, but with these better tools comes greater arrogance as greater accomplishments are achieved. Without history, we would forget the men who got us here in the first place. Evolution presents a strong disdain for ancient men, touting them as primitive bronze age peoples or barbarians only capable of violence. But comparing to the current generation, there can be found people of lower reasoning and more diabolical imaginations of tormenting their peers. We have hardly changed in anything but efficiency and appearance.
@@DARamosYT Michael Knowles from the Daily Wire put it succinctly in a debate with a leftist college student. "You're standing on the shoulders of giants and you think you're flying."
G.K. Chesterton had fun mocking darwinians in a early chapter of his book, The Everlasting Man. He pointed out that skillful artists drew finely detailed portraits of the Piltdown man, with wistful, thoughtful expressions. Talented writers created whole biographies for him, describing his habits and preferences. The public never realized that they were viewing the portrait and reading the biography of a piece of a cranium, part of a jaw bone, and a tooth!
Piltdown man was exposed as a hoax BY scientists.
ah yes. because some people drew and wrote some stuff 2000 odd years ago, the universe was created by an all-powerful being and we have to worship him or something
@@Tobias_Klein Much of that written stuff is happening now! Read it and find out.
@@Tobias_Klein Which disproves OP how?
@Nexus corporation, you're swimming in denial bud.
When Einstein's theories are proven wrong he won't turn in his grave he will smile.
That's the cool thing about science. It's true whether or not you believe in it.
Lol
I think Einstein will do a Jesus move and return once someone finds a way to connect the theory of relativity with quantum mechanics
@@little_lord_tam Einstein plagorized the majority of his work.
For uh - religion- there is only really trust- with science there's physical proof- knowing it exists with proof would hold more then "just trust me on this" right?
Source?
I found a dead squirrel in the forest. 1000 kilometres away I found a book lying on the ground. I can't be sure if the squirrel wrote the book or if it was just reading it, but this is nonetheless evidence that squirrels are literate, and are far more human than previously thought.
It's a great story but I'm not even sure what side of the debate you are on with that?
@@pup1008i’m pretty certain it is sarcasm and meant to show how absurd the evolutionist arguments are
@@gracebenedict
You may be right.
Bit of a waste of time though when no one has a clue what you are going on about...
@@pup1008 i knew exactly the comparison they were making the first time i read it. i don’t think it’s a waste of time it shows just how absurd their arguments are
@@gracebenedict of course, obviously the 2 are connected despite the 600miles
We're somewhere in the middle to the end of Matthew 24 where Jesus said watch and deception would be rampant so as a follower of Christ we need to be warning people The Wiles of the wicked one which are getting stronger by the day
Do you really think all scientists are "wicked"? Really?
Brothers and sisters what I am saying is we are in the end times oh, they are not coming they are here so in the name of Jesus Christ please wake up and that's soldier that God calls us to be. The Bible is clear this is a military organization not a social club or a debating Club. It's best to read and find that out now then at the last minute when you could lose your very salvation. May God bless you all and your families with the truth the life and the way and may you be ready to lose your life and sacrifice everything for him as the first church did Jesus our lord will return for nothing less than the church he left. That would be a a church meeting in the homes and small groups on the ground persecuted and on the Run not these big pseudo Christian organizations we see in buildings today as those buildings are owned by the bank and will be taken away or targeted as enemies of the state. Get your small groups and me and homes now now not later as you will regret waiting until the last minute because you could lose yourself ation and Jesus said he could blot you out of the book. He also said few find the Narrow Path leading to eternal life and few can endure until the end. That puts the fear of the Lord into me in a healthy way and causes me to be more serious about Christ everyday. I may lose my bank accounts everything I own but I will serve him with my head on on my head off. Problem is we think we're different from the first believers. That's brothers and sisters is a very grave mistake. Again God bless you with the truth the life and the way Jesus Christ Alone Hallelujah God bless you all
@@jockyoung4491 I don't think he is talking scientists alone, but the world in general.
It's all accelerating too. Jesus likened it to birth pains.
@perfectblindguy By denying John you deny the Holy Spirit, as he spoke of Him and His words. You have just condemned yourself. There will be no forgiveness.
I would love to see an evolutionary biologist react to this video.
Me too! It will demonstrate how retarded the video is
Mathematically speaking, this video does not prove or disprove anything.
@@notnotiron Mathematically speaking, no Evolutionist has proven evolution.
@@kamixakadio2441 Realistically speaking, evolution has been proven thousands of times over.
@@notnotiron "Mathematically" proven though, is that life could not have come about by chance, simply an impossible task. Also evolution, the hypothesis, has zero evidence whatsoever, just assertions, speculations, pipedreams and downright lies.
A person does Not need to have a Phd (or even an undergraduate degree) to question the validity of the Abiogenesis Hypothesis, or any hypothesis. As long as people have an understanding of basic scientific principles, common sense, and open mindedness to seek the truth, they can come to a more accurate conclusion for themselves.
Basic Science 101:
Wikipedia 2021, *_“A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the Scientific Method requires that one can Test It … Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is Not the same as a scientific theory.”_* Hypothesis is also referred to as a Hypothetical or Educated Guess.
Wikipedia 2021, *_"In evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life (OoL),is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process Are Still Unknown, the prevailing scientific Hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event [i.e. spontaneous generation]... There are several principles and Hypothesis for how abiogenesis Could Have occurred."_*
One of the reasons that abiogensis is merely a "hypothesis" and has not advanced to the status of being a "scientific theory", is that abiogenesis hypotheses still lack the experimental data required by the scientific method. Abiogenesis Hypothesis has passed the scientific method process zero (0) times.
Clueless, as usual.
Abiogenesis isn't discussed here.
THAT is the Dunning Kruger effect perfectly stated. You were doing great, no you don't need a Phd to question anything; however, stating that an understanding of basic scientific principles can get you to "more accurate conclusion" is just absurd. That sounds like the guy who takes his car to the mechanic and says they know what's wrong, despite having no training or experience, only a basic understanding of how cars work! Sure, that basic understanding can be helpful, especially in preventing being ripped off; however, it does not mean you can more accurately diagnose a car problem than the ASC certified mechanic with years of experience.
@@lizadowning4389In evolution there's a thing called primordial soup
@@gilmarjunior7700 The 'primordial soup' is an idiom that refers to the conditions on early Earth out of which life arose. As such, it has nothing to do with evolution which is a biological concept that posits that populations of living organisms change (evolve).
Even in high school, the concept of the primordial soup is discussed in abiogenesis, not in biological evolution.
@@andycole5957 yeah but let's be real, scientists don't treat it like it's a theory, but like it's fact when they and everyone else know it's not
scientists exposed themselves during covid - and you won't live down that stigma for a long long time - hate all you want - and say that no one has a right to question you because they didn't go to the schools you did - scientists and hte gov't actively suppressed the truth and pushed lies - such as 'wearing a mask thta doesn't have any effect on micro ogranisms is effective against a micro organism' - science is guesswork and funding - saying it's the truth or the search for the truth is a blatant lie
How is this video not completely misleading? No evolutionary scientist in their right mind would use any of these examples as evidence for evolution(Outside of Lucy, which the video completely misrepresents). Even if you take out Lucy, there have been tons of other fossils found of proposed transitional forms. Where is the mention of those?
In order for humans to evolve from apes their would have to be millions of transitional skeletons between them museums should be stocked full of these examples not a few supposed examples here and there
I think the fossil examples given in this video aren’t meant to be comprehensive, but instead to demonstrate a pattern of misleading evidence historically used to support evolution. You could say “cherry-picking,” but whether all fossil evidence falls into this category or not is the crux of the debate, and the video doesn’t really get much into that.
It isn't arguing against evolution in general, just against the evidence of human evolution. It would be easier to name the evidence, then what you said
People will do mental gymnastics to make the world
Fit the narrative they want.
Genesis is not only silly, its basically impossible and doesnt make sense in the context of the Universe.
@@reedplaysgames I agree. But why does AiG care about a select few times where some random evolutionists made false claims? That would be like pointing to false claims made by only young earth creationists and then saying “aha the evidence for YEC is terrible!” How is it news to anyone that people do immoral things some time? What about the 30 other times where the proposed ape to man fossils aren’t fake? (That doesn’t mean we should conclude that evolution is true. The point is that no evolutionists today use what was mentioned in the video as evidence)
The title of the video implies that the things mentioned in the video are the only reasons to believe in evolution which as noted in my above comment, is the farthest from truth. There are tons of people that only listen to videos like this from AiG and then go to college and lose their faith because they realize that they were misled by videos like this. For many, that puts people on a track to doubting everything they were ever taught which eventually ends in people not being Christians anymore.
My Husband visited the Neanderthal Museum in the Neander Valley, Germany which was named after Joachim Neander. He wrote the great hymn, “Praise to the Lord, the Almighty, the King of CREATION”. That was the hymn that was being played when my husband toured the museum. Obviously, the museum curators weren’t familiar with Joachim Neander!
it was named after the Neander river, you plonker.
@@henno3889 But the river was named after Joachim Neander, you plonker.
@@henno3889 the Valley was named after Joachim Neander, the writer of the famous hymn "Lobet den Herren, den mächtigen König der Ehren", as already mentioned above. There is no river called Neander. The river running through the Neander Valley is called Düssel, which gave Düsseldorf ("Düssel Village") its name.
I’m telling you this video was only made for Christian’s to complain
@@henno3889uneducated fool
Anyone who believes in a God that created everything has a LOT of FAITH, but if you believe in random chance evolved into everything I conclude that those people have a major problem with fantasy OR a complete insane refusal to Believe in GOD!
Their staple line is often that there is no way to verify. Essentially, if I can't see it physically with my own two eyes, then it's false, or whatever the equivalent of that is.
I question what's the point of them having friends and other forms of connections.
I'm sorry but you are quite wrong there
A person doesn't need to have a lot of faith to believe God created everything. Just common sense and some understanding of the science. All the matter in the universe didn't just appear out of nothing, it was created by God!
Try a scientific experiment yourself. Put the parts in a shoe box. Put a lid on said box. Shock it! Shake it! Put water in it! In your life time see if you can have it evolve into the object the parts were designed for? It’s never going to happen for you! And you started out with all the designed parts. Hahaha 🤣
@@JiraiyaSama86 not that its false but probably not true
also, I have friends beacuse they're a source of company confort, and fun.
This channel is on fire.
🔥 🔥 fire 🔥 🔥! Yes 👍 speaking about 🔥 fire amazing how 🔥 fire burns in a vacuum of space the third heaven 🔥 fire 🔥 the astronauts said space itself smells like a burnt odor. 🔥 heat it up Lord God in Heaven 🔥 their now science touches the very throne of GOD. Thanks for the reminder!
Pants on fire, maybe
Like a flaming dumpster.
@@TurinTuramber another hard time Charlie. I’m done with you!
@@roberttrough6439 ....ok
While this video correctly points out cases where scientific understanding has evolved or where errors have been made, it fails to acknowledge that these are not evidence against evolution, but rather examples of how science improves and refines its theories over time.
The script also appears to conflate science with belief systems, implying that acceptance of evolution equates to disbelief in a god or higher power. However, science doesn’t claim to disprove the existence of God. Many people find ways to reconcile their religious beliefs with the scientific understanding of the world, including the theory of evolution.
Lastly, the video could be more explicit in communicating that the study of human evolution involves ongoing research and discoveries, and it’s normal for understanding to change as new data becomes available. Missteps, while they do occur, do not invalidate the substantial body of evidence supporting human evolution.
Alex I appreciate your post is at least a rational one, however you use the word, "substantial" evidence for human evolution. But really the evidence they put forward is scant, really the bones wouldn't add up to a very small population of a town of people. Recently there was a study showing that pithecines are their own distinct group away from both modern apes and humans. when you consider that both apes, monkeys and humans as well as extinct apes like pithecines, all have a primate body plan with collar bone, arms, forward vision, then is it really unlikely since these are the organisms with a body plan most similar to ours, that we would find coarse similarity that might portray a circumstantial and misleading case for human evolution? But the scientists would never consider then null hypothesis, they simply never consider the possibility that evolution did not happen. So even if we do not even talk about creation or God, that doesn't change the fact that scientists never consider even the possibility they could be wrong, which seems much more dogmatic than scientific considering the fact there are no repeatable experimental data to test the claims of macro evolution. In fact it is all inferred from circumstantial evidence. The problem is that to believe every design on the planet designed itself by evolution is to believe in an extraordinary claim without extraordinary proof. Phantasticus axioma. For example, imagine if I claimed a ferrari designed itself, don't you think my evidence would have to be extraordinary? So then why isn't evolution held to the same standard given the design in life is so much greater of that of a ferrari? Think about it.
Any honest biologist will tell you there were other hominids besides homo sapien and modern man is a hybrid of these hominids it doesn't mean there isn't a God
Because there's no extraordinary evidence for creationism either. There's no scientific evidence for it whatsoever. In science, we accept the theory that has the most evidence. Not the one that's absolutely perfect.
Now we know that Newtonian physics were wrong. We know the break down at extreme scales and don't describe correctly our observations. But until we had better scientific theories, this was the best one. It worked for our everyday lives. Just because it wasn't completely right, doesn't mean it was useless and that we should've said "It's the God that creates gravity and makes the sun rise!". Because that's nonsense that has zero evidence. Some evidence is always better than zero evidence. Some logical explanation is always better than a completely illogical one.
@michael baba "ferrari has made itself" sounds ridiculous because you KNOW FOR A FACT that it was made in a factory. You can go to the factory and see with your own eyes engineers designing it, and workers and machines creating it. But you CAN'T see the God creating living beings. You have zero evidence for that.
So a better comparison would be a ferrari that a caveman sees for the first time. And this ferrari can somehow change its colors, the size and shape of its wheels, etc. in order to adapt to its environment. So a logical conclusion for the caveman would be that the ferrari assembled itself. It's not logical for the caveman to throw his hands in the air and say "I don't know exactly how this works! Therefore it must've been God who created it!". Or maybe not God, but fairies. Or demons. Or pagan spirits. Or ascended Buddha who can control the reality. Would you accept these other spiritual or religious explanations? Nope. Because now they have no evidence for you. But if it's an explanation without evidence that agrees with your religion, then it's suddenly the most logical one for you.
@@med2904 Med2904, that's incorrect. The ferrari is just an example of an extraordinary claim, the point I was making was that evolution and it's ancestor of all life, which has no cause and therefore is science-fiction, is a fantastic claim. It wasn't meant to be a comparison between life's design and a ferrari. The evidence God designed life is staggering because like the ferrari all of life's forms has specified complexity, information code, correct materials, contingency planning, integrated systems and astounding inventiveness. But don't believe me, instead believe a non-theist science-field called, "biomimetics". so Med, no offence but I was looking for rational discourse with that other poster, not the usual sophistry you get thrown at you by the standard average IQ atheist that uses the LAME and vague, "religous comparison" game. So you question-beg Buddha and pagan spirits because what you have done there is called the fallacy of false equivalence, where instead of showing these claims equal to God, you just lump God in with them because you haven't the intellectual ability to see that each claim is judged on it's own merit. Anyone can play that game. For example you believe in natural magic, where cells assemble themselves for no reason whatsoever that just happen to be more intelligent by design than anything we can come up with. LOL. So keep burying your head in the sand by pretending there is only evidence of evolution and none for God for that lame and false binary propaganda is all the feeble minds of atheism can come up with.In fact evidence for God is qualified by logical rules such as using the consequent in a modus ponen (aka Popper), so we can intellectually qualify evidence using logical rules, not using aggressive atheist opinions. LOL
Noted evolutionist Richard Dawkins (now 82 years old, and published "The God Delusion" in 2006) said over 30 years ago: "If you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane.”
Similarly, Professor René Dubos (1901-82 C.E.) once said: “Most enlightened persons now accept as a fact that everything in the cosmos-from heavenly bodies to human beings-has developed and continues to develop through evolutionary processes."
For example, by the late 1800’s, some 20 years after Charles Darwin published his Origin of the Species in 1859, the American public was already becoming convinced that science (and not the Bible) could improve every aspect of human life, and in which all the major universities had said yes to the theory of evolution.
In modern times, some have propounded the belief that it was about 350,000 years ago that humans started evolving, other say 2 million years ago when humans came on the scene, while in an article by the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History entitled "Introduction to Human Evolution", dated July 11, 2022, it said that "people originated from apelike ancestors and evolved over a period of approximately six million years", so there is NO consensus, and should cause a sincere person to realize the inconsistency and flaws of human views, even from scientific sources, such as "research papers".
To show how gullible even the most astute scientific minds are, consider the case of the Piltdown Man in 1912 supposedly an evolutionary link found at Piltdown Village in Sussex, England. Many are quick to accept what scientists, paleontologists or even politicians say about a certain fossil without carefully verifying their words, so in their desire to find evidence of “ape-men,” some scientists had been taken in by outright fraud, as the Piltdown man was found to be.
For about 40 years it was accepted as genuine by most of the evolutionary community. Finally, in 1953, the hoax was uncovered when modern techniques revealed that human and ape bones had been put together and artificially aged and perpetrated by A. C. Hinton, a former curator of zoology at London’s Natural History Museum, who died in 1961.
In another instance, an apelike “missing link” was drawn up and presented in the press. But it was later acknowledged that the “evidence” consisted of only one tooth that belonged to an extinct form of pig.(Missing Links, by John Reader, 1981, pgs 109, 110)
Or the "Man of Orce" that was "found" near Orce, Spain in southern Spain (Andalusia) and jumped to national headlines in 1983 and was based on an 8 cm (about 3 1/2 inches) wide skullcap fragment.(article "A fistful of fossils: The rise and fall of the Orce Man and the politics of paleoanthropological science", Journal of Human Evolution, April 2022) Prominent Spanish, French and British scientists had already vouched for its authenticity.
However, on May 12, 1984, two weeks before an international seminar on the subject was to occur, serious doubts arose as to the fragment's origin. After the meticulous removal of calcareous deposits from the interior part of the skull, paleontologists found a disconcerting or "unusual crest". Human skulls do not have such a crest. The seminar was quickly postponed.
Despite the fossil’s meager proportions, the “Man of Orce” was hailed as “the greatest paleontological find of recent years, as well as the missing link between the typical African man (Homo habilis) and the oldest man of the Eurasian continent (Homo erectus).”
Fertile imagination and not-so-scientific guesswork sufficed to fill in the details about the appearance and way of life of the “Man of Orce.” Finally, in 1987, a scientific paper written by Jordi Agusti and Salvador Moya' , two paleontologists involved in the original discovery, said that x-ray analysis had indeed confirmed that the fossil belonged to a kind of horse, not a man.(the latest information says that it "was most likely a skull fragment from a four-month-old donkey")
So, where does this put noted evolutionists with their "theory (or speculation, hypothesis, conjecture, personal view) of evolution" ? As something NOT to be trusted, but looked upon with doubt. Proverbs 14:15 in the Bible states: "The naive person believes every word ("its in a research or scientific paper, so it must be true"), but the shrewd one ponders each step."
If you don’t even understand what a scientific theory means, I’m not surprised that you don’t understand the theory itself 🤦🏻♂️
@@RealHooksy You need to get on your hands and knees and pray for the Holy Spirit to fill you up.
@@paulthompson9668 like an alter boy?
@@RealHooksy If you pray hard enough, then when you look back, you'll see Jesus penetrate you from behind and come inside you.
@@RealHooksy
I understand that a fact is a truth, well established as something a person can accept, while a "scientific theory" is just that, someone's hypothesis, speculation, conjecture on a matter, and NOT established as a FACT. It is like playing the stock market, whereby a person can never be sure of whether they will gain or "lose their shirt".
So many use the words "maybe", "possibility", "could", of a matter happening, but they cannot say CONCLUSIVELY that such an event or matter will happen or has happened. Being gullible is everywhere, but having EMPIRICAL (or proven) evidence (that can physically established) puts a matter as a fact. As astrophysicist Guillermo Gonzales, a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, once stated:
"My work, in part, deals with astrobiology from an astronomers viewpoint. I simply follow the empirical evidence wherever it will lead me, and I try not to let philosophical preconceptions color my interpretations". So, the WISE person does NOT accept anything based on speculation, conjecture, hypothesis, on a "hunch", on a theory.
It is as a Bible proverb states: "The naive person believes every word, but the shrewd one ponders each step."(Prov 14:15) A "shrewd" person can see when something is a fact and when it is NOT a fact, when it is someone's personal view or interpretation, in which you and I both know that personal views and interpretations are just that, personal and NOT necessarily factual.
Here is a list of some theories that were proven as wrong (in which the list could go on and on) (1) Pon's Nuclear fusion or "cold fusion", (2) that mass is destroyed in nuclear reactions, (3) Einstein's static or stationary universe, proven wrong by Edwin Hubble in 1929 C.E. (4) spontaneous generation, proven wrong by Louis Pasteur in 1859 C.E.(5) that the earth is the center of the universe, known as the geocentricism, proven wrong by Galileo in 1610 C.E.(6) luminiferous aether, that a "medium" of aether pervaded the universe and is the carrier of light waves, but was proven wrong in 1887 by the Mickelson-Morley experiment.
So, if you want to be gullible, go right ahead, but the wise person will NEVER accept a theory as fact, until proven by empirical evidence, beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is as New York banker David Hannum said in 1868, that "there's a sucker born every minute", speaking about "The Cardiff Giant", in which about 50 percent said it was a fake, while the other 50 percent thought it was a fossilized human giant, and in the end, it proved to be a hoax.
With the Bible (an accurate Bible), this never presents a theory, "only the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth".
There are actually billions of “missing links” across the biosphere. Not a single organism observed today has any kind of evolutionary chain in evidence. There are however almost innumerable examples of adaptation within ‘kinds’ observed which are touted as “evolution”. Even Darwin’s finches we’re all finches, they just had adapted beaks built from pre existent genomic information. Variation of phenotype is not evidence of generation of novel genotype. Just observe the life cycle of the butterfly for a profound example of such.
This. I find it baffling the Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian theories still has its power. I guess the corruption within academia is so immense to the point of criminal.
"I don't want to read about it, so it doesn't exist"
@@duckman554 They’re actually significantly lacking in actual evidence. The whale story is lacking in the transitional forms and the horse story is comprised of contemporaneous phenotypic examples presented as gradual change.
@@mrchoon2010 I assume this is saying I’ve just refused to read the stories? If so, quite the contrary. The difference is I’ve compared the claims to the actual evidence. There’s an enormous gap between the two.
Do this as an experiment- Whenever you see some kind of evolutionary representative depiction (like the ascent of man), remove all the elements not based on actual evidence. I think you’ll find the pretty graph gets very empty very quickly, and the few items left are examples of completely different animals or variations of the exact same animal. If you do this with the ascent of man drawing for example, you’re left with a primate on one end and a human on the other. Everything in between is made up.
@@natec4133 Exactly. You said "Not a single organism" then the only organism you can think of is "man"
Showing that you know nothing outside that tiny spectrum.
Today, we know that blood letting is in fact dangerous and isn't a good way to cure diseased. But back then, physicians didn't know, and so many died.
If only they had read the scriptures. Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you on the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul.
Amen! Amazing how NASA is searching the Scriptures and finding answers. Hahaha 🤣
@@roberttrough6439 good one😂
@@roberttrough6439 Now they’re going to have to rewrite the evolutionary processes of the entire universe. Thank you James-Webb!
THAT statement (disgusting as it is) is dealing with how to sacrifice an animal and how to sprinkle the tabernacle with its blood.....no better than the Aztecs in my opinion.
I am not missing the irony of this video. So great! 😊
Where's the irony, maybe I can help
@@carllossa8114everything
@@carllossa8114thumbnail and title for a start...
Wishing our fellow Christians in Canada the best, you seem to have a tough time coming. Stay with God, love you
That's so sweet that you're concerned about Canadian orgasms while screaming, "Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, goddddddddddddddd!"
@@highroller-jq3ix uhhh ohhh found one Lolol
@@SpaceEagle93 What did you find, freak show, an unmonitored child?
@@highroller-jq3ix a person seeking God, lol you’ll find him if you want to don’t have to get on the internet and be rude to people to feel alive my friend
@@SpaceEagle93 Great lol bomb, goofball. Yes, if I want to find a fantasy god, like so many gullible imbeciles, I will. Instead, I want to use the rational capacity of my mind and maintain an intelligent, valid world view. You don't need a god fantasy to live out your humanity, random creeper who shouldn't be desperately throwing around terms of endearment on the internet.
Great video,im not a Christian or religious at all and have always questioned evolution it always made no sense to me.
Then learn more. It makes perfect sense.
Great for you!
@@clarkthompson8094 learn more???😄please. Science is about finding truth. Not learning dogma
@@Benjaminbumblebee the only dogma christianity presents is that sin separates us from god’s righteousness and through christ you are brought back to gods love.
Either god created the world in six days or the universe did with a big bang, both cases we are living with faith.
Keep up the good work!
He comments on all Christian videos to endorse satanism 😂 most likely a bot, tranny, or demon person 🤣
@@jerrylong6238 go ahead and refute every single claim
@@jerrylong6238
Where's the evolution? Oops.
"None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another…Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic [e.g., bacterial] to eukaryotic [e.g., plant and animal] cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.
- Alan Linton, phd bacteriologist
@jerrylong6238 whatever John Balnis.
@@jerrylong6238 Please point out the specific lie(s) so we can discuss, thanks.
@cosmicskeptic, your thoughts on this?
he would reply: Cool story, but when did you last see your dad per chance?
All you need do is walk around a crowd and notice the different skull and facial structures to know that one or even two old skulls do not prove anything, let alone Evolution.
We have far more than "two odd skulls" you nitwit.
Absolutely true... However, there are thousands from dozens of different species, not just the couple that were hoaxes. 1 baboon bone out "Lucy" does not disqualify the over 100 good bones, let alone the dozens of other skeletons we've found from her species since.
I would love to see more debates from answers in Genesis.
I aprove. The woman from the Gutsick Gibbon channel would be my first choice.
@@Alien1375 she's awesome, isn't she?
@@Alien1375 except she won’t debate anymore. After her three consecutive losses against our team she runs from debates. Most people never even knows she debated us because she never put them on her channel. Just imagine how badly she would lose to a scientist from AIG. Nothing is stopping her from debating any of them either, but her and her team are far to afraid. We remind them all the time, why not submit to a written debate then if you are so scared to open mic debate ? They are even more afraid of that because then it’s written down for everyone to see forever and posted on AIG s website. At least YT debates they can hide from much easier.
Anytime you think she has a good point against AIG tell her to submit to a written debate or else it’s nothing but a bunch of hot air to an atheist audience who doesn’t understand anything she is saying anyway
@@YoungEarthCreation 🤡
@Soldier Are you his dad?
These Videos are really well put together
If you want to go against reality they are, but if you want the truth not so good then.
@@jerrylong6238 Such nonsense!
@@dooglitas really? Dismissing footprints attributed to Lucy because other sets were found 900 miles away? That is like dismissing American automotive use because cars are also found in Europe! These arguments are extremely weak and many are just plain false!
@@jerrylong6238 In the naturalist worldview, everything living dies and stays dead. Knowing "truth" offers no benefit in any way. "Truth" is not even a scientifically verifiable concept. If naturalism were accurate, everyone might as well believe anything they want because all we religious would end up in the same place as those who "knew the truth." It's almost like naturalism is the precursor to the satanic philosophy of "do what thou wilt" ... hmmm.
@@jasonpenn5476
Oops.
Millions of years never happened.
"It’s a pattern in the fossil record that footprints are found in strata millions of years before foot bones, and evolutionists never explain how the critter survived millions of years after leaving its footprints until it finally got buried."
"It was first presented in detail in a paper by Adventist Leonard Brand and a co-author J. Florence in 1982. The evolutionists have never answered this challenge in the 38 years since. The pattern is the same for reptiles, amphibians, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals."
13:28 So you're saying their walking style was between ape and human? It's almost like that was what scientists were saying all along and supports the fact that they descended from earlier apes and were the ancestors (or were related to the ancestors) of modern humans.
@perfectblindguy So, you’re blind and pathetically ignorant.
We did evolve from earlier apes. Now, we’re modern apes
"I didn't come from no ape! That's degrading! I came from dirt."
From the ape means you also came from pond scum.
My greatest advance regret is that they won't let me be buried untreated under a tree, to return to the dirt from whence I came and provide food for a new tree.
I think you meant to say: I came from the hand of God.
🙂
@@gorgo4910 Sorry...I'm not in a cult like you are. LOL.
@@gorgo4910 ... maybe via apes?
We need a similar takedown of the 'ancient aliens' nonsense.
I think that theory is more for entertainment than taken seriously.
It's actually more believable than anything in the bible; or anything religious for that matter.
@@sinclairj7492 Wish the same could be said for religion.
@@grandfathernurgle2840 why?
@@grandfathernurgle2840 It’s more believable if your 5 yrs old. Space aliens flying through space in their spaceships huh
The thing is, neanderthals are very close to homo sapiens in evolution. But we have a lot of older skeletons from other more distant species.
Did Neanderthals really exist. Did science make up stories with bones from different dead people like have done so many times. And you believe that propaganda. Ok if that works for you. Hahaha 🤣
@@roberttrough6439 Its not propaganda. Its science. Neanderthals did exist. You should not laugh at peoples beliefs. You should instead come up with reasonably structured arguments against them. You are probably evolving into a less intelligent grass eating creature as we speak. I would not even expect you to reply back due to the rate of evolution you are experiencing.
There’s an absurd lack of scientific evidence to the whole inter-dimensional creation man claim you made at the end, got any missing links for that one?
that entire statement is a paradigm fallacy, the paradigm of theism doesn't need to provide evidence based on another paradigm (science) vice versa...
7:21 If I remember correctly, a child visiting the museum is the one who pointed out the skull was fraudulent.
You remember incorrectly.
It was a German paleontology student, who was later killed at Verdun.
That student pointed out the Piltdown man was impossible, because it contradicted the predictions of the theory of evolution.
But because he was German, the clergy of England rallied around Piltdown Man, as the true ancestor of all good and loyal Englishmen.
As a result, religion and politics, forced science to conform to patriotic pressure.
To question Piltdown, was unpatriotic. And unchristian.
So it was until after WW2, when new technology let scientists finally test the age of the skull. The tests confirmed what scientists had been whispering for years.
@@danbeaulieu2130explain the 20 other “early human ancestors” that have been debunked. Evolution is religion just like communism was a religion to atheist Stalin and Mao and Marx was their God. Or how Social Darwanism was a religion to atheist Hitler. Without God people develop their own religion.
@@Stevewilldoit96
What is "atheist Hitler"?
A fantasy?
And what "20 other"?
@@danbeaulieu2130essentially hitler said he was christian but didn't often speak about it and devoted his life to eugenics and creating the "Aryan race". These are not the actions of a person who believes in God but rather believes himself to be a god or believes he has the power of a god. And stalin was basically the same way how they both sort of worshipped their work and objectives despite it being in a different way from what we think of as religion.
@@perennem_equitem_57
Adolf Hitler remained a christian, that is a person who believes the core doctrines of christianity, all his life. Playing with the definition to posthumously exclude him, is dishonest at best.
The man was baptized into the faith, and never renounced his faith.
Hitler was a christian. None of his ideas were unique to him. All were traceable to earlier christian figures, including Luther. Especialy Luther.
Thank you for uploading. Im struggling with my faith and i need answers
Don't look for them here, only lies can be found here.
@@Minifliek Yes. YOU are here. But why?
@@margeebechyne8642 I am here indeed, yet i'm not the one lying.
@@Minifliek You take the time to come to this Christian group . Why? Do you even listen to the video, or just look for people to spew on? Again, why?
@@Minifliek ⚰️
man will do anything to talk himself out of heaven ,self deception is very powerful ,you will believe anything that makes you feel better
Yeah like this video
Yeah like this video
Believe anything that makes you feel better- coming from people who think a man can split a ocean in half
My favorite AiG series
When I was a child ion school, I was taught--through highschool and college--that neanderthal was able to harness 1 chemical reaction, that being fire. Now, because the archeology doesn't lie--mainly from caves found in South-Eastern Europe--neanderthal was now, apparently, able to ferment, including beer, meats and other alcoholic drinks.
Typical redneck
So what? It's just a proof that science isn't a religion or an ideology. The conclusions and theories can change over time as more evidence is found to prove otherwise. What do you expect? Scientists to say that any new evidence can't be real because their initial conclusions have to be absolutely correct? Or maybe archeologists correctly predicting everything about the lives of neanderthals before they can start collecting physical evidence?
If your argument is "all science is wrong because it's not always making correct predictions", then creationists can't make ANY predictions. Can you predict when God will create another new species of animal and show it pop up into existence? Do you have any explanation why God created so many hominid species that homo sapiens had to compete with, when according to the Bible God has created just one type of human and to rule over Earth?
Congratulations, you've learned that science changes as our understandings change!
@@askjake2426 Truth doesn't change.
@@Drakemiser there are no truths regarding gods existence, you have 0 proof which means you should not believe God, ever heard of old testament vs new testament? Oh wait, because he's god he's allowed to change his understandings and teaching but we can't? Yeah, you're just brainwashed. Science doesn't change truths it changes understandings, you not understanding the difference makes perfect sense to me considering.
So your argument is....that science is iterative, that it makes mistakes sometimes because it works based on predictions from a developing body of evidence, and corrects itself when new evidence emerges to falsify its hypotheses?
That's literally the whole point of science.
Nope, that is not my argument...
The archaic term of science is "knowledge of any kind". This is not limited to having false information. Truth, however, is something that isn't supposed to change. Our understanding of it - our science - will change over time.
This principle of acquiring more understanding applies both to evolution and creationism. There is a truth both worldviews are striving to understand, and the understanding of individuals will update over time, whether toward truth, or away from it.
The issue is that there can be only one truth, and our finite capacity to know things leaves us with a leap of faith to cover that incapacity.
so how can you tell if it is right currently?
Science, for all the good and the bad it has unleashed, has never come close to proving the theory of evolution.
The recent past certainly has shown more than enough what to think about 'follow the science'.
My trust remains in the Almighty.
Almighty?
Christian doctrinr is the product of men more corruptible than scientists.
“Follow the church”
Lool wht u god did for u?
Would have been a great opportunity to appear and provide a cure for Covid.😂
Men can become women if they cut off their genitals, Trust the science!
-Rational Reddit atheist/skeptic
Basic question, which is more likely 1.. creatures slowly changed over millions of years to produce the curent iteration of man or 2..an invisible omnipotent being magicked a sentient creature out of nothing, just as it is now.
Logically both are possible, plus there's nothing that disproves God in any way.
@@nathanwhite704 your logic is flawed
@@HansZarkovPhD No it isn't.
Yes, it is.
@@HansZarkovPhD Explain how.
I could listen to Calvin all day and not get bored
calming lies are the most successful
Correction; "never learn anything"
The early 2000 edge lords are responding 😅
Which Calvin? The French Theologian? Pastor and reformer of Geneva during the reformation? Or some nut job?
@Soldier i was refering to religion in general not just this liar ...
When you do not have the evidence, you have to make it up.
That’s a definition of religion.
You’re taking about creationism right?
@@gweilospur5877 ie the one about magic mud puddles giving life
@@gweilospur5877 Just like the religion of evolution.
@@TickedOffPriest And the religion of gravity.
Isolated island habitats, like the Hawaiian Islands, allow species to evolve from mainland ancestors and become increasingly different over time. For example, Darwin's finches on the Galápagos Islands are unique to the islands but have distant relationships to mainland species
I don't think "evidence" is a subject religious people want to get into, considering their entire stack of cards is built on faith.
Have you actually researched the historical reliability of the Bible...?
@@hawk7466 I have. And I have to agree here; there is a LOT of unreliability in many Bible accounts being considered "historical". There is far to much actually for, in my opinion, anyone to consider the entire thing a reliable accounting.
@@mrastin821 like?
It's actually scientific discoveries that lead many to believe in God.
Look at Antony Flew.
@@mrastin821 If that’s your best argument then you should probably stay away from the discussion.
I hope people share these videos, there are a lot of people who are brainwashed to believe we came from the goo to the zoo, to you.
The people who believe in the goo zoo also invented your phone, and the internet, and your tv, and your car, and the medicine that will probably keep you alive past 30 lol. You know, before modern science, the childhood mortality rate was close to 50%? Thanks to modern science and medicine, more than half of all people live past their 5th birthday. Thank you vaccines and modern birthing procedures. Sorry Ruth, but if you wanted to make a baby for the lord 200 years ago, there was at least a 50% chance you would have died. No C-sections. You are backing the wrong team here. A team that is literally comparing modern science to science from the 1800s lol. Like Darwin didn't have the internet or even high quality microscopes. Any modern scientist will freely say "Darwin made a lot of mistakes and was limited by his time in history." The Origin of Species is not our bible lol. We know as scientists that that book was a good starting point, but unlike the bible, science doesn't just stop with one book. Science never stops discovering new things, and that's why you are able to disagree with science right now on the internet lol.
well it's more backed in evidence than any sort of creation tho
@@aeropteryx900 you can believe in magic mud puddles all you want.
@@HS-zk5nn nothing funnier than christians telling people who actually listen to science that they believe in magic
I don't know of anyone who believes that infantile, inane, batshit fundie chant.
No evolution
Amen 🙏
@@smartsimplefit You mean no evolution in religion don't you? I agree with that, God is the same yesterday today and forever. People evolve, but religions do not.
@@jerrylong6238 Darwinian evolution is a scam is what we mean. Jaguars and domestic cats are related, but they are obviously both still cats lol.
@@smartsimplefit You do know that evolution is the reason why jaguars and domestic cats are so physically different, right? The domestication of _Felis domesticus_ allowed it to evolve to become a smaller and less aggressive feline.
I disagree
Interesting video, I like the historical points in this video, but It only refers to apes and humans. I liked how it rebuttled evolution from a historical standpoint, but it ignores the stuff we've seen recently, i.e. isolated gene pools. There's an island of finches that were brought to it by mistake. They've transformed quite a bite in the short period of time being there. But the shape of their beak transformed during drought seasons that spanned a few years. Would've liked to hear more rebuttles referring to isolated gene pools and evolution or results of natural cross breeding, resulting in changes in gene structure to counter the evolution argument.
What you described there is simply adaptation, due to changing environment, the cross breeding is usually a fatal disaster when we talk about animals, they usually cannot reproduce after, and 3rd it’s simply man induced changes, “ trying to be like God” what the serpent told us in the garden
Its clearly only talking about humans
@@charlieboy1017 "so every other animal evolve but not humans? Is that what you are saying?"
The video is saying that there is no solid evidence that humans evolved.
Not saying there is no possibility.
The evidence put forth, has been debunked, so it appears (according to the evidence) that humans suddenly appeared.
This could be from a god, or it could be from alien meddling, or from humans landing here, only to be almost wiped out.
Other animals had many years to adapt, due to different environmental pressures.
Humans living in the same location, for an extended period, would not have a need to radically adapt from monkey to modern man. This is the argument.
Personally, I think it's meddling aliens, but you know.. the difference between conspiracy and fact... is Time.
@charlieboy1017 - humans and other hominids have a common ancestor
@charlieboy1017 - - caeationists can not define Human. Many think that only white humans are human
Java-Man was described from a single tooth...
and nebraska man with an extinct pigs tooth.
1:15 the irony in this statement is palpable
Yeah you are right. These people are denying all evidence by saying how a particular fossil was differently interpreted by different scientists
Ikr
💯💯💯
An important discussion and thanks for posting
Scientists keep improving on science (knowledge). Shocking!
And it aligns more and more with the Bible. Awesome!
@@HS-zk5nn no
@@Fabifabiguden nose
@@HS-zk5nndogs are proof of evolution
@@Fabifabiguden not really
It's like denying gravity, electromagnetism
Terrible comparison, since proof of evolution in humans is not all around us.
@@AnonymousCommentor_ Not only is it in our genome but we also have an outstanding amount of transitional fossils.
@@MrSucho-vl7ih Read my comment again, and then read yours. I don't think you realize how much of a fool you're sounding.
No Creationist has ever shown any inaccuracies in the Theory of Evolution. It was scientists that ferreted out errors and refined the theory.
yes they have, just look at a bunny skeleton, it's so easy to confuse it with an opossum skeleton
The entire theory is inaccurate. It’s not observable or replicable in a lab that’s science. You can’t show one species of animals producing a new speices of animals. It’s religion.
@@macias7125that’s because they probably have a common ancestor down the line somewhere
@@spinylogo3750 they don’t
@@macias7125they do, and it’s the mammal
“Many people are willing to believe Olight rather than the truth if it suits their purpose info, this is the mantra of the Democrat party
"They're lying and manipulating you, let the church lie and manipulate you instead" 😂 great production value though guys,
P.s. Yes, theres problems with determining human evolution, also with deep history archeology and the like, but thats no excuse to put your faith in the church to hand you down your world view. God gave you capscity to learn, think independently, and be discerning and he wants you to use that capacity.
you probably think weed is cool and rick and morty is funny.
@@studblud I love how you guys just stereotype atheists as being the worst things possible. You do realise your literal messiah, Jesus, tells you to not do that - as in, when he says, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her".
Don't throw stones at atheists and shame them for being an atheist and follow your own scripture. According to your religion, it is not your job to do God's job for him. You, by doing so, is as much a sinner as atheists, by your own standards 😂
Man i guess we should believe a book that has no author and not scientific textbooks.
It's better than believing people who made a sketch of ape like people from a pig's tooth! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@Trabunkle That's called a hoax, so no, you should believe the people who actually debunked the hoax. One crazy guy in NE making a sketch of anything based on a tooth is not exactly a source anyone should believe!
@@andycole5957 The problem is not the sketch, the problem is that a lot of people from the "Scientific" community went along with it until it was proven that the tooth came from a pig! The same thing happened with the Skull! The same has happened with a lot of "discoveries" from the "scientific" community! Too many mistakes and hoaxes! The "discoveries" get a lot of press, while the mistakes and hoaxes don't!
Ken Ham: Ham earned a bachelor's degree in applied science (with an emphasis on environmental biology) from the Queensland Institute of Technology and holds a Diploma in Education from the University of Queensland.
In other words, he is not a foremost expert on literally anything on this planet. Bill Nye out-debated him lol. Bill Nye people....
You are taking the word of "experts" against the word of EXPERTS if you actually believe what this video is propagating.
Scientists are 100% transparent with their findings if they are true scientists, and you can look up every scrap of their data and research online at literally any time you want. There are WAREHOUSES full of fossils ranging in age from a few millenia to millions of years.
Literally go to any mountain on this planet that scientists believe were once under the ocean. YOU YOURSELF CAN FIND SEA SHELLS ALL OVER MOUNTAINS ALL OVER THE WORLD.
Our fossil records are based on observable data that even the average person can find in the natural world. You are being led like flies to the zapper folks!
Bill Nye is not the expert you claim he is. Case in point: he claims each layer of ice on Greenland or anywhere else accounts for one year. WRONG! Each layer of snow/ice accounts for one snow storm! Dig through a pile of snow at winter's end and see for yourself. Further, if you have any evidence that the info in this video is false please state it. Claiming the video is wrong without saying why is nonsense!
@perfectblindguy Well stated!
People who want to limit what God can do and what He can't do amaze me. Because these people can't themselves imagine things greater than themselves, they want to put God in a box and confine Him to being capable of only certain powers and concepts. I am indeed amazed.
God made the earth in a long and vast process of creation in which evolution took hold of, he witnessed it in a glimpse of a second
So why did god limit himself? Why did he make the universe in 7 whole days? Why did he make Noah build a boat to store the animals instead of just magicking them into stasis while the flood happened? Why have a flood at all instead of just magically eliminating the “bad” people? Those are limitations that religious people themselves have set their god tox
I'm amazed how many people get this stuff confused, especially religious types.
'Evolution' is the thing that is occurring all the time and from generation to generation, it's passed through the mother.
'Creation' is what you were at the the beginning, before Evolution occurred or what you were before merging with the egg in your mother... a 'sperm' or 'perfectly balanced being' sort of...
It is not evidence of evolution that different ethnicities have different skin color, or eye color or eye shape or abundant skin hair?. Bible tells the story of Noah's son Ham which was cursed for having black skin and this story was used to justify slavery of black people. I had an acquaintance that stated that black people did not belong to the human race, and I said to him that it was my understanding that 2 different species could not have an offspring and that there were many children born from parents from different ethnicities, so that means that all ethnicities have a common ancestor which asserts that human evolution is a fact, regardless of any discussion about discovery of bones.
Excellent video and details.
There’s people alive today whose skulls would look like these.
I guarantee the actor "The Great Khali" would look exactly like this.
@@electricspark5271 No it wouldn't. It has more to do with fat and muscles distribution rather than skull shape
@Electric Spark what a profoundly ignorant and stupid thing to say. So you're saying he looks like a caveman? How would you know what his skull looks like without an x-ray? I guarantee you wouldn't say that to his face too
@@notnotiron what a ridiculous cope
@@ShowMeYoBoob maybe
Your information is at least a half century out of date. How about the over 300 specimens of Australopithecus afarensis from different individuals found since Lucy? You act as if there have been no advancements in the last 50 years.
No, they lie about it. This kind of information is readily available afterall on the internet.
@@katamas832 I was being diplomatic.
Bringing up Piltdown man is scraping the bottom of the barrel. No scientifically literate person is going to be gullible enough to swallow this recycled insult to science.
You say that neanderthals were never subhuman. That is indeed correct, but they were not humans like us. They coexisted and even mingled with us.
How do we know this is true?
• It's part of a historical progression of discoveries in which successive testable young-earth creation predictions keep working
@@luckyson7594 Cause we have traces of their DNA within our own, actually.
@@Moniticethat is simply not true. We always hear this DNA explanation from
people who don’t really understand DNA to the degree they need to. The complexity of DNA variants and where they are found have dismantled that thought of some kind of evolutionary process or relation.
@@AlphaAchilles literally 99% of scientist that study the DNA agree that we have traces in our DNA from the Neanderthals.
@luckyson7594 you make no sense
The ignorance displayed in this comment section is astounding. I’ve found myself on the dark side of TH-cam again.
Oh yes, enlightened one. Please educate the comment section with your amazing knowledge.
"In early times, it was easier to control a million people than to kill a million. Today, it is infinitely easier to to kill a million people than to control a million." - Zbigniew Brzezinski
you must not have seen when the tv said go in the house till we say so and everybody did it.
It’s almost 50 years to the day of the the perpetuation of the Lucy hoax. November 24, 1974.
My wife’s pop-sci magazine arrived the other day with a drawing of a monkey proposed to be “Lucy” on the cover and the puffiest of puff pieces in the pages with only a line in the last paragraph saying that there is, as yet, no scientific consensus regarding “Lucy” being a genuine “missing link.”
Isn't lying a sin, Calvin?
Thank you, that’s all I can say
Truth 🙏 Thank you AIG❤
Evolution: fossils, genetics, imprints, embryology, homologues features, DNA/RNA, biogeography, microevolution....
God; the bible
Search for biogenesis
nothing of the things u listed proves the evolution theory..
@@SoCoolScience How could living beings reproduce without complexity? See the living beings as machines by the complexity. Now u realize zero chances of abiogenesis??
Again wrong. Stupid dumbass with buzzwords who hasnt studied actual evolution 😅
@@DaniAlbaracin Darwin didn't discuss it.
I dont know what the video is babling about honestly, keeps on saying that The Neanderthals skeleton has nothing to differ from modern human skeleton doesnt make it true. And Neanderthals arent even our direct ancestor, its a distinct branch on the human family tree that share the common ancestor with Homo Sapiens, and that branch has gone extincted already. Totally dissappeared from our fossil record since 40 000 years ago. It is only considered as close relatives in the broader context of human evolution. That video clearly doesnt under what evolution theory means. They probably think that a chimpanzees all of a sudden give birth to a human i guess.
Funny how all of this stems from a sense of superiority against the rest of life. We are not special
"We're not special" You're typing on a phone or computer to thousands of people across the globe 😂 something is special about us compared to the rest of nature
@@coast_gaurd nature is more complex than you would think, I agree that we have achieved special things, but complexity within animals is greater than what we have made
I am pretty sure that we are half Ape and half Alien, that makes more sense then the Creation thesis.
DNA science shows the Neanderthal man's DNA was purer than ours is today. Faster stronger more intelligent and lived longer according to their findings
Which would make biblical sense. Look how long people lived the closer they were from the fall at the garden of Eden.
That has nothing to do with DNA's "purity" (what does that even mean?). Yes, Neanderthals were much stronger than us - just like a gorilla or chimpanzee is, for the same reasons. There is no evidence Nanderthals lived longer; their life expectancy had a maximum of about 45 years, largely because for all their strength and robustness, they suffered terrible injuries and infections; they live din a cold climate and relied on hunting large animals for food, using short spears. Which was very dangerous.
DNA purity dosent exist, its fake.
by that logic fish would be stronger than humans beacuse we can't breath underwater.
show me the evidence
Purer? I'd love to hear your definition of purer DNA.
I went to a Christian high school. We were taught creationism with age in Bible and evolution in biology
Yes, theistic evolution. And you likely noticed the compromise didn't fit well at all...
@@calvinsmith7575 not that i am an expert but could be some anti bible white folks saw some african tribe and went like thought oh! that's how we evolved from.
Have you recovered yet?
It's ironic that Genesis 1 completely contradicts the pseudoscience of evolution. For example, evolution says, the birds EVOLVED from dinosaurs over millions of years, which were land animals, but Genesis 1 says, the birds (Day 5) were CREATED before the land animals (Day 6). Also, evolution says, the whales EVOLVED from a land animal over millions of years, but Genesis 1 says, whales (Day 5) were CREATED before the land animals (Day 6).
@@11aaf and what evidence is there for that?
whinning about an absence of evidence from a faith-based worldview is weird af.
Perhaps for you
@@roberttrough6439 not perhaps, for sure.
It points to the FACT that science has become a religion as well…. It requires hypothesis based on little evidence. And unfortunately because it has the title of “Science”, it’s taken as concrete. Not even to mention that studies are now being questioned due to biases from donors and finders for research…..
You talk and see the life like an atheist
Man, maybe you don’t know the evidence of God, because you are ingnorant😅
There is a ton of evidence, have shame and go study😊
You know that we literally commonly use evolution as a tool right? We genetically modify plants and animals in order to make them better for us which is using evolution
You mean adaptations like making a fruit more resistant? Evolution would be making a strawberry into a whole new fruit that looks entirely different with a new way to work
@@Shakiahjprod No? For example dogs evolved from wild dogs, that is 2 species who are very similar, not entirely different from each other in terms of appearance and functionallity. And adapting to the enviroment and becoming more resistant is literally what evolution entails
@@Shakiahjprod you not understanding evolution does not refute evolution.
@@boldisordorin9010 No dogs came from wolves but we slowly domesticated over thousends of years
@@grayokay you did not understand my point. Fine let's say they came from wolves, domestic dogs and wolves afe not entirely different creatures that function entirely differently, they are very similar. That guy who responded to me said that if strawberries evolved they would be entirely different and function in a whole different way, but nobody claimed evolution makes creatures change so much like he said, for example wolves evolved but did not change so drastically
Anyone can be sincerely wrong.
Science should equal fact.
Science is both the body of knowledge about the world we've amassed over the centuries, and the process by which we derive that knowledge. Science observes facts, and derives Theories from them. We don't call our explanatory models "facts", we call them Theories. Hence there is no "Fact of Gravity" or "Germ Fact of Disease" or "Fact of Relativity" or "Heliocentric Fact" or "Fact of Evolution", despite these being the best models to explain reality.
“Science is about power” Dr. Noah Harari. Head dr of the WEF. Science can F off
ciency isnt knolage, its the path to knolage
@@joshuakohlmann9731 now, list all the things science has been wrong about
@@HS-zk5nn Why?
Imagining thinking the fact that science is self correcting and always changing based on new evidence is a bad thing. Creationists didnt expose frauds... other scientists did. Dunce. 8:37
Wow... you see how he never said "creationists examined the bones and confirmed it was a fraud" I wonder why.....
Creationists expose frauds and false evidences all of the time. It usually takes the evolutionary community a few decades before they admit to it...
@@calvinsmith7575 citation please, one example of a creationist exposing a fraud, or even a scientific error.
@@paulgarrett4474 they can’t lol they generally just point to something that’s unknown to science saying people are just making it up, regardless of how much the evidence supports the theory
Hot take: but even if we did evolve, it was by the glory of the almighty 🙌
Eve was the mother of all living.
If we did evolve, that disproves the existence of God in the Bible.
That I would be willing to accept but evolution is solid scientific theory with plenty of evidence
@@patrickmanasco8772 A theory is not solid evidence.
@@shanebell2514 a theory and scientific theory see not the same, evidence is what establishes something as scientific theory
People think evolution has the answer to the origin of life. I thought they had hope and an answer. But that was until an evolutionist came to me saying "Evolution doesn't claim to hold the origin of life at all. It says how life changed through stages."
So truly they are still left with the question: What is the origin of life?
@@candycane618 It's called abiogenesis.
Nobody thinks this.
Anyone who understands evolution, knows that evolution is a process that only begins once life is already established.
There is no such thing as a "evolutionist".
@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 um no.
@@danbeaulieu2130 exactly. except for that last part.
Great production. Thank you.
Regarding Lucy walking upright, I don't think that is correct. A "scientist" at Indiana University had to take an electric sander to her pelvic bone sockets in order to make the femurs appear to fit correctly for an upright, humanlike stance.
It is clear from the anatomy that Lucy "walked upright". That does NOT mean she had a "humanlike stance." No scientist has ever claimed she did.
@@jockyoung4491 No, it isn't clear from the anatomy that she walked upright. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The IU "scientist"having to "help the science" aside, she had long curved fingers, long arms, a funnel-shaped chest and her hand bones show that she knuckle-walked like modern apes. You are extraordinarily poorly-informed on the position to which you are clinging. Take care.
@@johndoe-ln4oi
You are free to believe anything you want to, but don't lie about science. Why did you believe the "IU scientist lie anyway? because you head it from creationists and it fit what you already wanted to believe. ALL experts on hominid agree that Lucy could walk upright, although she could also still climb in trees. But even if she couldn't, that wouldn't refute anythind about evolution. What about the other 20 species of transitional hominids, most of which could obviously walk upright? They show a progression of changes between Lucy and modern humans. Why would that be? All you have is "I bet it's not." Sorry, you are not going to bring down 150 years of biology that way
I always thought looking for 'evidence of walking' was just stupid. Finding something thousands of years old with WRITING on it, showing an obvious LANGUAGE, is more reasonable. I don't hear anyone talking about how all the 'lucy's' walked all the way northeast to Mesopotamia. How could anyone claim how much walking a fossil would do, moment to moment? I've seen bears walk, poodles walk, and when they're not swimming, all penguins ever do is walk around. Why isn't their walking changing them into something different? 'ok, here we found LUCY and she could walk, so walking equals Darwin' I'm almost 50, anymore I just hate all things Darwin. They need to dig him up and get him away from Newton
@@johndoe-ln4oi Can you cite the DOI paper where this is stated? Or did you just make that up? That's how science work. You back up your claims with (documented) evidence - not popular apologist rumors.
Ouch, the amount of incredibly ignorant stuff found in this comment section says a lot about the US education system.
The scientific illiteracy is strong on this one
Like why can't they just adapt? There were less creationists in the 1960's than now. People are so gullible now.
To reply to the “sucker born every minute” crack. I’d postulate there’s not only one born every minute, but that they’ve been born every minute for the last 2023 years.
Not for the last 2023 years but ever since human population grew
The number increased exponentially with the introduction of organized religion, too. So sad...
@@Alfalfable999 and social media 😂
@@CR-yd4qe yeah social media is a double edged sword. For one, it had made access to information much easier, but it also gave access to misinformation like this TH-cam channel
Every time you breathe inhaling and exhaling you’re saying the name of GOD! So hold your breath! Hahaha 🤣 you can’t do that either! Hahaha 🤣 that’s creation at work! Not being mean exposing you to truth.
I knew and never bought into the lie,l still don't,And those that have,you can't tell them any different.
I know, right? There is no reason to believe anything the liars in the video say. They are dishonest and misrepresent everything they are attacking.
Which lie? That the world was made in 7 days?
I was at a "Lucy" lecture at Rockford College in the 1980s, which was given by Richard Leaky, Jr. He had very little to say, actually. It was unconvincing.
But then maybe you're stupid.
Or your lacked the understanding to follow it.
They very rarely have that much to say. And if pressed hard with real questions they mostly just roll their eyes and ignore them cause they don't have a good answer.
@@topcover7390 Yes, "they" never have a good answer except for literally billions of words of good answers in the form of 98%+ of published and accepted science.
Cain and Abel were the first two children on the planet according to Genesis. Yet Cain went to live with a different tribe of people called the nod. Answers in genesis, indeed.
If Adam and Eve were the first to humans and Keenan and Abel were the first kids… Where did this other tribe of people come from?
Excellent content... However, as a relative of PT Barnum (My mother's maiden name), I researched the "sucker born every day" accusation... He never said this. A contentious newspaperman once tried to smear him in an article with this. PT Barnum never got saved, as far as we can tell; however, surprisingly, he was an extremely honest businessman. I don't think you should correct this, but if you use this phrase again someday, please attribute it to a cranky newspaperman.
@@LordMathious I have had a front-row seat on this war to defend the faux science that Darwin cooked up, and Marxists slopped down without even recognizing how they violated everything they claimed to embrace.
In the late sixties and early seventies, the Christian community was put on their heels and began drinking this Marist Kool-Aid. Then slowly, bright Christians went into the sciences and began questioning the "evidence." To everybody's surprise, the evidence for something that Darwin himself said we should be able to find outside our backdoors.
This fraud became more and more embarrassing to those who kept this joke going; thus, they stopped debating or interacting with the Christian scientific community and turned to the old tried and true Marxist strategy of mocking and deriding those who make them look like intellectual monkeys.
One of my best friends, growing up, was recruited into the research department of a large pharmaceutical company in the Midwest.
While walking along with one of the many PHDs responsible for getting him orientated with the company, my friend brought up evolution.
The Ph.D. scientist said, "nobody here believes that stuff (he was not a Christian), for we couldn't do our jobs if we believed that stuff."
My stunned friend shot back, "Then why was it taught over and over throughout my education?", The scientist shrugged his shoulders and said, "Ya, academia is into that, but no one out here believes that stuff."
I recently heard that each of our 70 trillion (est.) cells do 1,000 different chemical reactions every second.
To think these cells all simultaneously developed the ability to self-regulate and then properly replace dead cells in the exact place in the body kind of makes evolution seem ridiculous... Unless that person has a vested interest in pretending that their Creator doesn't exist.
I recently heard an expert on the genome speak about what they are learning...
He said that when they track back to what they mockingly call Adam & Even, they find the genealogies in the Bible fit, and billions of years become ridiculous.
An analogy was used to understand how complex and interdependent our genetic instructions are; he said, "Take an owner's manual for your cell phone and write it so when read normally from front to back, it provides instructions on the phone itself.
Then using the same letters in the same order, start from the back and write the instructions for the apps going to the front of the manual. Then add another dimension to this code, with each letter going down, providing more instructions for other processes.
Then start from the bottom and work the same line of information to the top with more instructions.
He then laughed at each time our arrogant scientific community goes in and cuts out small sections, which then disrupts all of the instructions using those letters, which they don't even yet know what they regulate.
The same banal approach that Darwin had, thinking cells were just these big blobs of stuff... infantile thoughts about an infinite Creator.
The more the scientific community learns of God's creation, the more angry and embarrassed they become... this anger is rooted in a conscience that is not clear.
Romans 1 speaks of those who volitionally refuse to recognize the God of the Bible as Creator, and it is horrendous.
I appreciate AIG, for they are serious scientists while keeping the good news of the Gospel front and center as the most important information that a person can convey to another.
@@LordMathious painful, isn't it?
How do u know this for a fact?
I hope this is true, a nice little side note
It's called living bye faith
BY faith
😂😂😂😂
Completely loving these lessons. Thank you
these are not lessons mate
@@mr.commonsense indeed, they aren't they are nonsense
@@mr.commonsense Although I wholeheartedly agree, the OP is technically correct.
"Lesson" can refer specifically to a biblical religious study, so this vid could count as a lesson (even though almost no factual information is learned) 😂
@@GOBIAS.INDUSTRIES. exactly! No lesson is learned. So it's not a lesson, it's straight up propaganda
@@mr.commonsense I meant there's an actual definition of "lesson" that means "religious study," but still... you ain't wrong!
I'd love to know your sources for all of these claims(?), thanks
The sources are given throughout the entire presentation. Additionally, there is Logic and Truth. Good enough?
GOD!!!
We are part of the Great Ape family, with a common ancestor. Science develops as new fossils are found, and now we know there were a number of different human-like apes, all branches from the same tree. Trying to debunk these facts by saying science proceeds by theory which is then proven or disproven - and therefore makes errors - is simply misunderstanding the nature of science and substituting superstition for it.
That's not his point. He argues that the theory has evolved from evolutionary biases and hoaxes. He provides the evidence for these falsifications that led many to believe the scientific theory. One thing is sure, neanderthals were human.
My feeling is, there are more former missing links than up-to-date ones.
Challenge: Make a video demonstrating that you know nothing about science in 20 minutes or less
Answers in Genesis: “Hold my beer”
Why should this be a challenge, he already did it here in 16:23 minutes?
can you prove any changing in the dna of humans?
@@zarouelbatata460Most probably every time you compare a child's genome to their Parent's.
The best ones to win this challeng are atheists😅 Man they are horrible on racional and science stuff
No, he did it with just the title.
The moment a video arguing against evolution chooses to mention the Piltdown man we know it’s not trying to contribute with useful data and knowledge
Bringing up a fraud that happened over a century ago seems like a desperate attempt to disprove something...
False 😅
@@skeletorlikespotatoes7846 I have yet to see a serious discussion about evolution, when involving the Piltdown man, maybe you know something that I don’t know, or maybe you are trolling.
This is a serious discussion.
Maybe you're the one missing something?
Why? Are you afraid of all the people finding out about all the lies that evolutionists and the myth pushers have told us?
It's just one of the uncountable number of times you people twist the so-called evidence because you can't handle the truth
Genesis says that the Earth is flat, and that the stars are in a pool of water above our heads. Answers in Genesis indeed.
I remember discuss evolution in RE and Science at school basically it fell on me to play devil's advocate and argue against evolution as its the default stance and I was doing well with my science work . At the end I was told that I had made pretty convincing argument almost like I believed in the biblical creation. I explained that it is because I do and they were flabbergasted at the idea of a person being religious and understanding science. But evolution is full of missing links, taxonomy is useful for classification but it is not really an indicator of how life was created. Evolution cannot explain marcupials or the platypus
Missing links are not exactly an argument against Evolution, it is expected. We cannot expect every link to fossilize.
Classical taxonomy not so much, phylogenetic taxonomy does show how the tree of life is. Evolution doesn't explain how life came to be.
Platypuses are mammals that split off from the mammal we generally know, same with marsupials.
Science and creationism are mutually exclusive so you are lying.
@@katamas832 India has removed the theory of Evolution from their schools because it has been proven that the theory is standing right now only on words without any evidence
Good proof of evolution is looking at the evolution in the microbial life, since they generate a new generation in 20 mins, unlike humans who generate a new generation in 20-30 years, so in the time it took for a 1 new generation of humans, some microbe could have gone through 500.000, making it much easier for us humans to observe changes. For example bacterias over relatively short time gain immunity on certain antibiotics and that is a good example for natural selection where those bacteria which mutated the immunity will reproduce more and more and push out those that didn't grow the immunity. Its simmilar with viruses (covid and all its strains over time which it evolved).
No matter how long these micro organisms are studied they are still bacteria and viruses not some higher form of life. What you described is variability within a species not evolution!!!
"But microbes don't exist! It's not in the bahhble!"
Tbh that's a very good point, never looked at it that way. Thank you for shoving me the truth.
And yet they stayed bacteria and viruses....
The ONLY reason those bacteria are immune to the antibiotic is from the overuse of those! Our bodies also have an immune system that becomes immune to diseases and bacteria.
Such a great video. This is amazing work and I'm so thankful for you.
This is complete nonsense😂😂😂
@@chrisrendon461 well go ahead and be specific about what exactly is nonsense to you.
@@chrisrendon461 aww, no response. Seems like your comment may be troll nonsense. But if you want to engage in conversation, I am open.
@@Mikezzz749 we share 70% of our dna with a slug …if evolution didnt happen how tf is that possible
@@chrisrendon461 so that's your big argument? I hope you have something better than that. I can let you go first, or I can go straight ahead and annihilate you (your support of an empty fraud). I'll let you choose.
This guy: Evolution has weak evidence
Also this guy: We are made in the Image of God.
Talk about hypocrisy
Atheists are also quite hypocritical, since they claim their theory is correct.
@@AnonymousCommentor_no one Claim it’s correct, but we claim it’s the best explanation of the thing we have found.
@@jonasg.bisgaard1086 😂😂😂oh wait you are serious
Religious folks should really accept that science allows them to communicate using the machine we are looking at so maybe that should say a bit more than "what if's" from the bible. A book that has been ridiculously modified and whole books removed from it
A few questions, if you don't mind:
Why do human embryos have gills at early stages?
Why do we get goosebumps?
Why are some humans born with rare conditons like dry skin (burned looking), with a tail or with colorblindness?
Why do we share 99% of our DNA with Chimpanzees?
Why do we get hernias?
Why do women carry babys for 9 months and is childbirth (without modern pharmaceuticals) so painful + why do our kids remain so helpless for many years compared to most species?
Why does our skin have glands that secrete oil to keep our skin hydrated & why do reptiles not have it?
Why do humans & mammals have a specific bite and why don't we regrow our teeth after one falls out (yet why do reptiles)?
Why do humans have a pretty louzy sense of smell, but the same tima a unique wide range of color vision?
Is the answer this: "Because god wants it that way"?
Or are there tons of universities & researchers (who also answer these questions) just making jokes and deliberately fabricating stuff in their work?
Also what kind of god would make a universe with so much suffering?
some of your questions converge to circular reasoning, similarity doesn't imply evolution.
and most of them are presumptuous and converge to: if I was God I wouldn't make this way.
If God wants humans eating plants and other animals, inevitably we must have some similarities to other species, we need the aminoacids, fats, carbs and vitamins.
@@VictorD264 You are abusing the "correlation does not mean causation" fallacy as if this is never applicable.
These questions are legit and based on real life in nature. The question is WHY.
Do you know?
@@Tyrant_Boi A God who warned Adam and Eve that if they ate of the forbidden fruit, they would die. They ate the fruit, and the rest is history. If they had not eaten that fruit, there would be no suffering. It was a test and they failed it.
Those "gills" as you call them are the beginning stages of the ears forming; they are NOT gills!