This Video DISMANTLES Darwinian Evolution
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 ноя 2023
- This video DISMANTLES Darwinian evolution. In this presentation, Dr. Jennifer Rivera teaches us about the history of the Galápagos Islands, what natural selection is, and whether natural selection contradicts biblical creation.
If you’d like to explore the Galápagos Islands with us, click here: AnswersInGenesis.org/outreach...
========
Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (Christianity-defending) ministry dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ effectively.
On our RUclips channel, you’ll find answers to your most pressing questions about key issues like creation, evolution, science, the age of the earth, and social issues. We desire to train believers to develop a worldview based on the Bible and expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas and their implications.
You’ll hear from top teachers such as Ken Ham, Bryan Osborne, Dr. Georgia Purdom, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, Tim Chaffey, Bodie Hodge, Dr. Gabriela Haynes, Dr. Terry Mortenson, and more.
Please help us continue to share the gospel around the world: AnswersinGenesis.org/give
I am belongs to a Hindu family but Lord Jesus Christ changed my life and my way of thinking........He is the light of the whole world and hope of the all living things.......as a MBBS student my respect become increase for my Father Jesus Christ
Witnesses are perhaps the greatest proof against evolution.
LOL how?@@i7Qp4rQ
@@i7Qp4rQ or this video is 100% proof of Evolution
on youtube there is a video called
Evolution of bacteria on a Petrie dish ( kishony lab ) from channel Harvard medical school.
@@i7Qp4rQ People having religious beliefs isn't proof against evolution, what are you talking about? 😂
Me too an mbbs student😊 Praise God
For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
Hebrews 4:12
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path.
Psalm 119:105
Even that part that says it's okay to own slaves? You know, that pesky Leviticus 25:44-46. Tell me what moral lessons your laughable god was teaching when he A-Okayed people owning other people? And this is the real cotton picking slavery, not the bs contract slavery.
Exactly. It's for "training in righteousness", not teaching modern science. This channel should use this "useful" scripture to learn not to deceive.
@@MusicalRaichu not the purpose of these scriptures. You who accuse others of doing something deceitful have now used this for your own deceptive purposes. Shame on you and may you repent and stop being a disruptive force against what God is trying to do in people's lives.
@@IAMhassentyou what are you on about? People like YOU are against what God is doing in people's lives.
Did you know people reject the gospel because they've been fed that it involves literalistic reading of holy scripture? When they discover that evolution is correct, that Noah's flood is a myth, that the exodus didn't happen, they throw away the false gospel and the real saviour with it.
This all seems so very obvious, yet some people are just willingly ignorant. They can't handle the thought that they will have to answer for their choices in life. But, there is hope, Blessed hope, in the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ
The lord you can't prove exists, and yet you're willing to deny the overwhelming evidence about the fact of evolution? Ironic, indeed.
@@michaelrobinson4700The truth always proves itself. The Bible proves itself as truth. You turn from that truth. I can close my eyes and pretend there's no blue sky, therefore, it doesn't exist. You can't prove to me that the sky exists.
@@MastaE2288 LOL I can't prove that the sky exists? Of course I can. The Bible is clearly not truth, not accurate, and not even original. And there is utterly no evidence whatsoever about the existence of a god, yours or anyone else's sky-daddy of choice. Contrasted with evolution, which is a fact, and the most well-established theory in all of science. Your statement makes no sense, nor does this horrible bit of AiG propaganda that is baseless and incorrect at nearly every turn - and they know it, too.
@@MastaE2288
And what truths are they? That it is ok to own slaves? That murder, mass murder and genocide are fine if done in god's name? That if 42 children call you "baldy", then it's ok to have god kill them by bear mauling? Oh that seems fair.
@@MastaE2288 can you close your eyes and not think of how your bible has changed over the years?
The Bible is our sure anchor.
yes because we all know the sun orbits the earth just like the bible says it does.😅😂🤣😂😅
😂😂😂
Yeah because the Flood actually happend
@@dodumichalcevski With evolution people have become more intelligent and able to use critical thinking. Maybe they are right and evolution just didn't work for them?
@@truthgiver8286
That could be possible 😂
@@dodumichalcevski Evolution relies on woulda coulda shoulda & guesses about history.
And why should we rely on the evolutionist's dating methods? they ASSUME the dated item in consstant, & it seems dating methods are built on the assumption of mill's of yrs. from the outset.
God is great...... love from India
Love back fom internet
which god? ...oh ur not a hindu?
@@WILL-rp3tz hopefully not the one you serve which is satan.
God bless you too from your brother in America
He is a baby drowning
Children Killing
Murderer
Thanks for this clear explanation of exposing the fallacies of Darwinism. I've been trying to explain this to a loved one who confesses to be a Christian. This will be helpful for me to do so, with the Lord's help.
You have no idea what a fallacy is. It's just a word you heard and you repeated it in a effort to sound educated. Because if you were educated you would know she isnt exposing a fallacy weather you believe evolution or not. Explain one fallacy of evolution. I bet you cant.
@@Gary-fq8cx Fallacy - definition : mistaken belief. Evolution is purported to be science based, but cannot be observed and cannot be experince cannot be repeated...fallacy...natural selection means evolution...another fallacy... natural selection means a living being adapt into its environment, it is a bit of a stretch to think that sharks and platapus have a common ancestor..all creation came from one unique creature that transformed itself into everything else...fallacy or dream or faith in mans word...nothing against, i prefer to trust God, but dont call it science please
@@hundly That's weird. The Catholic church has their own scientists and the Catholics say evolution is real. The Pope says evolution is real. All Catholics schools teach evolution. I could care less if you say evolution hasnt been observed. You just some dude. Your not a scientist and you haven't dont any lab work. I can name lots of Christian Biologist that say evolution is real. So with all these other Christians taking the time to get phds in biology and doing the work I'm wondering where you got your information that it hasnt been observed? And I mean Christians that have phds in the field we are talking about. Where did you get your info and who.can back up your claim?
@@hundly
Evolution has been observed and measured. It has been tested scientifically for 150 years and always passed.
Why shouldn't sharks an platypus have a common ancestor? They are both vertebrates and we have plenty of intermediate stages leading up to them.
Evolution is an established scientific fact. Deal with it
God cannot be observed or experienced except in the mind of the experiencer or observer. This explains why there are thousands of different kinds of religion and only one theory of evolution.@@hundly
In a time when the godlessness of the world is ever-increasing, it is more important than ever to heed the word of God.
The word of God is a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path (Psalm 119:105). It is a sure foundation that we can build our lives upon (2 Timothy 3:16).
When we neglect the word of God, we are neglecting the very thing that has the power to change our lives. The word of God has the power to convict us of sin, to teach us truth, and to lead us in righteousness (Psalm 119:9-11). It is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword (Hebrews 4:12), able to convict us of sin and dispel our self deception.
I was in public school, but was fortunate enough to have a high school AP Biology teacher that was completely against evolution.... he tought us just enough to comply with the state. This was in 2002 and we were a 4A school.
Sorry you were denied a proper science education. Hopefully you could rectify that with later college science courses.
@@samburns3329 ur funny..... I have an EE degree. I was denied nothing.
@@Blinkerd00d So no science education to speak of.
@@samburns3329 exactly.... an EE degree is definitely not a Batchelor of Science.
@@Blinkerd00d Exactly. No science education to speak of. The "Bachelor of Science" title doesn't make an EE be knowledgeable in any of the areas supporting evolutionary theory.
Happy and Blessed Sabbath everyone ❤ ❤
Belated Shabbat Shalom.
Oh yeah, ‘From the goo, through the zoo, to you- Absolutely ridiculous. “Father, I ask you to open peoples eyes to your glorious creation.”
Psalm 102:18
Let this be recorded for a generation to come, so that a people yet to be created, may praise the Lord
Funny, I have to remember the saying.
Amen. Pray for them to see!
I ❤it
I'm curious, does the fact that you find it ridiculous mean that it cannot be true?
Nice video 👍🏻 love the illustrations
Before I even heard of Christ and salvation , let alone of God , I never believed in evolution . I was in the fifth grade when first exposed to this absurdity . Personally I believe it takes more faith to believe evolution than it is to believe in the Creator .
It just takes a willingness to learn without being blinded by religious preconceptions.
Your personal incredulity at fifth grade level of education is in no way a viable argument against evolution. Have you ever actually read about evolution and all the evidence we have? There are plenty of layman-level explanations out there that could help you.
@@mrastin821 Yes . I have read numerous writings on the subject . I can and still never will accept evolution on the “ macro “scale . On the other hand the “ micro “scale is a little more plausible . I do believe that species , too a small degree , tend to adapt to their surroundings in order to survive . We could go on and on , but obviously you nor I will never be able to change one another’s minds .
But good luck with your beliefs .
What I remember best is the drawings of imagined animals and the evolutionary progression from one species to another. That was about the time I got interested in comic books too.
Macroevolution has been observed. It's just micro on a larger timescale. It's a shame your mind can't adapt to information that challenges what you want to believe. Just remember there have to be enough people out there who can do that to enable everyone else's existence. @@adorabledeplorable5105
God bless, AIG 🙂🙏 thank you
Keeping morons stupid one video at a time.
Adaptation is not evolution and microevolution doesn't lead to macroevolution.
(AiG) We’re sure you’ve heard this claim before, probably hundreds of times: “Science has proven evolution is fact.” It’s like a strange Darwinian chant that emanates from atheist blogs and secular universities. Too bad (for them) it’s not true.
In fact, refuting evolution doesn’t require complicated equations or lab experiments-though those do the job, too. Just remember the two fundamental flaws we can use to show evolution to be, well, not even scientifically viable.
#1 information
Everything that makes up your body requires genetic information. You’ve got hands and feet because your genes code for it. The same is true for any creature-dogs, camels, you name it.
The genetic information in humans varies from the information in animals, plants, and so on. Seems obvious, so why point it out? Because for animal kind A to somehow “presto-change-o” into animal kind B, the information’s got to change. A fish doesn’t just morph into an amphibian without something changing in the genes. It would have to gain some new information.
Here’s the clincher: when we use operational science-the kind involving observable, repeatable, testable results-we have never observed, repeated, or been able to test animal kind A turning into animal kind B-at all. Sure, there’s some genetic “do-si-do” going on through mutations and gene drift, but there’s no way fish are going to sprout hair and opposable thumbs. Just in case you think by “no way” we mean there’s still a chance, there’s not-none, zilch, nada, not going to happen. What if we add billions of years and cool artistic renderings? Still no.
#2 Original Recipe
That first point is devastating enough. But here’s how evolution gets buried even more.
You’ve probably heard news accounts about how life could have started on earth “gazillions” of years ago in volcanoes, slush pools, crystals, rocks, you name it. Maybe you’ve heard something about “artificial” life or test-tube life or rotten-food-in-the-refrigerator life (okay, maybe not the last one).
Those are interesting speculations, but they overlook one important rule in biology: life doesn’t, cannot, and will never come from non-life. Life comes from life. Always. That’s the law-the Law of Biogenesis, to be exact.
All these failed experiments, like the Miller-Urey experiment, really show us just how much intelligence is required for life to begin in the first place. (That is, way smarter than us.)
So, if evolution can’t explain how humans came to be (or any other living thing, for that matter), what can? The Bible. Yep, God’s Word.
The Bible provides an eyewitness account of how the universe and all life came to be. There’s no speculation or strange interpretation needed. You can just read how God created everything in six days a few thousand years ago. Simple. Factual.
Pick it up, dust it off if you need, and read it. There’s even some good news in there for you.
Actually adaptation is evolution, the change in allele ratios in a population over time. We also have evolution producing new alleles and new morphologies for selection to act on. You're just a fountain of FAIL today. 🙂
Evolution is both a fact and a theory. That evolution has occurred, the changes and diversification of life over deep time, is a well documented scientific *fact.* The *theory* of evolution is the scientific explanation for the mechanisms which produced the observed *fact* of evolution.
@@sciencerules8525 what's up Mr. No science. Why would you even bother commenting under mine? You know I'm not going to take what you say seriously. You're a godless atheist. You don't even believe in Jesus. Your mind has been deceived by this world and your heart is full of foolishness.
@@sciencerules8525 bold letters don't make anything more true. It just means you can successfully operate a keyboard. 😆
@@zerosteel0123 I really couldn't care less if you stay a clueless tool. I comment to show others how wrong and clueless you are. 🙂
When I speak about Darwin and his fellow travelers, I am met with speculation, skepticism, and even told I’m incorrect. Darwinism leads to atheism which leads to evil. History is full of examples of this road map. Only God creates, sustains, and judges life. Good bless and protect His people.
How can atheism lead to evil when god is evil?
Dariwinism doesn't lead to atheism, it does lead to the knowledge that the bible is just a book written by men who were very ignorant of the world though. Which is threatening to people who use the bible for control, like you, because the bible and god have been used to justify far more atrocities and violence in human history than atheism has. If you want to live a godly, spiritual life then the bible has no place in it.
@@georg7120
Well apparently atheists don't have a moral compass, you know, like those theists that killed everyone in Jonestown, or the ones that crashed those jets into the World Trade towers.
@@kevinhank17guess Yahweh was on a trip when those pagan romans defeated Judea 😂😂😂
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 atheism to evil, really ..jave you not looked at rhe 20th century?
love this
Thank you, AIG, for this presentation. Much appreciated 👍
You obviously like being lied to.
Answers in Genesis uses pseudoscience and religious myths to lower the intelligence of visitors so they buy the creation museum propaganda
Wonderful lecture thank you.
Darwinist- Creationists Creationist- Darwinists !!! Both sides are absolutely IDIOTS!!!!! Uneducated IDIOTS!!! You see, I was educated as a Physicist!!!! and you know what? the Same PERSON WHO SCREWED UP PHYSICS/ASTRONOMY was THE SAME PERSON WHO SCREWED UP.. IE CREATED THIS SAME problem that you Creationist-Darwinist are arguing about. DO YOU KNOW WHO IT IS? Bet NONE OF YOU ON EITHER SIDE HAVE A CLUE, EVEN IF YOU KNOW WHO CREATED THE MESS FOR ASTRONOMY!!!! YOU ALL WERE EDUCATED BY THE SAME PEOPLE!!! DO YOU KNOW WHO THE FATHER OF BIOLOGY IS!!!!!!!!!! WELL HE WAS THe SAME PERSON THAT THE "CHURCH" CHOSE TO USE AS THE EXPERT ON ASTRONOMY, YOU KNOW THE GUY WHO SAID THE EARTH WAS THE CENTER AND THE SUN REVOLVED AROUND IT!!!!!!!!! YA HE IS THE SAME EXPERT THAT THE CHURCH MODELED IT VIEW OF BIOLOGY!!!!!! THE FATHER OF MODERN BIOLOGY IS THE SAME ARISTOLE!!! YA!!! HE WAS WRONG WHEN HE SAID THE SUN ROTATES AROUND THE EARTH AND HE WAS WRONG WHEN HE SAID THE SPECIES WERE FIXED!!!!
AND ALL YOU STUPID IDIOTS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE DEBATE HAVE BEEN ARGUING ABOUT ARISTOTLE BUT ARE ALL TOO STUPID TO KNOW IT!!!!!
ARISTOLE WAS WRONG!!!!! WRONG WRONG!!! STOP ARGUING ABOUT ARISTOLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ARISTOLE THE FATHER OF MODERN BIOLOGY STATED THAT THE SPECIES WERE FIX!!!!! THAT THEY DIDNT CHANGE!!! AND THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE ARGUING ABOUT!!!!!!! BUT ASTRONOMERS PROVED THAT ARISTOTLE WAS WRONG!!! BUT YOU IDIOTS DON"T EVEN KNOW YOUR ARGUING ABOUT ARISTOTLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In you example with the dogs you say that the short haired dogs loose the information about long hair though selection. That would mean, that you could never get long or thick hair from a population of short haired dogs. But this is not the case. You can again select for that trait and back again.
You can again select for that trait and back again, but only if the necessary gene can still be found in the dog population. In the nature this hardly ever happens, because the less fit disappear and so do their genes.That's the main reason for extinctions in nature.
@@jounisuninen And you can select for new characteristics from mutations.
Excellent video. I truly enjoyed it.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Psalm 19:1,2 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they reveal knowledge.
Isaiah 40:6-8 “All people are like grass,
and all their faithfulness is like the flowers of the field.
7 The grass withers and the flowers fall,
because the breath of the Lord blows on them.
Surely the people are grass.
8 The grass withers and the flowers fall,
but the word of our God endures forever.”
Darwinist- Creationists Creationist- Darwinists !!! Both sides are absolutely IDIOTS!!!!! Uneducated IDIOTS!!! You see, I was educated as a Physicist!!!! and you know what? the Same PERSON WHO SCREWED UP PHYSICS/ASTRONOMY was THE SAME PERSON WHO SCREWED UP.. IE CREATED THIS SAME problem that you Creationist-Darwinist are arguing about. DO YOU KNOW WHO IT IS? Bet NONE OF YOU ON EITHER SIDE HAVE A CLUE, EVEN IF YOU KNOW WHO CREATED THE MESS FOR ASTRONOMY!!!! YOU ALL WERE EDUCATED BY THE SAME PEOPLE!!! DO YOU KNOW WHO THE FATHER OF BIOLOGY IS!!!!!!!!!! WELL HE WAS THe SAME PERSON THAT THE "CHURCH" CHOSE TO USE AS THE EXPERT ON ASTRONOMY, YOU KNOW THE GUY WHO SAID THE EARTH WAS THE CENTER AND THE SUN REVOLVED AROUND IT!!!!!!!!! YA HE IS THE SAME EXPERT THAT THE CHURCH MODELED IT VIEW OF BIOLOGY!!!!!! THE FATHER OF MODERN BIOLOGY IS THE SAME ARISTOLE!!! YA!!! HE WAS WRONG WHEN HE SAID THE SUN ROTATES AROUND THE EARTH AND HE WAS WRONG WHEN HE SAID THE SPECIES WERE FIXED!!!!
AND ALL YOU STUPID IDIOTS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE DEBATE HAVE BEEN ARGUING ABOUT ARISTOTLE BUT ARE ALL TOO STUPID TO KNOW IT!!!!!
ARISTOLE WAS WRONG!!!!! WRONG WRONG!!! STOP ARGUING ABOUT ARISTOLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ARISTOLE THE FATHER OF MODERN BIOLOGY STATED THAT THE SPECIES WERE FIX!!!!! THAT THEY DIDNT CHANGE!!! AND THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE ARGUING ABOUT!!!!!!! BUT ASTRONOMERS PROVED THAT ARISTOTLE WAS WRONG!!! BUT YOU IDIOTS DON"T EVEN KNOW YOUR ARGUING ABOUT ARISTOTLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A bit off topic but at 36:48 .... I was looking up the Norse bilge snipe last night and the stycosaurus looks almost exactly like a lot of drawings of it.
The old descriptions also include being huge, walks on all fours, and a tail like a tree.
Just throwing comment out there. Excellent/informative video as always. ❤
A finnish page named dinoglyphs has a collection of about 200 such "ooparts"; ancient artifacts that portray dinosaurus / dragons.
It is highly likely that follised remains of dinosaurs were well known in the ancient world.
So they happened to accidentally draw one single dinosaur that coincidentally looks similar, and now you think dinosaurs lived among humans??? C'mon man, you're smarter than that right?
@@fohrum4757
_One single_ ? You are illiterate enough that cant figure out what '200' means?
@@i7Qp4rQ The number 200 literally isn't anywhere in his comment.
Great vid. Very organized and clear presentation of the evidence.
John 3:16,17
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
Romans 1:20, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-His eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” 😊
Bible says everything is evidence of god of the bible. Well how amazing.
@@richardgregory3684 it truly is ty
Rom 1.20 is part of a false argument. All cultures around the author including in his own scriptures and even his own people until a few centuries earlier, were polytheistic. That's what nature teaches.
To use Rom 1 against people will land you in trouble with Rom 2.1: "you condemn yourself".
Being an honors graduate in wildlife biology from a secular university I was thoroughly taught evolution. Never in that process, however, did I find the theory at all convincing. Instead, what I saw was a world class example of confirmation bias as adherents forced an evolutionary narrative on everything, treating mere speculations as scientific proof and meanwhile sweeping under the rug all of the obvious contradictions. This bias was really institutionalized as everyone recognized the rewards (recognition, approval, employment and research grant funds) awarded to those defending the evolutionary faith. And everyone recognized the sanctions (shunning, loss of employment, denial of funding, etc...) against anyone who didn't openly present themself as an evolutionist. In essence, evolution is a doctrine of the humanist religion. And anyone who doesn't profess that doctrine is labeled a heretic and faces excommunication. I personally find creation science to be far more credible. One could say that there is a religious bias there too, but the difference is that creation scientists are aware of their bias (and everyone has a bias) and they are honest about their starting point (the Bible). And due to the adversity they face, they cannot get by with the kind of faulty reasoning that evolutionists get by with. Having looked at the evidence on both sides, I simply find creation science to be much more scientific and much more believable.
Alright, so what contradictions did you see with evolution?
_I personally find creation science to be far more credible_ Why? What scientific evidence do you have for a literal 6000 years old Earth, a literal special creation of all species, a literal 4400 year ago Noah's Flood / Noah's Ark?
There is no such thing as "creation science." Creationism does not follow the scientific method so by definition it cannot be science.
What contradictions do think think there are, specifically?
James watson is the modern day Galileo, not you or any of your creationist pals.
Were you not shown any evidence on how populations diversify in response to selection pressures in the environment? That's the driving force behind all evolution besides sexual selection, and we already know how it works fundamentally by mutations, so why doubt it? There is no other scientific theory that explains biodiversity. No competing evidence indicating something else. Biodiversity only makes sense if evolution is true.
I majored in wildlife science myself, and I was a creationist going in to college, but found the evidence for evolution to overwhelming to deny. Why is it not convincing for you?
How do you explain colour breaks in flower hybridisation? Does the emergence of a new colour in a hybrid mean new information or less?
You can create new hybrids simply by pollinating one flower with another, creating different colors. That’s not evolution or a new species.
colors? That's a good question. Hopefully they address it sometime. When you say colour breaks do you just mean flowers producing different colours? I think they explained that toward the end of the video. Basically the original created kinds had the genetic diversity to produce such so when we see those flowers popping up with different colors it is no new information could even be a loss of information if the flowers stop producing a certain type of color.
Spoiler alert:
It doenst
Excellent information!
Young earth creationism is the foundation of reality, truth,and the Gospel.
Creationism didn't help America when the space race began
Amen.
@@Moist._Robot You just committed _ad ridiculum_ logical fallacy. And got thumbs for that, ridiculous.
@@Moist._Robotyeah sorry but you really have no idea what your talking about do you? Honestly if you understood how ignorant that comment was you wouldn't have made it.
@@Moist._Robot
I need to explain the mocking you do to yourself...? (!)
I am glad that AiG finally accept evolution
love it
I’m much too honest to give this speech
Charles Darwin had some ideas. If he had the information we have today his ideas would most likely all be different.
Darwin created the vehicle for all the
God haters and Bible haters to build on. He might not have felt the same way but just the same they took it and RAN with it and have been running ever since.
If he were alive today he might be involved in disproving his own writings.
Most christians accept evolution happens. So even other christians consider your views as fringe ideas.
It is quite unfortunate that those ' most ' Christians don't even want to give their creator credit for their own creation.
As for me, I am not ' most ' and I firmly believe He did it all just like He said.
@@kevinkelly2162 Christianity is about Christ, who is the Word - Who said:
"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."
@@michaelszczys8316why could god not have created evolution as well?
@@kevinkelly2162 So? Truth is not established by poplar vote.
Thank you
Thank you so much of this talk, I needed to see this to help explain things to my grandkids who are smart. What is the most frustrating is when Christians partially buy into the lies!
You people seem to eat up whatever nonsense this channel spews. These are blatant lies and you're passing them on to your grandkids. I hope they are "smart" enough to realize this doesn't make any sense at all.
@@Reclaimer77go bother your own children with your materialist fairy tales
@@showmeanedge I think you need to look up what a 'fairy tale' actually is. The Bible IS the fairy tale here.
Also what exactly is "materialist" and how is it different than your "faith"? Just curious about this. Please explain.
@@Reclaimer77 let me guess - you don't have your own children to bother
@@showmeanedge I'm not bothering any children, at all. And no I don't have children but that's just "gods plan" for me right? Are you questioning god?
Evolution is true or false depending how you define it. Change over time exists but it doesn't conflict with creation, but it doesn't prove the grand theory of Evolution either (Nothing-to-humans over billions of years)
yeah, adaptation and natural selection really do happen. Just not evolution, the changing from one kind to another x
@@shadowm2k7 evolution is not pokemon .
The word "Evolution" has many meanings, only one of which is scientific.
1. Cosmic evolution. - The origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang
2. Chemical evolution. - the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
3. Stellar and planetary evolution. - Origin od stars and planets.
4. Organic evolution. - Origin of Life.
5. Macro-evolution. - Changing from one kind of plant or animal into another.
6. Micro-evolution. - Variations within kinds. - Only this one has been observed.
@@i7Qp4rQ macroevolution is a sum of many microevolution. if you acept micro then macro is just a «time problem«.
there is no such thing as «kind« in science
@@luish1498
Wrong.
The available micro-evlutionary tools are insufficient.
Causes of Mutations:
1. Errors in DNA Replication
2. Errors in DNA Recombination
3. Chemical Damage to DNA
4. Radiation
+ Do you really think you seculars have some ultimate _monopoly_ what is and is not in science?
++ at 28 minutes, it is explained what scientific 'kind' is. But it seems you are not here to actually listen, are you?
I love this channel. I wish I could donate a truckload of money to your company. Thank you everyone for everything you do to reach out to the world! God bless you!
You can always donate a truckload of prayers. ✝☑🏁
But never the poor
@@EternalEmperorofZakuul
Never? You may Google the orientations of humanitarian help organizations.
@@i7Qp4rQ that's what i meant
@@EternalEmperorofZakuul
So you meant that Christians, most of all, donate to the poor...?
Brillianly explained. I often point to evolutionists, how natural selection actaully works thanks to genetics, yet once a person sets his mind, he'll go to any lenght to ignore arguments that contradict his world view. Those who have eyes to see and those who have ears to listen...
One minor correction though- natural selection doesn't lead to the loss of information. The genes are still there, they simply are not expressed in the individuals living in said conditions that don't promote the expression of said genes. Now if you have a popullation that has predominant expression of one type of genes they become less and less relevant.
I am a Christian, and although I enjoyed this presentation, I did find that some of it was over simplistic.
Questions arise such as, "Were dinosaurs really present at the same time as dogs?
Yes
@@rogerbrady2003rab We lost more poodles to being eaten by T-Rex ...
@@iriemon1796 don't forget the Chihuahuas. Poor bastards...
What dinosaurs?
Keep up the good work, you turn more people to atheism then any other source other than people reading the Bible for themselves. Woot.
And you turn more people to Jesus, Yeshua!
@williampaul7932
Sure, without lies yhwh dies.
Excellent information, Thanks God for his creation! ❤
Which god?
@@denifnaf5874 your God, the nature itself
at about 13:40, she shows the slide listing what she calls the four hypotheses that compose Darwin's "Theory of Evolution". One important component she is missing is this: vast amounts of time.
And the important effect of isolation is missing. She also ignores the fact that Darwin's theory has been supplemented and his mistakes has been corrected since decades. After all, today we have far more knowledge that Darwin never even dared to dream of. For example, genetics, biochemistry and physiology have all been added.
Why are outdated views always used to denigrate? Is it intentional?
Yes, new updated information, like human footprints alongside dinosaur footprints in the same layer in the paluxy river in Glen Rose, Texas. Paleontologist Dr. Mary Schweitzer in 2005, discovered soft flexible tissue and red blood cells in a T-Rex femur. Red blood cells and flexible fibers found in a triceratops horn. The further existing gaps in the fossil record, and on and on.
I don't understand how you can have an entire lecture supporting creation in which you claim that the bible with certainty is a scientific history book &in the same lecture go on to instill the heliocentric view of the globe.
"There is no refutation of evolution in existence. If one were to come about, it would come from a scientist, not an id1ot."
True
@joefriday2275 - lying is essential in creationism. Evolution has evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry, from comparative anatomy, from paleontology, from biogeography, from selection, from speciation, from coloration, from behavior, from mathematical modeling and simulation
@@globalcoupledances (i cant see litle joey answer)
same old BS?
@luish1498 Only seen if sorted with newest first. But yes, the same lie about no evidence
@@joefriday2275 how many times do people explain to you what mutations are? your ignorance is not evidence against ToE.
Great video, thank you! Does the climate influence the DNA passed on to the next generation? For example if two SL dogs live in a cold climate are they more likely to have more LL offspring than if those same two dogs lived in a hot climate? I am unsure if natural selection is purely a result of those with certain traits die out or if parents with multiple genetic traits are more likely to pass on favourable traits to their offspring according to what they need in their environment to survive.
Darwinist- Creationists Creationist- Darwinists !!! Both sides are absolutely IDIOTS!!!!! Uneducated IDIOTS!!! You see, I was educated as a Physicist!!!! and you know what? the Same PERSON WHO SCREWED UP PHYSICS/ASTRONOMY was THE SAME PERSON WHO SCREWED UP.. IE CREATED THIS SAME problem that you Creationist-Darwinist are arguing about. DO YOU KNOW WHO IT IS? Bet NONE OF YOU ON EITHER SIDE HAVE A CLUE, EVEN IF YOU KNOW WHO CREATED THE MESS FOR ASTRONOMY!!!! YOU ALL WERE EDUCATED BY THE SAME PEOPLE!!! DO YOU KNOW WHO THE FATHER OF BIOLOGY IS!!!!!!!!!! WELL HE WAS THe SAME PERSON THAT THE "CHURCH" CHOSE TO USE AS THE EXPERT ON ASTRONOMY, YOU KNOW THE GUY WHO SAID THE EARTH WAS THE CENTER AND THE SUN REVOLVED AROUND IT!!!!!!!!! YA HE IS THE SAME EXPERT THAT THE CHURCH MODELED IT VIEW OF BIOLOGY!!!!!! THE FATHER OF MODERN BIOLOGY IS THE SAME ARISTOLE!!! YA!!! HE WAS WRONG WHEN HE SAID THE SUN ROTATES AROUND THE EARTH AND HE WAS WRONG WHEN HE SAID THE SPECIES WERE FIXED!!!!
AND ALL YOU STUPID IDIOTS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE DEBATE HAVE BEEN ARGUING ABOUT ARISTOTLE BUT ARE ALL TOO STUPID TO KNOW IT!!!!!
ARISTOLE WAS WRONG!!!!! WRONG WRONG!!! STOP ARGUING ABOUT ARISTOLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ARISTOLE THE FATHER OF MODERN BIOLOGY STATED THAT THE SPECIES WERE FIX!!!!! THAT THEY DIDNT CHANGE!!! AND THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE ARGUING ABOUT!!!!!!! BUT ASTRONOMERS PROVED THAT ARISTOTLE WAS WRONG!!! BUT YOU IDIOTS DON"T EVEN KNOW YOUR ARGUING ABOUT ARISTOTLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You'd have to take major climate shifts into account, not so much that the DNA changes, but that the populations would migrate and cross breed again, making wierd new versions with recombined gene pools. Her example is simplified, but not incorrect.
The epigenome can be influenced by environment and traits can be passed along to subsequent generations; a particular kind of talks, and was administered to laboratory rodents which affected their behavior, and this behavior persisted through several generations. Fish with no eyes have been found in deep, lightless, caverns in South America; these fish had eyes at the fetal stage in the fish eggs, but the eyes were subsumed as the fetuses developed. Obviously, environment had some influence. There was a remote village in Europe that was genetically isolated from the rest of the world and geneticists have traced a link between pre/Post adolescent children, suffering through famine, and length of life, several generations after them. The epigenome Controls the function of the genome and possibly has influence over the body plan during fetal development, but I can’t find much information on the latter. Like any good programmer, God has written contingency programming into the genome, which appears to be triggered and certain circumstances by external input, in this case, the environment. All of which leaves evolutionist in a state of misapprehension.
@@denvan3143
Very simply put, biological evolution can be defined as any change in the inherited traits or characteristics of a population of organisms through successive generations.
Populations of fish living in caves and losing their eyesight, as you've mentioned, is a textbook example of biological evolution.
How Does Evolution Explain Blindness in Cavefish?
-- University of California Press
That paper, and many others of course, explains it, although the evolution of blindness concerning cavefish is not yet completely understood. It is, however, of course an example of biological evolution.
@travisbicklepopsicle It's pretty well understood. In complete darkness, having sight isn't advantageous, so the ability to see is lost. Color is also lost as it isn't necessary. Sensory organs typically become more developed too. Just a species evolving due to a selection pressure in the environment.
Honestly, and I don't mean this in a pejorative sense, given the extremity of the odds against a random mutation and selection algorithm to produce any kind of functional design, I'm not at all clear why intelligent people even discuss it at this point. I come at this from a non-biologic perspective; I'm an engineer who as a part of my work has developed numerical optimization algorithms for my use, which for the sake of this discussion might be categorized as "intelligent" mutation methods coupled with a selection method customized for the design problem at hand, and so out of curiosity I looked into the use of Darwin's algorithm as a design method for a very simple 103 byte assembly language subroutine that I wrote many years ago in 30 minutes for a VIC-20. I gave his algorithm every possible benefit, e.g. that 1 trillion cores were available each of which could produce 500 generations per second, that 10000 equivalent versions of the program would be functional (i.e. I'm not asking that it produce my exact code since the order of certain instructions could vary without effect), and that I only was asking for a 1 in a trillion chance of getting at least one working subroutine. The result is quite staggering; the estimate for the time required to achieve that incredibly low bar was 7x10^209 years. To say this is an astronomic value is inappropriate since for example there are presumably at most 10^82 atoms in the observable universe, and insignificant number compared to my estimate. So the "deep time" argument doesn't come close to explaining how this could work without reverting to the steady state hypothesis and ditch all of the finite time theories for the age of the universe. For the above computation all that was needed was what one would get in an undergraduate probability and statistics course and the first semester of calculus, both of which were offered to freshman at my university in 1971, so the only knowledge needed that Darwin didn't have was that of DNA and its parallels to computer code, for which he could be forgiven. It's simple enough that it could be given as a homework problem to any STEM student in a probability course. So I'd argue that at least 60 years ago this was clearly a theory that should have been abandoned since it simply doesn't work. And to anyone thinking that 103 bytes was somehow too long as a fair test, even a trivial 20 byte routine takes 9.3 billion years with the above massive resources and very low bar; roughly twice the supposed age of the Earth.
What extreme odds? Human engineers use computer programs called Evolutionary Algorithms (EAs) to solve problems too complex for humans to solve directly. EAs are modeled on the observed evolutionary iterative process on random variations filtered by selection in a population of candidate solutions. There are plenty of places online you can read and learn about EAs. Sounds like you didn't know what you were doing and set up your algorithm with invalid parameters which guaranteed failure.
One common mistake most engineers like you make is assuming DNA works like human written computer code. Human computer code is extremely brittle and breaks with the tiniest irregularity. DNA on the other hand is extremely robust since it is chemistry-based and can keep its biological function (or modify that function) with a wide range of changes tolerated.
@@samburns3329 The distinction I'm making in this example is that I'm operating at the lowest level of functionality; i.e. unlike say a design for which one could form concave surface for the objective function and move to some extent in a random way to its minimum, here no such surface exists and you only have the binary outcome of the resultant subroutine either working or not, and so the selection process can only detect this outcome. This is analogous to forming some very low level biological process that would afford enough of an advantage to pass through a selection mechanism, and the problem is that this new feature requires much more than just one base pair, as is the case with my subroutine. So something other than random mutation must be at play to reduce the expected time that's needed to realistically get a functional block of DNA into the realm of existence.
@@samburns3329 Certainly the analogy isn't perfect, and as discussed in the video there's a degree of adaptability built into biological systems. Software can certainly be designed with a level of such adaptability, but no doubt much less so, especially in terms of bit errors in the instructions (other than say RAM error correction). But my example targets how one might get a very low level function, not something as high a level as the hair length discussion in the video; say how to make a beneficial enzyme. Surely even that is far more complex than my 102 byte example in terms of information content, and my point is that until you have that complete DNA segment, similar to my complete subroutine, there's nothing that could make for a survival selection. The point of my computation was simply to get a feel for the order of magnitude of the problem, and with the probabilities so incredibly against success I don't see how one could argue that there's a possible fix to make it work. Basically, it's a question of producing actual numbers instead of the generalities that usually accompany the topic.
@@ultrasoundguy1 Instead of tap dancing why not just admit you don't know anything about the use of Evolutionary Algorithms or basic biology? Don't go all Dunning-Kruger on us.
There are literally thousands of transitional forms in the fossil record. Whales being the most complete. We're also surrounded by living transitional forms. She references modern genetics only to say that it disproved some of Darwin's assumptions but leaves out the fact that genetics itself proves the theory.
Just because all cars have wheels does not mean cars did not have a designer. You are being very vague, about as vague as my response was. In other words your comment is a non starter. We are surrounded by attempts to create life and to created transitional species and have not been able to prove it can be done.
Evolution requires that life must exist as a series of nesting clades, and it does. If that was like cars, only one car company would have wheels on their cars. Transitional species are all around us and represented all through the fossil record.@@cliffjones4749
Whales? I recommend doing some research. Ask Richard Sternberg, he´ll tell you. "Living transitional forms"? What is a this? What were its ancestors? What will it be?
NO evolutionist will tell you who the ancestor of something was. They only say: "We have common ancestors with ...". Nobody can tell you a ancestor-relationship. It´s fiction.
They´re fooling you, and it´s all about your soul. The one who is behind all this has one goal only: keep you from coming to the only one that can save you from eternal perdition, Jesus Christ. Your invisible enemy does this by keeping you confused, proud, sinning and most of all ignorant. It´s called lesser magic what they are doing to mankind. Pride, intellectual pride is his favorite sin.
@@cliffjones4749 I never said anything about a designer. I said we have thousands of transitional fossils.
A transitional form doesn't need to be directly ancestral. Your great uncle is still your relative.@@martha-schalleck
👍🙏🦕❤️
Darwin has been proved over and over and over again in modern genome science......
Unfortunately, Darwin’s theory of evolution has never been proven, as yet, and there is absolutely no case whereby it has been proven many times over. Any scientist will tell you that the idea of evolution is still only a theory. In fact, evolution is counteractive within humans. Our bodies are in a state of devolution compared with earlier times. Each time a copy of our parents genetic coding is made into a new individual genetic corruptions are occurring and information is being lost that is not being replaced by something new. This is what accounts for increasing percentages of the population displaying mental health disorders and numerous physical disorders, such as cancers and strokes. We are increasing in number but we are decreasing in what the Bible once termed as being “very good.”
@@Desertflower743 Evolution is both fact and theory. That evolution occurs is a fact, simple and observable. HOW it occurs, what the mechanisms are, etc is what is covered under evolutionary theory. It is a scientific theory that does what all good theories do: let us make testable and verifiable predictions. Theories are not simple guesses, educated or otherwise. They are robust explanations of things we observe, supported by significant supporting evidence. I'm sorry, but your ideas about what evolution is aren't supported by reality.
Mutations produce something new all the time.@@Desertflower743
@@mrastin821 No DNA has ever been observed to get better over time.
Genetical decay (entropy) is scientifically undisputed.
*Degrading takes place in each life* ! 100-300 extra copy errors are passed on to the next generation.
Independent of any extreme rare beneficial mutations.
@@lizd2943 What exactly?
At 34:29 two dogs that look like wolves mate and produce three dogs that look nothing like wolves? When has that ever been observed?
The only problem I had with evolution was Time. My dad asked me why it matters, and I was stunned into silence. Basically, who was I to question God's handiwork(?).
Did he ask you why gravity matters too?
@@annieoaktree6774 I'm assuming that you're being facetious(?). I didnt like the idea the feeling that God's interface with the world was dead slow--translated as just plain dead to me. I already had issues with people playing around--dabbling--with the matter of how we psychologically function and work as human beings. I dont like agnosticism in any form.
In the case of evolution, I was kicking hard against the goads, as it were because of evolution and its apparent association with agnosticism. I went to the trouble of taking my dad's Geology textbook and penning in my objections to passages which highted time and/or evolution. I basically ruined that textbook, and accomplished nothing, of course.
My dad was agnostic and generally unreachable, being extremely withdrawn. Aside from playing chess with him and learning how to beat him, there was little that we had to do with each other. I must have been vocal about my objections to evolution around him, specifically about the time that it must have taken to run its course to finally produce us, let alone everything else living. It was NOT the process I objected to, but the time. His interjection about why time mattered so much to me stopped me in its tracks partly because I realized that, fast or slow, the process was still the same, and, realistically, could I not see God in that process, fast OR slow? And who am I to demand how and how long it takes for all lifeforms to develop, anyway? So the irony is that an agnostic opened my eyes to God in the real world at last.
It was the Tubingen Catholic scholar, Hans Kung, who got it through my thick skull that God works by way of Natural Law, in his 700-page book, "Does God Exist?". I read all 700 pages. Now I see that if the world and universe are a Tapestry that unfolds moment-by-moment at the Hand of God, then my duty is to be real in my words and actions (i.e., stop lying to myself and others) if I want to get closer to God. Furthermore, this is a full-time job, which doesnt allow for moonlighting. Put simply, there is absolutely no time to even THINK about another life when there is so much on my plate being real in my words and actions in THIS life.
What about sin and salvation? The concept of original sin owes its existence to human beings constantly finding themselves behaving badly around others in collective society. But collective society is a man-made thing, and artificial at that. That implies that there are those who exist outside of collective society, who prefer to go their own way as much as humanly possible. Just like fish, which congregate in schools. There are fish of the same species which eke out their survival apart from those schools. As in nature, so too, among human beings. Whatever the validity or not of sin, there's no time to address it, as I stated before, and that's as it should be, in my opinion.
This is a lot to read, I know, but I think that it deserves to be covered thoroughly, otherwise, it's just you and I throwing words at each other and wasting both of our time in the process. This is too important to not do justice to appropriately.
@@billbrenne5475not sure what your saying you believe
Do you believe God made everything through the process of evolution?
Do you believe in a literal 6 day creation ?
Thanks
@@ourclarioncall Thank you for being polite. 🙂
It took most of my life to disentangle what's going on in Christianity--without ditching God in the process. First, the doctrine of Original Sin came about in the context of treating collective society as the be-all and end-all of the real world. In that context, it's no wonder, because people in collective society behave badly towards each other much if not most of the time. I was an outsider to collective society when I first left home, and my honest impression of sin was that it's serious SOCIAL wrongdoing, which i couldnt relate to. Did I do things that were technically bad? Of course. But those very things didnt involve social contexts, which contributed towards my puzzlement.
I knew that Natural Law and Divine Intervention are incompatible, and that didnt help if I wanted to be a Christian. I owed Christians a lot for putting me up for free for nine months until I could get a job and live on my own, and if I wanted them to do right by me, I was already off to a bad start. But I still wanted to find a way to meet them halfway by at least directly addressing Christianity. I love the Bible, but that wasnt enough. I spent years reading a virtual library's worth of books about Jesus and the Bible, the last author being retired Episcopalean Bishop John Spong, who refused to take the Gospel supernatural elements liter as lily, instead formulating for himself that Jesus was the "most whole person who ever lived". I learned a lot from Spong, but I couldnt do anything with his assessment of Jesus. What does, "Most whole person who ever lived", mean?
In the course of time, with the help of Tubingen Catholic scholar, Hans Kung, by way of his 700-page book, "Does God Exist?", I finally got it through my thick skull that God works by way of Natural Law. But this was only the first step. Later, on Mardi Gras Day six years ago, to be exact, i had an insight that the Apostle Paul had nothing to say about Jesus's life. Nor one word, as opposed to the Gospels, at least. That made me see that if I couldnt be a standard Christian, I could have told Christians that I was fully onboarding with the idea of imitating, or following Jesus, at least, and they would have had to accept that.
Fortunately or unfortunately, that state of affairs lasted only a year or two, until I happened on Joseph Atwill's thesis, "Caesar's Messiah, on RUclips, the gist of which is that, in his view, the Romans had to deal with Jewish terrorists ("Sicarii", or "assassins") wreaking havoc throughout the Empire. The Romans conceived, with the help of captured Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, a narrative--found in the Gospels today--having to do with a Jewish Messiah who died for the sins of all mankind, and not just for the Jewish people, which was what animal sacrifice was for. In the minds of the Romans, then, an upgrading of the Jews' own religion might have succeeded in bringing the Jews out of their isolation and into a relationship of cooperation with Rome. I dont know all the details of the thesis and havent investigated it to my satisfaction, but it at least opened my eyes to the conception that Jesus may have been strictly a literary creation, thereby making my efforts to establish a dialogue with Christians a moot point.
I didnt rest there. Instead, I was ultimately led to embrace the view that the world and universe is a Tapestry that unfolds moment-by-moment at the Hand of God, meaning that if I want to get closer to God, I must be real in my words and actions--a tall order, considering that people in society learn early on to pose and pretend (in order to assert responsibility for others as they believe they are supposed to do), and that a relative minority of people prefer to favor their own individuality, making them probe to believe that they have no responsibilities for others at all. An exaggeration, I know, but you get the point. In order to be real in our words and actions, then, we have to stop lying to others and to ourselves.
Furthermore, being real in our words and actions is a full-time job, not allowing for moonlighting. There is simply no time whatsoever to even THINK about another life when we have so much on our plate being real in our words and actions in THIS life.
Does all this help?
@@ourclarioncallNotice that all the days of creation had a morning and evening except the 7th day. Meaning we are still living in the 7th day. It's poetic.
Hebrews 4 says that when you believe in Jesus you enter the day of rest from your works; the 7th day. Known as "today"
So as Christians we are keeping the Sabbath holy. And if God made evolution then we need to respect God's work and chill out and accept what is being observed.
The resurrection points to Sunday, the 8th day. Sunday the new week and final judgment. When is the 8th day? Jesus says the bridegroom arrives at midnight. The end of the 7th day.
I did not realize that Darwin wasn't a scientist! I knew his father wanted him to become a minister, but I didn't know he wasn't educated in the sciences!!
This person is a crazy far left liberal. I wouldn't take what he says too seriously.
Yes he was a scientist and a member of the Royal Society with extensive scientific training. He didn't have a college degree in Biology because they weren't offered in his time.
Neither was William Paley, but he gets a free pass for some reason…
Does it matter tho? I mean his work has been tested over and over again by scientists today. Its no like scientists today would just take his work and run with it without checking.
Its the work that needs to hold up. Not the person.
Windshield wipers were invented by some dude in his garage.
Does that mean windshield wipers don't work?
@@aidanya1336 atheist scientist, have indeed run with Darwin’s theory, they can’t deny the lack of evidence and the fossil record to support evolution, they try to ignore that genic science does not support evolution, and they try to tap their way around the second law of thermodynamics.
Evolution is a scam, plain and simple. if you’ve been told that “the science is settle” you were lied to. If you were told that the fossil record contains transitional forms, you were lied to. If you were told that, somehow, genetic research supports evolution, you were lied to.
If you think I’m lying, do your own research, use, critical, thinking, be honest with yourself, and with the evidence and see what it tells you.
So much science is ignored in this presentation.
Maxine watters is the perfect excuse of this missing link...a
Lookit u doin a racism! So controversial!
Nice 👍🏻
Smart people around the world already knew Darwin was a QUACK.
Yet Darwin is consistently ranked as one of the top scientists of all time along with Einstein, Newton, Galileo. Pretty good for a quack, eh? 🙂
I also knew scientists around the world who told me the same thing using tin cans and string
@@settledown444
You should really have a look at these, instead of Darwin the origins "scientist", who was about as useless as Hawkins or Dawkins.
_ad populum_
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Johann Kepler (1571-1630)
Blaise Pascal 1623-1662)
Robert Boyle (1627-1691)
Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646-1716)
Leonhard Euler (1707-1783)
John Dalton (1766-1844)
Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Samuel F.B. Morse (1791-1872)
Joseph Henry (1797-1878)
James Joule (1818-1889)
Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)
James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879)
We have no transitional fossils? I thought lying is a sin!
Lying is a virtue when you've convinced yourself everyone is actually the devil in disguise trying to get you.
Where can I find all the missing links at ?
@@closrod335 Just google it. One of the first discovered transitional fossil was Archeopteryx.
@@Who_IsLike_God So why do we find Angiospermae (Flowering Plants ) only in the more upper layers? Did they run away from the flood?
@@Who_IsLike_God But that is not what we find.
Her dog chart [30:06] shows that the highest "information" species of the "dog" kind is the wolf, and that different species go from coyote to wild dog to collie to bulldog to poodle, which "clearly" is the lowest informational species, having suffered an amount of "informational" loss. But then she explains that two dogs were on the ark, which after the flood then reproduced with varieties evolving into different species. But if, as she claims, genetic "information" can only be lost, so that successive generations have lower and lower amounts of information, how did the "dog" species on the ark gain information to become the higher information wolf?
It would be stark irony to see Darwin in Heaven
I thought this was very well presented, well spoken and easy for all education levels to understand. Very interesting material,thank you. Loving the passion of the comments too! Some really good questions peppered throughout.
Pity almost everything they said about Darwin and evolution were bare faced lies.
"Darwin didn't have any understanding of genetics" no sh!t that field didn't exist in his day.
On the Origin of Species was published a decade before Mendels work that began the field, lol these people.
In other words , her statement is still correct lol
And it's not an argument against the validity of evolution. Darwin didn't know what the inheritance mechanism was. Now we do.@@closrod335
@@closrod335 It was propaganda, not a valid argument.
I haven’t figured out why the attack on Darwin and the books detailing his findings, when nobody tackles the writings of nomadic, outcasts, social misfits, who revolutionized the idea of thought, belief and imagination as a form of superiority over those who could work together for the benefit of future generations.
The mindset of the creationist is living for an end, evolutionists understand the many eras in earth’s history, gives people the best hope for endurance, making it man’s responsibility to protect and preserve it.
Those nomadic writings include things that are outside the human emotional and psychological capacity, and should be considered as evil as the division they create.
A child doesn’t fear rejection from a parent that’s loving and forgiving, quit making God look like someone outside the norm in demeanor.
People shouldn’t have to believe they can have God’s unconditional love, only when they do certain things.
Let’s employ and utilize everyone’s natural instinct and individual traits to make this planet and our neighborhoods a better place. Not repulsive, to where love, empathy and compassion are secondary, or only given and received when a part of worship to whatever seems to be in charge of our next adversity.
Creationists only understand argument from authority. They think Darwin is science's supreme "authority" on evolution so it they smear him they rebut evolutionary theory. Creationists as a rule aren't very bright. 🙂
Who works together "for the benefit of future generations"?
If you walk through life with open eyes, you will find out that man will never make it. Never. If evolutionists are right, we are absolutely doomed to destroying everything and one another. Some famous evolutionists openly admit this by the way.
Our only hope is that the Bible is true and that Jesus is our savior and that he will come back and fix earth one day.
And he will. Very soon as it now seems. He will separate the goats from the sheep.
Which side will he find you on?
Cooperation is a good evolutionary strategy for a social species like ours.@@martha-schalleck
Well just look at the world today-this is what happens when most people choose their own standards to live by, being their own gods,instead of having a set uniform group of morals.This "Anything goes" attitude is not from our Creator and we are not better off bc of it. So much lack of direction, crime, confusion,hatred,wars,fighting,greed,depraved immorality, Delinquency, etc. The road leading off to destruction is wide, where you can be or do anything you like without caring how you may affect others,whereas the path of righteousness is very narrow, with much less people on it,but leads to life. It's cramped & not easy but very worthwhile. Our God lights the pathway for us,like a torch in the dark.
Great
Wow, she is a genius. Disproved the most well proven theory in all of science. Nobel prize winner here - lets wait and see if she gets one.
@@joefriday2275 There goes JokeFriday with his usual "no beneficial mutations" lie after he's been shown dozens of them. 🙄
@@joefriday2275 A well documented beneficial mutation made the moths different colors! 😆 🤣
That's enough to show JokeFriday is a compulsive liar
@joefriday2275 That's not how that works. Individuals born with a mutation for white coloration are at a disadvantage in a dark forest, but at an advantage on bright bark. They don't choose to change color like lizards do. They can't control what their offspring look like either. As always, mutations are random, the selection pressure for that mutation is not random.
@@joefriday2275 Right on cue here comes JokeFriday the compulsive liar with another big porky! The mutation which produced the dark variation was random. It just so happened the dark color was extremely beneficial to the moths in their soot covered environment.
@joefriday2275 For that particular species, the development of industrialization absolutely affected the coloration of the moths. You don't need to be told this 1 million times.
That's the trouble with facts. they're only true until they're proven false. I wouldn't put my faith in them.
Do you not see a difference in people that walk by faith verse those that do not?
@@Moist._Robotbecause the Bible is proven true innumerable times over.
@noneyabidness9644 beware, moist robot is a spiritual demon, he is on every platform rejecting The Bible, he is on every religious platform spreading this. Nephilim spirits, don't argue or debate with him.
@@Napolean-tq3zsI know moist robot. We've spoken multiple times. It always ends with moist devolving into tantrums and ad hominems.
@@noneyabidness9644Like how it said the Earth is flat? Or that the sun moves around the Earth? Or that the moon emits its own light? Or that donkeys and snakes can talk? Or that insects have 4 legs? Or that pi is equal to 3?
Dr. Rivera at 15:40: "...this largely came from Larmarckian (sic) and basically what this says is organisms acquire characteristics over their lifetime and then they're able to pass it on to the next generation..." Rivera is trying to imply that Darwin believed this, but by the time Darwin wrote "Origin of the Species" Lamarckism had already been shown to be not true. Darwin could not have believed it to be true. Darwin had a different idea, that beneficial characteristics are acquired through natural variation, and those characteristics that are most favourable would eventually spread throughout the population. A process, by the way, which is confirmed by genetics. Darwin was right, even though genetics as a science didn't exist in his day. It wasn't until Gregor Mendel published his finding in 1866, some years after Darwin published his own findings. Darwin could not have known anything about how genes worked. Mendel's work was not widely known until the 1900's, and it was some years after that before it really developed as a science. And yes, the science of genetics confirms Darwin's work, as does the even more recent discovery of DNA. Rivera also makes a point that Darwin wasn't a "scientist" without mentioning that there was no science of biology in those days. People who were interested in nature were called "naturalists" and that was the position that Darwin got on the Beagle. He was the naturalist that investigated and catalogued anything that might be of interest to the British government of the day. After he returned to England from his voyage, he spent the next twenty years studying that which he had collected and cataglogued, arriving at the conclusion that organisms evolved over tme through a process of descent with modification. They "evolved". He was right then, and he's right now.
Darwin described Lamarck's idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics as "veritable rubbish" - yet Dr Riviera is suggesting that he promoted the idea! Good grief!
@@andrewdouch Creation Science (sic) types are more than willing to just make things up if they think it will make Darwin look bad.
Why is it that every time a title boast of how great someone's article is, it always turns out to be something that falls flat completely. Having "DISMANTLES" in all caps gives the impression that she not only makes a valid point at some point in the talk, but that she gives some persuasive telling point that a legitimate scientist wouldn't be able to answer. Instead we get 45 minutes of falsehoods and non-sequiturs that would insult the intelligence of any middle-schooler. Why put such a boastful title on such an outlandishly absurd speech?
Religion!
I actually get atheist asking me as a Christian to define evolution, they tell me to explain it! Uh I’m a Christian! I don’t believe evolution exists! That’s your job if you can even do it. Thanks James Web!
They ask you to define it to see if you even understand what it is you're rejecting. After all, there is no point pointing out where your errors in understanding are if they don't have a clear picture of where those understandings are.
@@GeoRyukaiser lol you atheist will do everything you can to avoid answering what evolution is because you made it up😂😂😂😂 of course I will never be able to define what is not real.
@@davidkwong3369 There are plenty of christians who accept the objective, observed, reality of evolution being true. You do know that right?
If you want me to define Evolution then here; "Any change of Allele frequency of a population of organisms over generations."
@@GeoRyukaiser
"Evolution" has no direction or magnitude, just _change_ . (1)
= _The specific theory of evolution_ . (2)
_The general theory of evolution_ has a direction and magnitude: _march of progress_ , molecules-to-man, 0 bytes to 3,1 gigabytes (human DNA) [ + the other parts *] (3)
-> Because of the combination of (1) & (2) "evolution" is non-falsifiable; non-science.
-> (3) is falsifiable, and is false, as we observe the opposite to it.
*
The word "Evolution" has many meanings, only one of which is scientific.
1. Cosmic evolution. - The origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
2. Chemical evolution. - The origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
3. Stellar and planetary evolution. - Origin of stars and planets.
4. Organic evolution. - Origin of life.
5. Macro-evolution. - Changing from one kind of plant or animal into another.
6. Micro-evolution. - Variations within kinds. Only this one has been observed.
+
"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion - a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint - ...and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it - the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution today."
- Michael Ruse
@@GeoRyukaiser well that broad of a definition doesn’t give you the right to be so pious, that just means change and you know evolution that denies God is more specific to how life from nothing can happen and how life can start up after the meteor hit that wiped out all life can start up again. I know atheists must keep retreating on those positions because the reality of God keeps is truth! And atheist must keep changing their story with the models of their Genesis to make it work! In the end they had to create a stupid story of multiverse to make everything work because of denial.
Okay. Did the ark with Noah like a bus driver deliver these animals to these islands? Any mention of the kinds not found in the middle east in the story? Not really a complete history if you ask me or a thinking person. Many gaps for god to fill.
Darwinist- Creationists Creationist- Darwinists !!! Both sides are absolutely IDIOTS!!!!! Uneducated IDIOTS!!! You see, I was educated as a Physicist!!!! and you know what? the Same PERSON WHO SCREWED UP PHYSICS/ASTRONOMY was THE SAME PERSON WHO SCREWED UP.. IE CREATED THIS SAME problem that you Creationist-Darwinist are arguing about. DO YOU KNOW WHO IT IS? Bet NONE OF YOU ON EITHER SIDE HAVE A CLUE, EVEN IF YOU KNOW WHO CREATED THE MESS FOR ASTRONOMY!!!! YOU ALL WERE EDUCATED BY THE SAME PEOPLE!!! DO YOU KNOW WHO THE FATHER OF BIOLOGY IS!!!!!!!!!! WELL HE WAS THe SAME PERSON THAT THE "CHURCH" CHOSE TO USE AS THE EXPERT ON ASTRONOMY, YOU KNOW THE GUY WHO SAID THE EARTH WAS THE CENTER AND THE SUN REVOLVED AROUND IT!!!!!!!!! YA HE IS THE SAME EXPERT THAT THE CHURCH MODELED IT VIEW OF BIOLOGY!!!!!! THE FATHER OF MODERN BIOLOGY IS THE SAME ARISTOLE!!! YA!!! HE WAS WRONG WHEN HE SAID THE SUN ROTATES AROUND THE EARTH AND HE WAS WRONG WHEN HE SAID THE SPECIES WERE FIXED!!!!
AND ALL YOU STUPID IDIOTS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE DEBATE HAVE BEEN ARGUING ABOUT ARISTOTLE BUT ARE ALL TOO STUPID TO KNOW IT!!!!!
ARISTOLE WAS WRONG!!!!! WRONG WRONG!!! STOP ARGUING ABOUT ARISTOLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ARISTOLE THE FATHER OF MODERN BIOLOGY STATED THAT THE SPECIES WERE FIX!!!!! THAT THEY DIDNT CHANGE!!! AND THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE ARGUING ABOUT!!!!!!! BUT ASTRONOMERS PROVED THAT ARISTOTLE WAS WRONG!!! BUT YOU IDIOTS DON"T EVEN KNOW YOUR ARGUING ABOUT ARISTOTLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your intellectual pride will be your fall if you don´t repent and come to Jesus Christ your savior.
God has no gaps to fill in your very limited understanding. He judges you, not the other way round.
But if you prefer lesser magic and the great show that your greatest enemy sets up with his helpful greedy humans (scientists, actors etc.) ...
if it makes you feel so clever to pretend you understand this gibberish that they are selling you as products of geniuses -- your pride will be your fall.
There is no magic in science, lesser or otherwise.@@martha-schalleck
@@lizd2943 Maybe you´re interested in the thoughts of the great mind of C.S. Lewis who called science "the magician´s twin" for good reasons.
Check the FAQs section.
A) The sea levels were a 50 or so meters lower than todays during the aftermath of the Flood. ( "ice-age" )
B) There is _Peleg_ , that some if not most creationist organizations dismiss, "cut a corner". It simply states that the continental divide, or a major part of it happened a few centuries _after_ the Flood - breaking the supercontinent "Pangaia" (or gea/geo).
Excellent presentation 💯💯👏👏
Your illustration at 33:00min is inaccurate.
A giraffe is a Biblically "clean" animal with a "split hoof completely divided, chewing the cud" (Lev 11:3) and therefore was represented by seven pairs on the Ark.
7 giraffes on a wooden boat 😂
@@wingednut2283 - The written Record actually reads "seven pairs" so 14 giraffes in total.
And the "wooden boat" you mock was actually the size of a modern container ship. Its dimensions are given in Genesis chapter 6 if you care to read and to a little study :)
@@2besavedcom-7 its a good bit of fiction
Since the flesh diet had not been authorised,a clean beast would have most probably been determined on the basis of what was acceptable to the Creator as a sacrifice.At that time no restriction existed as to what they could eat as it wasn't until after the flood,they could eat flesh. Gods words were then -"Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you". Gen 9:3
Later God was specific in telling them what animals they could eat. The bull,sheep,goat,stag,gazelle,roebuck,wild goat,antelope,wild sheep,chamois, & every beast with a split hoof,chewing the cud". The 7 of each on the ark were specifically domestic animals for sacrificial purposes.
Ridiculous! Blaming Charles Darwin for the misinterpretation of his theory that led to its misuse is like blaming Otto Hahn, the inventor of nuclear fission, for the American atomic bombs on Japan.
It's even more ridiculous than that. The Nazis were trying to create what they regarded as improvements in humans, which would be microevolution, which AIG says they accept. So by their own argument, they're Nazis.
Darwin was a worst pirate than the pirate scientist William Dampier, whom he stole ideas from.
Darwin was lucky to be from the privileged class because he had as much sense as the pirate Batolomew Sharp who threw all the silver overboard to keep just a fraction.
All science builds off other scientists ideas. That's how science works. @@toldyouso5588
❤❤❤🙏💕
Why do you fundagelicals feel the need to denigrate a humble, thoughtful and honest scholar like Darwin? Humble because he acknowledges his own doubts and shortcomings in print, thoughtful because his scholarship and literary skills were of excellent quality (as was his education...Cambridge and Oxford I believe), and honest because the science at the time was still in its infancy and could not prove nor disprove some of his theoretical hypotheses completely.....well, we can do that now and contrary to what Dr Rivera asserts.....Darwin pretty much nailed the mechanisms for the diversity of species....that is why he is considered amongst the truly learned and virtually the whole scientific community one of the great lights of scientific knowledge......
Are goats and sheep the same kind or from different kinds? Seeing how goats and sheep can breed to create geeps and shoats? How about horses and donkey which create mules and hinnies.
Is a talking snake a kind?
Mules cannot reproduce. God set a barrier, even if kinds interbreed, their offspring will be infertile. If this is not the case, we didn´t have two kinds but two races.
Ok, so kind is species which means change of kind is observed.@@martha-schalleck
Mules can't reproduce. That is one evidence for the non-existence of (macro)evolution.
creationists originally believed "kind" equals species. When too many examples of crossbreeding and speciation were discovered, they broadened it to roughly equal "genus" and later "family".
Within 5 seconds tbis video started telling lies... "charles darwin was nott a scientist" yiu can't expdct the rest of your diatribe to be taken seriously with that sort of opening.
Darwin adapted his ideas of evolution from earlier Enlightenment authors. Charles Lyell (rabid antisemitic lawyer) actually published his book, proposing millions of years before Darwin went to the Gallopagos. Lyell was a close friend of Darwin and Lyell wrote his book to give Darwin the old earth substantiation to provide the foundation for the idea of evolution. The plan was hatched before Darwin made the trip.
And that's bad because?
Hitler adapted his Holocaust ideas from earlier Martin Luther (rabid anti Semite founder of your Protestantism) published a book called "On the Jews and Their Lies" which advocated Jewish Holocaust. The Plan was hatched before Hitler supported it
@@EternalEmperorofZakuul it's ba, because together, with malice of forethought, Charles Darwin and Charles Lyell laid the foundation for the Holocaust, and the extermination of whole tribes in Africa. Charles Lyell hated Jews, and Darwin hated brown, black, and yellow people. Charles Lyell stated that his goal was "to get Moses (Jews) out of science." Darwin publicly advocated the complete extermination of all non-white humans, and also all of the great apes. He viewed non-whites and the great apes as being primitive animals who should be exterminated for the good of more evolved white people. Do you believe Darwin and Lyell's unchristian ideology of hate? I certainly hope you are wiser than people in the Victorian era, and the 20th Century Marxists and Nazis.
@@Moist._Robot Darwin had no evidence, and his and Lyell's books were pseudoscience, of the same ilk as modern ancient aliens and Burmuda Triangle mystery books. Both of them were debunked in their own lifetime by real scientists. Marxists and Nazis dragged their ideas into academia, and as the Communists and Fascists gained power in central banks, genuine science was replaced by industrialized, corporate science. Darwin's father and grandfather were Masons. Lyell was also a Mason. They Scottish Masons at the time were pushing this narrative through Hutton in the 1700s, trying to justify unbridled Colonialism, and racial oppression of indigenous populations. Christians wanted to convert subjugated populations, but the Industrial Revolution gave rise to the development of more terrible weapons. The 20th Century slaughter was merely a continuation of mass killing for profit. Darwin and Lyell were part of the early media campaign to promote the never-ending wars for profit policies, making it palatable for the public, by undermining Christianity, and sewing fear of primitive savages, and other "undesirables".
@@valerieprice1745 I see another creationist who has never taken a single science class in her life.
I always wondered this as a Christian. How could there be light without a light source… and secondly, how can you have plants without sunlight?
Also when did things like bacteria come about? Are they considered animals in gods eyes? Sea creatures? If time is a man made concept, how do we know that 24hours for us is 24 hours for God and also we measure days as times it takes the earth to rotate around its axis… what’s the logic behind a day being measured before the earth is made…
"How could there be light without a light source… " Bible tells us that God was the light before He created the sun, just as He will be the light in the future world He creates.
It's symbolic. Everyone knew that the sun was the source of light and life on earth, more so than most people today. The Bible was making a radical statement in looking beyond that.
As usual, love the video, not a fan of the title and/or thumbnail (this time I liked the thumbnail, at least, but not so much the title, inflammatory, as at least of the two often is)
Other than that the only two cents I would add is that you could be more distinct and precise about evolution as a term. Evolution just means change on its own. I think it would be more accurate to say that the evolution that you’re talking about in this video is progressive evolution whereas natural selection might be considered reductive evolution, not to say that those are actual terms, but just suggestions I’m making. Otherwise an objector could easily say you’re just changing the definition of evolution.
Charles Darwin was a true amateur botanist, which means that he studied Botany as his hobby. Darwin had no clue about any thing scientific really. It is a very little known fact that Darwin was bitten by a big black bug, when his ship stopped in south America. This very dangerous bug infected Darwin with much associated pain, confusion and brain damage. This info was since on Wikipedia, but has been later deleted about Darwin.
Doesn't really do anything to change the fact that he was right about things evolving to suit their environment. People don't accept evolution because they trust Darwin, they accept it because it's what all the facts point towards.
I'll never understand why creationists think making personal attacks on a scientist who has been dead for 141 years will somehow refute modern evolutionary theory. 🙄
@@OgdenCrimmcramer8162 It's because they're so sensitive to the fact that their beliefs hinge entirely on the stories in genesis being literal, 100% true history, that a single thing can topple it over, _especially_ regarding specific individuals we know didn't exist. Thus, they try projecting that onto the Big Meanie Atheist Evolutionists, as though we somehow hold him to the save level of reverence as they do for Moses, Noah, or Jesus.
@@ApelikeAltruism "he was right about things evolving to suit their environment." That does not mean evolution - just intrapecific adaptive variation. Science has never proved that intrapecific adaptive variation could lead to new species, new genera, new families ...
Evolution according to Wikipedia means:
1. Evolutionary processes produce diversity on every level of the biological hierarchy, including the level of species, the level of organisms and the level of molecular evolution.
2. All life on Earth stem from a Universal Common Ancestor (UCA) which lived about 3,5 - 3,8 billion years ago.
Point 1 is correct only when we speak of limited adaptive variation within any given species. That is not evolution in the Darwinian sense, where all life would stem from UCA.
Point 2 is just a hypothesis, not a scientific fact. UCA is not verified by any known scientific method. Fossil records do not show gradation from a species to other species. Each species has only its typical genes and they can not successfully mix with genes of other species, let alone with a species belonging to a different taxonomic genus.
@@OgdenCrimmcramer8162 In practice there is no difference between Darwin's original theory and "modern evolutionary theory". Same s**t in different package.
Evolution such as Darwin and modern Neo-Darwinists define it is not genetically possible. But if the word "evolution" is used to mean just intraspecific adaptive variation where no new life forms appear, we can use that rather misleading word. The slow but unlimited "step by step by step" -evolution has no known genetic mechanism behind. This did not disturb Charles Darwin because he hadn't heard of genes. Quite incredibly, Neo-Darwinists seem to be equally ignorant of the genetic mechanism, especially of its limits.
In the sexual process, species produce gene recombination but that happens only in the existing genome. No new genes appear to bring new information for evolution to happen. That means only variations of that particular species can appear. That is not evolution, because (Darwinian) evolution would mean qualitatively new genetic information generating new life forms, gradually appearing by changes in the body plan. There is no mechanism for that.
However evolutionists tend to believe that subspecies are the path to evolution. Subspecies however do not appear with qualitatively new genes but with gene loss. What we have in nature is speciation which happens through gene loss. Evolution would need new genes, not gene loss. In addition, if there were new genes they must be qualitatively different from the species’ existing genes. This equation is impossible and never proven in empirical studies. Mutations can't help because they've never been observed to create new body plans.
The origin of evolution is abiogenesis.
That's either impossible or supernatural.
No life comes from unlife,
and no order comes from chaos.
That's like admitting you don't believe chemical reactions can result in more complex chemical structures.
@@GeoRyukaiser Said chemicals and their reactions are *observable* and produce results like medicine that people can feel or acid that can melt things...
They don't produce *organic* beings.
@@Taehc Those same chemicals have been *observed* forming precursor organic compounds in pre-biotically relevant conditions. If memory serves they've even been *observed* to form RNA under several different pre-biotically relevant conditions.
@@GeoRyukaiser You just described *intelligent guided experiment with purpose* which still doesn't produce living beings.
@@Taehc Creationist stupid claim 117: If scientists recreate a natural phenomenon in the lab that means the original phenomenon was designed. 🤪
A large number of Protestant and Catholic pastors consider man to be a proud descendant of the first cells to appear some 4 billion years ago, and consider the Old Testament to have more or less historical value. They use certain Old Testament stories to teach their parishioners human values. All the while knowing that the value of these stories is dubious.
Un très fort % de scientifiques acceptent la théorie de l'évolution.
I have an alternative theory consistent with science and Scripture in my video 'Begining of understanding '
In short I claim transmutation by electrical process of genetically superior creatures
My channel is dedicated to giving examples of this
Even creationists accept that some species are related, so Darwins conclusions on the finches and Tortoises on the Galapogos would've held up even to their scrutiny.
Creationists typically don't accept a single bird kind, but probably accept a single turtle kind. Regardless, wouldn't it make more sense that since we know speciation is real, that the process of biodiversity has always happened all the way back to a first species? Why insert magic creation into undetermined points of ancestry in lineages...oh because a book says so. Forgive me if thats not a convincing reason to believe in magic.
What Darwin discovered, anyone could've figured out. Just look at the biodiversity on an island and see the endemic species. Do creationists really think all the lemur species on Madagascar are independently created kinds? Doesn't it make more sense they all shared an ancestor that first traveled to the island? Darwin could've went there instead and came up with the same conclusion about biodiversity.
_"Even creationists accept that some species are related"_
Really, if you think about it rationally, only _individuals_ are related. No? I mean, even if you say _"some species are related",_ what, really, are you saying if not merely that some individuals are related to each other?
@@25dollarbill24 Not in a traditional family sense, but via ancestry. All humans are related to each other if you go back far enough. That applies to all species as well. You can't stop being related to something.
@@hylaherping9180 You wrote: _"Not in a traditional family sense, but via ancestry."_
_What_ "not in a traditional family sense"?
You wrote: _"All humans are related to each other if you go back far enough."_
Yeah. And?
Also, no humans are related to any non-human creatures.
You wrote: _"That applies to all species as well."_
_What_ "applies to all species as well"? Are you trying to say _"All [species] are related to each other"?_
Like I already pointed out, only _individuals_ are related. Were you to say _"This species is related to that species",_ what would you even mean beyond _"These individuals are related to those individuals"?_
Also, it's false that all individuals are related to each other. Since, for instance, no man or woman is related to any chimpanzee, and no man or woman is related to any goldfish.
You wrote: _"You can't stop being related to something."_
Did someone say that one _can_ stop being related to something?
Remember: *No non-human ever gave birth to a human.* And either a creature is a human or is a non-human. However many generations you want to go back in any one of a person's lineages, you will always, uniformly, have "human begat human begat human begat human begat human" and so on, all the way back to the first two humans. Do you disagree with the obvious fact that you will never have "non-human begat human"?
@@25dollarbill24 It's not false that all individuals in every species are related to each other. DNA clearly indicates that all species are related. And speciation is observed, so even without DNA, we know species diversify into multiple over time. Populations evolve, not individuals, there never was a time that an individual of one species suddenly gave birth to another species. That's not how evolution works.
@Who_IsLike_God It's not an untested hypothesis, it's the only logical conclusion. Here's why:
If we know speciation occurs, meaning the process by which any two species diversified from a common ancestor, then we should expect their DNA to be closer to each other than anything else. That is always the case with species in a genus, family, order etc. Part of the reason those classifications even exist is because of their DNA relationships. But if the DNA relationships weren't always due to ancestry, and instead similar designs, we should expect to see some things we could test.
One would be that the more similar any species or lineages appear in their design, the more DNA they should share. This would be the explanation for why humans share most of their DNA with chimpanzees, we look more like them than anything else. The design is similar, hence the DNA shared between them is stronger.
We would also expect species that don't have similar designs to have vast differences of DNA shared. This is where the problems start mounting for DNA being evidence of design rather than ancestry.
Whales look way more like manatees and sharks than anything else alive, yet they share more DNA with even toed ungulates. DNA cannot be evidence of design when deer share more DNA with whales than they do with horses. The design of deer and horses is significantly more similar than that of deer and whales. So why doesn't DNA indicate that deer and horses are closer in shared DNA than deer and whales? Because DNA is evidence of ancestry.
But what evidence do we have that whales evolved from terrestrial mammals? Whale embryos develop leg buds, and sometimes dolphins even develop hind flippers, which is an example of an evolutionary atavism. (Something that wouldn't exist if they were designed). Fossil record reveals lots of transitional species that should only exist if whales evolved from terrestrial mammals. These transitions aren't always complete, but they have the same unique teeth shape, ear bone shape, and even show clear transitions of the nostrils moving from a snout to the top of the head where modern blowholes are. We see development of flippers, and loss of back legs as well. These two lines of evidence paired with the DNA relationship between whales and even toed ungulates is why DNA is strong evidence of ancestry, not design. There's obviously lots more examples I could give besides this, but this is why the only logical conclusion is that all life is related. We know populations diversify, we know DNA isn't evidence of design, we know DNA is evidence of common ancestry, and we know all life has DNA. There's no reason to insert magic creation into undetermined points in lineages, DNA doesn't back that idea up, and magic isn't real or testable. So all life sharing a common ancestor is the only logical explanation when looking at DNA.
6k is pretty steep for a trip to the Galápagos, there’s a lot on that itinerary and idk how much those places cost, but typically it doesn’t cost that much to travel in, about, and out of a place, I’m a missionary and very well travelled, i started running independently because I could go somewhere that needed me and stay for 6 months to a year depending on the country on what most organizations want for a one or two week trip, now granted this isn’t a mission trip, but 6k is a bit much guys, I’d be better off fixing my boat and sailing down around the horn and back up to Galápagos and probably spend less money doing it, I’m sure God has other things in store and wouldn’t even let me go that way so no worries I won’t show up and crash yals party haha i do want to go volunteer at the ark someday, for no other reason then just to have a break from boat life and be around Christians that actually speak English haha, also travel insurance should be optional, I’ve been to 18 countries and have never had travel insurance it’s pointless really,
Faith is private and self orientated ! Science is Open and Accepts Criticism based on Reasonings or Evidence ! The Facts that people are using the smartphones and communicate thousands of Mile apart Revealed that Sciences Are WORKING . Period ! Faith without Science just got You close to NOWHERE !! One would be in a Dark and Lonely Place ! !
Pretty sure the brown bear is ursus horriblus. Polar bear is ursus arctos. Could be wrong
At 13:17 in this video, Dr. Rivera says: _"So he's 51 years old now, and he publishes On the Origin of Species, almost considered to be the Bible of evolution, right? Many people look at it like that..."_
No they don't. As far as I know, the only people who say that are creationists trying to mislead their audience.
Ahm says the man who is almost as "intellectually honest" as Sam Harris.
@@i7Qp4rQ You said: _"Ahm says the man who is almost as "intellectually honest" as Sam Harris."_
Do you dispute that basically the only people who talk about Darwin as a prophet are creationist apologists trying to make some fallacious argument?
Darwinist- Creationists Creationist- Darwinists !!! Both sides are absolutely IDIOTS!!!!! Uneducated IDIOTS!!! You see, I was educated as a Physicist!!!! and you know what? the Same PERSON WHO SCREWED UP PHYSICS/ASTRONOMY was THE SAME PERSON WHO SCREWED UP.. IE CREATED THIS SAME problem that you Creationist-Darwinist are arguing about. DO YOU KNOW WHO IT IS? Bet NONE OF YOU ON EITHER SIDE HAVE A CLUE, EVEN IF YOU KNOW WHO CREATED THE MESS FOR ASTRONOMY!!!! YOU ALL WERE EDUCATED BY THE SAME PEOPLE!!! DO YOU KNOW WHO THE FATHER OF BIOLOGY IS!!!!!!!!!! WELL HE WAS THe SAME PERSON THAT THE "CHURCH" CHOSE TO USE AS THE EXPERT ON ASTRONOMY, YOU KNOW THE GUY WHO SAID THE EARTH WAS THE CENTER AND THE SUN REVOLVED AROUND IT!!!!!!!!! YA HE IS THE SAME EXPERT THAT THE CHURCH MODELED IT VIEW OF BIOLOGY!!!!!! THE FATHER OF MODERN BIOLOGY IS THE SAME ARISTOLE!!! YA!!! HE WAS WRONG WHEN HE SAID THE SUN ROTATES AROUND THE EARTH AND HE WAS WRONG WHEN HE SAID THE SPECIES WERE FIXED!!!!
AND ALL YOU STUPID IDIOTS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE DEBATE HAVE BEEN ARGUING ABOUT ARISTOTLE BUT ARE ALL TOO STUPID TO KNOW IT!!!!!
ARISTOLE WAS WRONG!!!!! WRONG WRONG!!! STOP ARGUING ABOUT ARISTOLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ARISTOLE THE FATHER OF MODERN BIOLOGY STATED THAT THE SPECIES WERE FIX!!!!! THAT THEY DIDNT CHANGE!!! AND THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE ARGUING ABOUT!!!!!!! BUT ASTRONOMERS PROVED THAT ARISTOTLE WAS WRONG!!! BUT YOU IDIOTS DON"T EVEN KNOW YOUR ARGUING ABOUT ARISTOTLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@@hansdemos6510
Ahh, a dodge.
But a small hint of truth there: "Darwin as a prophet".
You should remember this:
"Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion - a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint - ...and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it - the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution today."
- Michael Ruse
At least Harris admitted that he is dedicately lying, to his _own_ audience.
@@nobody342 You said: _"Darwinist- Creationists Creationist- Darwinists !!! Both sides are absolutely IDIOTS!!!!! Uneducated IDIOTS!!! ... AND ALL YOU STUPID IDIOTS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE DEBATE HAVE BEEN ARGUING ABOUT ARISTOTLE BUT ARE ALL TOO STUPID TO KNOW IT!!!!!"_
Please note that writing in ALL CAPS is considered the equivalent of shouting in the comments. You should not do that. At least not if you expect anyone to take you seriously.
Aristotle was very influential but his views are nowadays mainly of historical interest. If some people's views appear to have some overlap with the views of Aristotle, then that does not automatically mean that their views must derive from Aristotle or that their opponents are arguing about Aristotle.
Please include the fossil record of whales.
Ahh, the one where _whale stays as a whale stays as a whale_ ?
Oh a gap! Quick. Conclude something.
Please include any modern species, of any size, found in the over 8,000 dinosaur sites.
@@LeonSemiPro
ignorance & pooh-pooh
Do you see polar bears at Jericho site? Ecological niches ring a bell?
@@i7Qp4rQ So modern species and dinosaurs were contemporaries just not in the same places? The same with precambrian species? And every other epoch of the geological column?
If a genetic sequence is mutated into a new sequence, how is that not a gain in "information"?
Thank you, it was a very educational video! I have a question. In theory, could humans and apes (chimps or gorillas) reproduce? Are we biologically the same KIND or it would be impossible?
Good question. When two species diverge from a common ancestor they gradually become more and more genetically distant. There isn't a binary point where one generation they can reproduce and the next generation they can't. What happens is the probability of a viable hybrid gradually goes down over time 99%, 98%, 97%, etc. until it hits 0. The time to zero varies widely depending on lots of factors but is roughly in the range of 3-6 million years. Humans and chimps last shared a common ancestor 5-7 MYA so they are right on the cusp, although the answer is "probably not". BTW there is no such thing in science as a "kind" and the criteria "kinds can always interbreed" is worthless. For example
House cats can interbreed with ocelots
Ocelots can interbreed with pumas
Pumas can interbreed with leopards
House cats *can't* interbreed with leopards.
Yet most creationists still claim all cats are the same "kind".
There was only limited interbreeding with Neanderthals. There's no way we'd be reproductively compatible with any species in the Australopithecus genus so the answer as far as humans and other existing apes is definitely not. There are claims a Soviet scientist tried to create human-chimp hybrids in the 1920s, but obviously even if they're true nothing came of it.@@samburns3329
I think it still possible. It happened 4 million years ago. Problem today is that the head of the hybrid fetus is too big for the birth channel of a chimp mother. And I don't think there are human mother volunteers
@@globalcoupledances Each species have numerous completely unique genetic programs that can't be found from any other species' genome (ca. 10±30 % of DNA). These programs produce i.a. singletons, the unique proteins belonging to each one species only. So, human regenerating with chimpanzee would be impossible.
Here we also encounter the impossibility theorem based on mathematics plus the dilemma of waiting time: The genes of man and chimpanzee differ from each other exceedingly more than the mutation of 7-8 million years would allow for the DNA being separated so far from each other. The same goes for all species.
@@samburns3329 "Yet most creationists still claim all cats are the same "kind"."
All cats belong to the same family (kind) Felidae and are descending from a common created ancestor. Is there something you don't understand? House cat can't interbreed with leopard for the same reason as the Great Dane can't interbreed with Chihuahua. Still they belong to the same family and descend from wolves. According to the principle stated in the Bible.
Why do young Earth creationists think they know more about science than scientists? I'm talking about several fields of science.. physics, biology, you name it..
Scientists work in specialized fields, you know, like genetics? I'm sure most young Earth creationists are perfectly fine with the science of genetics when it comes to paternity tests and things of that nature, but when it comes to Universal common ancestry, which is the same science used in paternity tests, only even more complex, they have a huge problem with it, because it conflicts with their personal beliefs.
Well, what can a person say to that, other than, 'that's just too bad:-( sorry you are a science denier'.
You should not pick and choose which areas of science you accept based on your personal beliefs.
You do understand the evolutionary studies have moved past Darwin’s first attempts at explaining the obvious? Also, how does disproving evolution help progress the sciences and research?
How does disproving evolution help progress the sciences and research? Well it puts you in a place to start from the truth. Evolutionary studies, unfortunately, are useless without evolution which still remains a theory without any supporting proof, ie, to date, no fossils have ever been found demonstrating the state of evolution in any creature, or the process of changing from one kind to another. Therefore we must look for answers elsewhere. I believe that God is the creator. Genesis, written thousand of years ago, states that God made man from the molecules found in the earth and so we are, modern science agrees with that, but if you find something else that is responsible for that process that started all life, I myself, along with thousands of other people will be interested to hear what that is. Good luck in your studies.
@@Desertflower743there are over ten thousand fossils for the ancestor apes to man evolution alone. Looks like there are plenty.
What do we have supporting the Genesis myth?
@@Desertflower743Evolution is backed up by a vast body of evidence
In science, something does not reach the status of theory without vast supporting evidence. The fossil record shows faunal succession exactly as evolutionary theory predicts. We have a wealth of transitional fossils. To deny these facts is just silly. @@Desertflower743
How about Platypus it’s both Bird , Mammal, Lays Egg, and Has Venom, now that’s an animal tree In One, which she never mentions?
As a Christian and an Australian, that's a mystery even to us down here and we live with them! They're classified as monotremes. The fact they're egg-laying mammals seems like a contradiction but it works because that's how God made their kind to work. They're quite interesting creatures, though sadly currently endangered
@@aurafireheart «The fact they're egg-laying mammals seems like a contradiction but it works because that's how God made their kind to work. «
translation: god of the gaps, ignorance
@@luish1498 Just because we as humans don't fully understand how it works, doesn't mean it's design is flawed or that God somehow made a mistake. Mysteries are out there for a reason. God bless, friend.
@@aurafireheart «we as humans don't fully understand how it works» therefore god?
The platypus belongs to a group of mammals called monotremes, which are considered to be one of the most primitive mammalian lineages. Monotremes diverged from the common ancestor of mammals very early in evolutionary history, around 210 million years ago. This separation occurred before the evolution of more advanced mammalian characteristics, such as live birth and a fully developed placenta.
The unique traits of the platypus can be attributed to both ancestral characteristics and adaptations to its specific ecological niche. The platypus likely retained certain reptilian and avian traits that were present in the common ancestor of mammals. For example, laying eggs is a reptilian trait that was retained in monotremes.
Adaptations to the semi-aquatic lifestyle of the platypus have also influenced its unique traits. The webbed feet and streamlined body shape facilitate efficient swimming and diving in water. The beak-like snout is specialized for locating prey in muddy riverbeds, while the dense, waterproof fur provides insulation and helps the platypus maintain its body temperature in cold water.
The venomous spur found in male platypuses is believed to have evolved as a defense mechanism and for competition during mating. It is thought that the venom is used in territorial disputes with other males.
The evolution of these traits in the platypus is the result of gradual changes over millions of years, driven by natural selection. Individuals with traits that were advantageous in their environment had a better chance of surviving and reproducing, passing on their genes to future generations.
It's worth noting that the platypus is an example of convergent evolution, where different lineages independently evolve similar traits in response to similar ecological pressures. The platypus shares some characteristics with reptiles, birds, and other mammals, but these similarities are the result of independent evolutionary processes rather than direct ancestry.
Overall, the unique combination of traits in the platypus is the product of both ancestral characteristics and adaptations to its specific ecological niche, highlighting the incredible diversity and adaptability of life on Earth.
Dogs wonder if their name is "god" backwards because they guard the heavenly throne.
Cats just wonder who that is in their seat.
Dogs have owners. Cats have staff. 🙂
_Ad ridiculum_ , but a slightly more original at that. Almost 24/7 it is just "skydaddy".
@@kittykatters3972 With a lil mistake: you are a wizard, cat !
Evolution😂😂😂
Natural selection🤣🤣🤣
Both are facts
@@dodumichalcevski Both are fantasies.😂
@@SavedbyGraceAlone1962
Yeah for people who believe in fairytales and magic everything smart sounds like Fantasy.
@@dodumichalcevski I neither believe in fairy tales nor magic, but obviously you do. The universe creating itself out of nothing, and life creating itself out of non-life matter, both qualify as magic since they are both literally impossible.😂
@@SavedbyGraceAlone1962
So you dont believe in the Bible and God?
Well nice strawman.
Nobody claims that something came from nothing.
Yeah like i said.
Everything smart sounds like magic for people who dont know anything.
Science works.
I am sorry 🤷
and we have sins because circa 5000 bc a woman who was created from a rib ate some fruit from a magic tree because a talking snake told her to
Wel kissing a frog will not magically give you a princess..but some millions of year will do it? No proof for that either. Only theories.Thousands of fossils found can still be proof for a giant flood theory.
A giant flood would jumble the fossils together, not sort them in the order predicted by evolutionary theory. @@fredrikr6280
Eating fruit typical for primates. Humans are of the Primate Kind
Agnus Mcaskill was a fraud, you on the other hand just committed an _ad ridiculum_ logical fallacy.
so you prefer a god who isn't just? you have plenty to choose from including yourself. you will worship, the question is what? I recommend Jesus as He spoke all this into existence!
'Origins of Evolution Exposed'
Life on Earth has been exposed? Uh-oh.
Great presenter! Great oresentation.
I learned a lot. I teresting ghat natural selection is loss and evolution is gain. No wonder science class is confusing if natural selection "proves" evolution.
And shame on teachets who stiffle learnets who raise questions.
Christ being involved in creation proves the very last words of the scripture of avoiding deception.
You dont need jesus, you need education
Selection both spreads and curtails traits.
@@wingednut2283 True education leads to Jesus:
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Johann Kepler (1571-1630)
Blaise Pascal 1623-1662)
Robert Boyle (1627-1691)
Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646-1716)
Leonhard Euler (1707-1783)
John Dalton (1766-1844)
Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Samuel F.B. Morse (1791-1872)
Joseph Henry (1797-1878)
James Joule (1818-1889)
Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)
James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879)
"Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the Earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance. The true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful being."
-Sir Isaac Newton
@@lizd2943 Selection can never _create_ one single trait.
Hence why I said it spreads and curtails traits. Your reading comprehension needs a lot of work. @@i7Qp4rQ
What has recently (the past 200 years) truly evolved is knowledge. Which is only possible by admitting that you do not know enough yet. This requires humility, something that I think is encouraged, even in Genesis. What is not encouraged, I must assume, is overconfidence in one's theories or findings, just because you had those all along.