Here are the studies mentioned: phe.rockefeller.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Stoeckle-Thaler-Final-reduced-002.pdf phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079610722000347?via%3Dihub
I would have to strongly disagree with the guy who said it's not the parents or the Churches fault that kids are going into colleges unprepared. It's have to say that's exactly whose fault it is. I'm not condemning them, because I am one of them. But if you have children, it's your duty to prepare them spiritually for adulthood.
Oh yeah... And that was a great video. Thank you for sharing! And I have been saying for years that evolution was dealt its last fatal blow the minute we discovered the complexity of the cell. There is no naturalistic explanation for how hundreds, thousands, even, of extremely specific chemical, information-rich, and electrical internal connections could have been organized and implemented to integrate with trillions of other cells to facet the whole of an anatomically diverse but completely functioning creature such as humans, bears, blue-footed boobies or any other creature you can name.
Whoa! These comments seem to think that Darwinism describes Evolution. "Evolution," is the fact that we are trying to explain and develop a theory. Darwinism seems to describe one small part of Evolution quite well. "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" describes one of the things that "Almost Surely" (that's a technical term) happens to some extent. I still haven't seen or heard of the theory of how "God did it!" I fully believe that God did it but I really, really want to know how God did it! I believe that we now have better science books than a 3780-ish year old, few short blurbs translated, abridged, re-translated, re-abridged, and re-re-translated to the Bible.
God created each kind with the ability to reproduce according to their kind. He designed the ability to adapt, within set parameters. And I don't think you understand how we got our Bible. Nearly all modern translations translate directly from the original Greek and Hebrew text. There's no abridgment or re translation.
@@sabhishek9289 It gets physically renewed each generation. The DNA in my body dies with me and rots. But I passed on copies to my kids, and they did the same to their kids.
@@stevepierce6467 No, the slightly deleterious mutations gets permanently fixed into the DNA and it is passed on from generation to generation. That doesn't get physically renewed. These slightly deleterious mutations cannot removed by natural selection because natural selection is blind to them. These slightly deleterious mutations will continue to accumulate until the population is unable to reproduce.
Democrats have owned science for some time, that is why it is all messed up. After a Democrat names something a Theory, they IMMEDIATELY call it a fact. After that 97% of extorted scientists agree on the new fact (let's call it global cooling, no lets call it global warming, wait a minute, lets call it CLIMATE CHANGE. Later this new FACT, all scientists MUST AGREE or they lose their incomes mostly in the form of grants, then they lose their positions, their homes, and cushy lifestyle. Kinda how we play the Climate Change game and then it is unleashed onto an unsuspecting middle and poor class as they watch their money inflate and erode. Then everywhere looks like a city in Venezuela or worse yet another Democrat city.
Wow! What a dishonest reading of a study. The study acknowledges the difficulty in understanding why evolution has these kinds of bottlenecks outside of extinction events, but it in no way, suggests a "made in six days" explanation. The study states that "nuclear" DNA accounts for the diversity. The study's author says, _"The simplest interpretation is that life is always evolving," said Stoeckle. "It is more likely that-at all times in evolution-the animals alive at that point arose relatively recently." In this view, a species only lasts a certain amount of time before it either evolves into something new or goes extinct."_ I guess they depend on viewers to either: 1. Not read the article or 2. Not be able to understand it.
Well at least this guess of yours is better than all the others " we don't know". But you still need evidence mutations could achieve more than a compost heap- in producing advanced life. Like all the transitional fossil frauds- your idea is a myth. J
@@travisbicklepopsicle I'll respond properly tonight , but for now I'll state that No1 is grossly wrong. That there are vastly more people alive today than in Darwin's time is proof of this.
Darwinism is a virus, like influenza. However your immune system gets rid of this poison, a new variant will always emerge to attack reason, logic and scientific, empirical research. It's zombie science.
@@Emiliocab47 you are correct , to be alive = to be part of Continuum = time , space and matter . Since God is not part of Continuum but the One that designed it you are correct. God can not be alive or dead God is.. same like a computer programmer when designing a game with NPC s in it is NOT part of the digital environment that he designed . it is quite simple for kids to understand this fact today but it seems a bit of a problem for those that do not understand basic coding . in short God is.. you can not ad your laws to God same way NPC can not ad NPC laws inside of the game to the programmer.. see how simple it is ? 2024 .. kids get it today super fast
Why are we mammilian? I would have expected God to have created us in our own unique class and not have to share the same category as Apes, Pigs, Sheep etc
His image is more than physical. Smart one. Who had buildings and shapes the land with ideas, expresses themselves and can guide some animals to replicate it. Knows right from wrong as animals simply exist not really knowing until humans teach them... Like an ape will rape a man and to it... it's just what it does as an animal even if they can think kinda like us. And that actually happened to a man at zoo. A dog...They just hump whatever even girl dogs do it which does nothing. Will even mate with things they can't impregnate and don't have the concept of it or just don't care.... Could even be a non living teddy bear... Humans are nothing like the animals that so many want to be equal to. People condition themselves or get conditioned to not respond to the thoughts saying stop doing that it's wrong or bad.... Animals get conditioned to be orderly and follow right as wrong may be viewed the same.. Doesn't like it but doesn't care like humans either... Camels even chew cactus needles like they don't notice. They do they just don't care it gets water and food and they can handle it. Sort of sometimes not great going through...
I'm curious. From the paper ". Several convergent lines of evidence show that mitochondrial diversity in modern humans follows from sequence uniformity followed by the accumulation of largely neutral diversity during a population expansion that began approximately 100,000 years ago. " Doesn't this 100,000 years time period conflict with the Bible's 6,000 year old world or do we ignore that part of the research paper?
@@sciencerules8525maybe it's because you don't really understand the science. The 100,000 years is arrived at by using the phylogenetic rate-they use it because they assume common ancestry with primates. When they instead use observable mutation rates in humans (as 1 of the speakers in this video clearly said), the date lands at around 5000 years ago. This was the date that mitochondrial mutation rates initially showed, but they didn't like the results (we all know why) so they decided to use the "Monkey" rate because that gave them an age they'd like But for argument's sake, the 100k age is granted because it's still a huge blow to evolutionary theory if all life emerged at the same time
@sciencerules8525 Did you just miss the part that says your science is based on assumptions were from chimps? Those papers are secular, and they won't budge from that atrocious starting point. But at least the papers show your views have to adjust significantly. Could not predict that at all!
@mirandahotspring4019 Nah it does not- because it's still a secular paper that believes were from apes and fish. Get real dude. Mutations can't make a compost heap let alone specialised life. You're oxygen depleted or something.
@sciencerules8525 Mate, I don't care what it says, that was just my comment. Validate the context. Let's call them primates. It did not occur, and so why should it be incorporated into a study result? No transitional fossils that aren't fragments of filed down frauds.
This presentation is either from ignorance or deception. The first paper mentioned does NOT teach what is called the “biblical model” here. First, it says that most modern species appear to have taken their current form around 200,000 years ago. 200,000, not 6,000-10,000. Second, it doesn’t at all say that species spontaneously popped into existence 200,000 years ago; it says that the evolutionary development of the species tested appear to have reached something of a stable equilibrium roughly 200,000 years ago. According to the paper and its authors, the modern species have evolved from progenitor species in the past, they just haven’t changed substantially in the last 200,000 years. A completely different claim than that all these species were “specially created” as separate species at the same time. The last paper focused on likewise doesn’t claim that evolution is wrong; it claims that “survival of the fittest” is an insufficient mechanism to explain the evolutionary process. It presupposes evolution as true, just says that the theory needs modification. The fact that one of the authors of the paper wrote a book about Miracles, it’s hard to imagine his motivation is pure-especially with the scope of the paper being outside of his specific scientific expertise. I am a Christian; I’m not challenging Christianity. I am, however, challenging poor representations of Biology. Evolution is not a “theory in crisis”; biologists are not struggling to preserve the theory against all evidence. This is worse than a straw-man; it’s a cotton-ball man. Finding one or two papers (papers that acknowledge evolution as a reality; mere challenging some of the details) does not discount the entire field with millions of papers. To reiterate my first statement, this is either ignorance or dishonesty. Both look terrible for Christianity. They will know you are Christ’s disciples by your love for one another… Misrepresenting your opponents and declaring that you are more enlightened on the topic than the thousands of people who have dedicated much of their life to studying it doesn’t strike anyone as “love”.
Hey, take your melodramatic comment and recognise that what's been presented is to show that the secular models are debunked. From there is can be also shown there is ample evidence for biblical history, and sounds to me as though you refute that also? Yet you love Christ? How do you feel that He referenced Noah and the flood Himself? And are you pretending there was no Adam?
@sciencerules8525 Your comment is a bunch of childish imbecile troll moves and the rest was emojis. No fact. You don't care about the context of their statements. It's what you people do- twist anything to suit your empty heads.
I must say, it is very pleasing to see a self-declared Christian standing up for truth and honesty, and pointing out the flaws in this presentation. I fully expected the scientific community to argue hard against this video, but it's a breath of fresh air to see such arguments coming from someone in the video makers' target demographic. So I praise you for being able to reject bad arguments that support your faith without rejecting your faith itself. The world needs more people like you, people who can say "this is what I firmly believe" without leaning on faulty arguments and misinterpretations to try and justify those beliefs to others.
@NettoTakashi Nothing was miss-represented but you guys did not listen to the presentation. The study is a secular one- and therefore they still think we came from primates. That view is not supported by icr. They are bringing to your attention the other half of the findings. But no mention of those new findings from you it seems. ?? Jake
@@UserRandJ Did you read the papers yourself? They both presume common ancestry (which includes humans “descended from primates”). They do not challenge Evolution itself, that is: diversification of species by allele frequency changes in populations and that shared ancestry can be mapped onto a phylogenetic tree. One paper says that most CURRENTLY EXISTING species reached a relative genetic equilibrium roughly 200,000 (not 6,000) years ago, and the other paper challenges whether natural selection is a sufficient mechanism to drive evolution. Neither of these challenge the big picture of evolutionary theory; they are filling in and modifying details of the theory. If this isn’t clear from the papers, it is possible that you aren’t trained in how to read scientific papers, which is fine. I give the people in this video the benefit of the doubt that they are; and because of that, to say that papers that PRESUPPOSE evolution actually DESTROY evolution seems incredibly dishonest.
Is this going for the record of most lies told in a single video 😂 you could take Darwin away it does not change anything.. Why are you leaving out half of the experiment.. You have left out 70% of the data from the study you quote.. As always you have cherry picked the parts you like and left out the rest.. You claim to be Christian but blatantly lie to people about everything.
How is man destroying the earth? As far as I can see we are destroying ourselves boath physically and spiritually. The spiritual is the wise of the two.
I love your faith. But keeping your eyes on Christ has to do with Moses lifting up the serpent. Now days people are worshiping the end times instead of the creator. We must worship the creator, whom we steadily look to for the forgiveness of sins, and sanctifiction of the soul. We do this patiently laboring until His return. Not stoping the labor because we supposedly know it's the end. Because we do not know when the end is and the final trumpet sounds.
Yet here you are, with 200 other trolls, gnashing your teeth as half the world is literally on fire... currency is about to go digital... and BRICS is forming just as the Bible said it would. 🤷♂
If it wasn't so serious (due to the disproportionate sway these people have over their flocks, ie sheep) their understanding of science would be hilarious.
As shown by your own link to their paper, Stoeckle and Thaler emphatically disagree with this misinterpretation of their research. They added a comment to their paper: Note added by authors December 4, 2018: This study is grounded in and strongly supports Darwinian evolution, including the understanding that all life has evolved from a common biological origin over several billion years.
I think the point is that regardless of what the scientists say, the evidence isn't showing that to be true. You can agree or disagree with the video, but that seems to be the fundamental assertion. If Science has been gripped by a religious cult, you certainly won't figure that out by asking their opinion, right? Mosts cults will say they have the truth on their side, even when they're clearly delusional, (Branch Davidians anyone?) so what people say isn't a good indicator of objective truth, even if they've been labeled as a Scientist.
@@copernicus99 Of course these evolutionists would conveniently ignore all of the evidence from this video! What else should we expect from liars for Darwin?
the creationist method is to identify some niche area that is unclear or where something is unknown and propose that not knowing something in that niche somehow disproves the theory. which is a total fallacy because what is known fully supports the theory.
"If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then, we are up for grabs for the next charlatan (political or religious) who comes rambling along." C Sagan
@@KenJackson_USThe efficacy, do they prevent, is obviously false. And to make it worse vaccines have been shown to cause damage in some. It may be a small percentage but if you're in that group it doesn't matter. And to top all that the drug manufacturers have immunity by law from damages done. Grace
Ask away, seek and you will find. Some things are unknowable. My God tells me to test all things and one way is to listen to all opposing views. Evaluate what they say with reason and common sense. Unfortunately many do not believe they have either. Blessings
You refer to evolution as "science fiction" but the evolutionary research community does not. You misrepresent the study by Stoeckle and Thaler and I am here to refute your intellectually dishonest spin of this study. How many of you that watched this video actually read the studies sited here? The first link you provide above refutes your comments entirely with the very first line: "Note added by authors December 4, 2018: This study is grounded in and strongly supports Darwinian evolution, including the understanding that all life has evolved from a common biological origin over several billion years." That's pretty clear, don't you think? And the last line from the same study: "Mitochondria drive many important processes of life. There is irony but also grandeur in this view that, precisely because they have no phenotype, synonymous codon variations in mitochondria reveal the structure of species and the mechanism of speciation." This study also concludes that most species that are alive on the earth today originated between 100,00 and 200,000 years ago. That's those that are alive today, not all that have ever been, which does not serve to support a young earth way of thinking. There is no 'evolutionary bias' in science.......there is only the ongoing effort to find truth by observation and experimentation. Even if Darwinian evolution was shown evidentially to be completely wrong it would not show the bible story of creation to be true. Evolution has nothing to do with atheism, which is simply a disbelief in any god. No rules, laws or theories are tied to this disbelief. We disbelieve because there is no demonstrable, testable evidence that a god exists, let alone created anything. Yes, I am an atheist with an inquisitive mind. When I see a video that says Darwinian evolution is dead, certainly I am interested and willing to investigate what may be new information. After watching, listening and following up by reading the studies for myself I find that you have spun this information in a very poor attempt to find evidence for your god story. Reading through other comments here I see the blind faith of believers. To those brave enough to have read my comments this far, I say go read the studies for yourself. A landslide of evidence for your belief system? Please present the empirical evidence for the six-day biblical model of creation.
I read the study near to when it first came out. I agree it isn't proof of a Creationist worldview, but it definitely makes for interesting and thought-provoking reading, because a Flood of Biblical proportions would also create the same kind of bottleneck, since God didn't require Noah to take on board every SPECIES but only "kinds" (yes, we don't know exactly what those were, but God would know, since he brought the animals to Noah, in the story), so it's quite likely that most species would have died out in the Flood. Of course, their dating doesn't align with a Bliblical flood, but there is a certain amount of circular reasoning in the mutation rate assumed from common descent with an apelike ancestor. In other words, yes I think the video creators somewhat overstate the case. At the same time, such a recent genetic bottleneck (and yes, 100-200k is VERY RECENT in the evolutionary timescale) may well be an echo of the Flood, which would have provided THE quintessential genetic bottleneck!
Is there any way you could be less melodramatic? I know, how about take the information in the context he presented it, instead of whinging about your own imaginary narrative. The study is a secular study and shows your views are thwarted, and yet you still want to bring this back to arguing over God? You have zero evidence for your views on anything, and that is why you're sooking. J
"You refer to evolution as "science fiction" but the evolutionary research community does not." - The evolutionary research community is full of researchers who can't admit evolution is hoax, because they don't want to lose their jobs and their bursaries.
@@jounisuninen A mere deflection, and an unreasonable one at that. Do you seriously believe that every evolutionary biologist around the world proposes such a hoax just to maintain their jobs? Doesn't say much for humanity's character, does it? Much like those that swear the earth is flat, believers deny mountains of demonstrable evidence to the contrary and toss out ridiculous deflections as "proof" of their position.
And it took the so called God 100s of thousands of years after man appeared to even be found in history - if God created man and he cared about the laws that man lives by, why did he remain so hidden for so long? It must not have been a big deal with God or perhaps God was never there to begin with!
@@RC6790 if you’ll read the Bible you will find out it wasn’t hundreds of thousands of years. You are trying to limit God within an evolutionary time scale and that’s not the way it happened. Yes, I know I wasn’t there to see it with my own eyes but the evidence is all around us. Finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones is proof that they are not millions of years old. Even scientists admit that soft tissue can not last for even one million years. The geologic time scale was made up out of thin air by Charles Lyell with zero evidence to back up his theory. Carbon 14 is found in the remains of animals from every geologic period. Carbon 14 is also found in coal and diamonds which are supposedly millions and billions of years old respectively. An understanding of how carbon 14 operates will demonstrate that all of these shouldn’t have any carbon 14 at all in them. Only a young age for the earth and a great flood can explain all the evidence around us.
Great video! But... The first study seems to disagree? Haven't read the study yet, but they write the following in the header: "Note added by authors December 4, 2018: This study is grounded in and strongly supports Darwinian evolution, including the understanding that all life has evolved from a common biological origin over several billion years. This work follows mainstream views of human evolution. We do not propose there was a single "Adam" or "Eve". We do not propose any catastrophic events. "
The NDE prove Consciounesse to be not a brain process. That destroys Evolutionary theory. The Consciounesse can exist outside of physical body. The organic chemistry proves that aminoacids cannot randomly build lifes relevant peptides. Never.It simply doesnt work. Miller Stanley experiment, highly regarded by secular science,never took place in the reality. The earky earth Atmosphere were never reductional. Paolo Sossi and Team have proved that after they conducted old rock analysis .
The summary on the first page says, “almost all animal species have arrived at a similar result consequent to a similar process of expansion from mitochondrial uniformity within the last 1 to several hundred thousand years.” All ANIMAL species came around 1 to several hundred thousand years. Not millions, saying humans came from fish.
@@matthewvandenelzen2337 Well . . . Not exactly. I think the study indicates the most recent common ancestor of each of the species studied, and thus a possible indication of a bottleneck, not when the species came about. Bottlenecks could be caused by a few things, including catastrophes and mass migrations. If we're looking at about one to two hundred thousand years ago, ice ages could be an explanation.
Dr. Stengler: "...if you mean there's adaptation within kinds of organisms..." Here is where there should be a definition of "kinds". What do they mean by that? Evidence shows the closest living relatives to whales are hippopotamuses. So are they the same "kind"? Are "kinds" just animals that look like each other? If that is the case, then humans must be the same "kind" as monkeys and gorillas. If looking like each other is not related to "kindness", then what are the criteria being used to determine which "kind" some animal belongs to?
@@VincentCMercandetti you are absolutely correct... woe to the inhabitants of the Earth for Satan has been cast down to you filled with rage, for he knows his time is short... Look around. Deception, violence, hate and immorality are everywhere... Christians teach many false things... They themselves are not entering the kingdom of GOD and are preventing those who are trying.
@@Mxxx-ii9bu One truth is the lake of fire🔥 is not torment for ever and ever but rather the second death where body and soul are destroyed forever... So you can stop with the synchronized swimming lessons. It will be somewhat quick and absolute. 👍
Embracing a comfortable lie ( that the universe was made JUST FOR YOU and that you'll live forever) is easier than accepting demonstrable reality that is incredible, but doesn't make us as special as you want us to be.
4:06 - “I don’t want emotional stories, fables”. The irony is beyond rich! The ultimate emotional story and fable is the Christian story! These guys are more liars for Jesus, because they are misrepresenting the science. Yet again.
"Scripture can stand by itself." Well maybe if it can explain how Jonah lived in the belly of a whale for three days. That is what started my journey to atheism at the age of ten. And don't tell me that I just wanted to deny god. At that time the nuns were telling us it was a sin to not do our homework. Three college degrees later, I will say that this was one of the more intellectually dishonest discussions I have heard.
I know Right , wouldn’t the digestive juices dissolve kill Jonah within three days. I mean if I eat corn on the cob and don’t thoroughly chew thoroughly, I see kernels within three days come out in my Doodoo!
Mark your calendar down on that prediction of "evolution dead" in 10 or 20 years. I plan to live long enough to see that not happen, just as all the many predictions of the immanent demise of evolution before failed to materialize either. As for transition forms, if the proposed God didn't want me to believe in evolution he shouldn't have created therapsids, that was just plain dumb.
Got to love how every one of the papers they cited clearly supports evolution (with the first literally being published in a journal called Human _Evolution_ ) and yet they still pretend that questions about the mechanisms and extent of evolution are enough to undermine the best-supported theory in all of biology.
Give this guy more time. . That's what darwinists need. . More time. . Like a trillion yrs to evolve. .only way their formula works. . Our creator put life here in 6 days. . Factual. . Need help or more time ??
@@nickstreeservice4454 Charles Darwin wrote _On the Origin of Species._ Not the origin of life. And while he made some speculations about life originating in "a warm little pond", he did not include them in his books, because he realized he had no evidence for them. What he did have evidence for, and that overwhelming, detailed, and falsifiable, was the evolution of life on Earth. And in the 164 years since the publication of the _Origin,_ there has been a flood of evidence from many different fields- genetics, biochemistry, paleontology, anatomy, ERVs, etc, that Darwin was right on the whole: life evolved through inherited changes (Darwin didn't know what mutations are) and natural selection. But believe what you want. I don't really care what people believe, as long as they behave nicely.
The video mentions that evolution is not evidence based, but is merely an emotional choice of people who wish to reject the idea of God. This is very true. Unfortunately, the choice to reject God is based on a lie--just like in the Garden of Eden. The person believes that the only way to find meaning and purpose and fulfillment in life is to live it apart from God. Nothing could be further from the truth. A life apart from God is a with laughter but without happiness, ...with endeavors but without purpose, ...with relationships but without love, ...with longings but without fulfillment, ...with desires but without meaning. So, the one who rejects God loses everything that they are hoping to find. As Frank Turek says, people are not really on a pursuit of truth--they're on a pursuit of happiness. But this isn't necessarily a bad thing. The desire to be happy is a good thing. So, how do you find happiness? Well, a wise person might look around and find who the people are around them who are living the most meaningful, purposeful, joyful lives--and then find out what their secret is and do that. If anyone would do that, they would find that this is found in true Christians.
Sin made us mortal, life without seeking the creator and loving Father ends for many at 73 to 78 years. If God promises life in the Spirit beyond mortality in Christ, then seeking worldly pleasures is far too short a time to have value, and since they lead to destruction, they offer no lasting value. The words of Christ and the apostles help a person throughout his life better than other beliefs, because Christ's love can save your soul and reconcile you at the bema seat. You're not under a yoke of bondage , you are not under the mosaic law if you are a gentile in the church age. These things require study with instruction.
The whole purpose of this life is to give us the opportunity to be redeemed to eternal life. People who fail to seek salvation are wasting the entire purpose of this life. They are choosing eternal death of body and soul after a short life on this troubled planet instead of eternal life in paradise, no more tears, no more pain, no more death, which they are being freely offered. You are correct, they may find some happiness in this life, but it soon ends. I think you can judge the low intellect of atheists and evolutionists by their foolish decision to choose death, whether God, from their perspective, exists or not.
So, do you really think that atheists are more joyful and live more meaningful lives than devout Christians? Do you believe the suicide rates are lower among atheists than among true Christians? Because if you do, then you have it precisely backwards. @@isidoreaerys8745
@@geraroth9313 That had nothing to do with my comment. Why should I believe everlasting life when nothing proves it.? We went up to heaven. All we saw was rocks.
Forgive me if I missed something, but I'm still confused about COI barcoding. It makes sense to me that it's useful to identify a species, but how is it used to date them? And how do they come up with a 100,000-200,000 year age for almost all the species they examined? That overshoots the creation model by quite a bit. Is there a creation science explanation for this discrepancy?
@@sciencerules8525 Thanks for the reply! Another question if you have the time: how is it that they're able to observe mutational rates in mtDNA in order to make such estimates on a longer scale? I thought the studies on bacteria mentioned in the video determined that these mutations occur (if at all) over thousands of generations which would be unobservable for organisms with longer generations.
36:08 Saint Augstine is celebrated today orthodox, non-heretical churches. It is his 'feast day'-- think of a party. Imagine Christians celebrating your life and contribution to civilisation in the year 3,700!! His nationality? -- Algerian (in modern terms).
"The fact that A chihuahua is a heavily mutated wolf is clear evidence of the veracity of evolution and natural selection." That's a lie. At 23:32 they demonstrate that variation has limits. You didn't hear that. The original dog "kind" had the genetic potential for variation within that kind to selectively separate into chihuahua's, Great Dane's, corgi's, and wolves, but they remain within the same type. Dogs will never become cats, wolves will never become possums, there are genetically defined limits to adaption. Dogs and wolves can interbreed, which defines a species type. Cat's and dogs will never interbreed, and dogs and wolves will never have gills, or wings. And a chihuahua is not a mutated wolf, a chihuahua and a wolf had a common dog like ancestor that was singularly created by God. Mutations are deadly. Dogs and wolves are related, dogs and bananas do not have a common ancestor, neither do pine trees and clams. Darwin's finches never "evolved" into anything other than finches, and there is no evidence that they descended from anything besides finches either. They show the same amount of beak variation that we find in different breeds of dogs with different shaped snouts, and it was shown that when the weather conditions changed, many of the large beaked finches interbred and reverted to medium size beak finches. That's a myth that the finches "evolved" into some other radically different type of bird. And you swallowed that myth.
@@ariasabe Sorry, secular imagination and wild speculation from people who force evidence to fit inside their materialist worldview is not fact. Grow up.
How do you make the jump from positing a creator, to The Lord Jesus Christ in one fell swoop? Isn't there a creator in Judaism, Islam, native religions?
@@TheHairyHeathen Until evolution can be proven, a mechanism is needed, it should be put in the shadows of science. Thank God creationists did the Encode Project and falsified junk dna. Genetics would still be in the stone age if not for Christians. Every time evidence comes forth that disproves evolution changes to it are made. 60 million year old blood and vessels are the latest discovery. We constantly find OOP artifacts. We find Orfan genes which have no ancestors. Fossil find after find claiming to be the Missing Link are shown to be fabrications. In geology we find immense layers of sediment in the wrong sequence. PTL
I'm 20 minutes into this and you're discussing very little about science debunking evolution. Best to stick to the topic instead of talking about evolutionists and their attitudes.
@globalcoupledances Please show me dirt becoming human. Politely while being facetious. In the creation event God made man from dirt, matter. Abiogenesis claims matter became life. Goes against the LAW OF BIOGENESIS. Scientists have been trying to make life for decades using every concoction they could imagine. Basic chemistry and entropy show this to be false. The more we know about life the bigger the problem becomes. Just the CODE OF LIFE written on DNA screams intelligent design. PTL
@johnglad5 - "dirt becoming human" is in Genesis: matter became life. Scientist just try to do the same. Not basic chemistry. Entropy has nothing to do with it. Many things are now possible, so it has to be possible. Real scientists are intelligent. So they are doing intelligent design
@@globalcoupledances Dirt did not become human, not by itself. God formed the dirt, matter, into a man and breathed life into him. Chemistry and entropy are physical laws that apply everywhere in the universe. Anything is possible, then it's possible that God created. Using your logic. Theory of information says codes only come from intelligence. The code of life came from intelligence before there was a living thing in the universe. Just like God communicated to us in the Bible.
If you have to sit in your patents house, in your childhood bedroom, admiring your subscription based computer that you don't own, and admiring your collectable unboxed pokemon collection, it is time to go get a life. Present some evidence for your views- or you're just another opinion with zero knowledge.
@mirandahotspring4019 You have a head full of lies. The paper shows they know nothing genuine in evolution. It can't just chop and change- you don't seem to care as long as you think there's no designer and creator. Take a good look at yourself. You're not related to a moth. Did chimps come from fish? I don't believe you've ever had an original thought of your own.
@@ronfox5519 He can't because evolutionists never can. Physics is the basis for all modern natural sciences. Robert Laughlin, professor of physics at Stanford University, and sharer in a Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on the fractional quantum Hall effect, describes evolution theory as ”an ideology, a logical dead end and an anti-theory”. Evolution theory is against the discoveries caught from empirical studies of natural science. According to professor Laughlin, the observations which are used to justify evolution theory are questionable at best, and at worst they are completely false. Laughlin says that empirical natural science does not need the evolution theory and the evolution theory does not get support from empirical natural science.
Newton was a creation scientist who discovered the laws of motion. Galileo discovered the motion of the earth around the sun. Faraday discovered electromagnetic induction. Need I go on. Do you therefore believe in stupid design? Do you believe that a watch could come into existence through natural promises? The consensus of scientists believed in bloodletting, junk dna, and abiogenesis. All have since been proved false.
@@jvt_redbaronspeaks4831 And we all know scientific theories becomes wrong when creationist propaganda sources claim ''it's dead''. The Dover VS Kitzmiller case had several scientists testifying. It's strange how when creationists pretend to speak about or for science it's always way, waaaaay different from what the actual scientists are saying. Strange, right?
Just the name "Institute for Creation Research" tells me that your 'research' is going to be with a fixed outcome, i.e., that it must support creationism. That is not science!
I find that one of the most compelling arguments *against* the idea of an intelligent designer (i.e. God) who created all the species as they are is the way the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve looks like in different animals. The Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve connects the brain with the muscles of the larynx. In humans it does so by going from the brain down to the chests, looping around the heart and going all the way back up again to the larynx. Why that big detor? The theory of evolution can give a perfectly conclusive explanation for this. In fish the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve connects the brain to the gills by also looping around the heart, but in fish that is in fact the shortest route. When fish went on land and evolved into amphibians they grew a neck and their gill arches turned into the larynx. A truly intelligent designer would have scrapped his old design from the fish, toss out the looping around the heart path and connect the nerve directly from brain to larynx. But that's not how evolution works. Unless there is sufficient evolutionary pressure the process of evolution never goes back and changes existing structures. Making the nerve just a bit longer is not enough of a disadvantage to do so. So that's what happened. All the way up to the giraffe, whose brain is 6 feet (1,8 meter) removed from the heart so this nerve has to be twice that long to go all the way down to the chest and then all the way back up again to reach their voice box. Intelligent design proponents can give no explanation for this insanity, except "God works in mysterious ways".
i cannot explain why the laryngeal recurrent nerve is designed the way it is. but can you explain why the fossil record does not document the evolution of this nerve from one organism to another?
@@hatchet3755 It's very, very rare that delicate soft tissue like nerves are preserved in fossils. It does happen, look up '520 million-year-old fossilised nervous system' for one example, but I'm unaware of fossil samples were this specific nerve was preserved. But when one is found I would be very surprised if it wouldn't show the nerve using the same needlessly complicated path it does in modern animals. Except for fish, where it is still the most sensible path. Edit: Look, it's good to believe in God! I do. Faith gives us the stability and hope we need in our lives. I believe God is a genius with a masterplan who laid the foundations of life billions of years ago and used the process of evolution that gloriously lead to our creation. Amazing! What I don't do is take scripture literally. The bible was written by humans about 1,900 years ago. Yes, the various authors where inspired by the Lord, but except for the ten commandments He didn't dictate to them what to write word for word. So they interpreterd His visions of Genesis as best they could with the limited knowledge they had. They didn't knew about DNA, enzymes, mutations and all the other stuff about biology humanity only discovered millennia later. They only understood _that_ He had created them, but not exactly how. For them he really did work in mysterious ways. But we know better now. That is what I believe.
@@bany512The thing is we do understand the why, because we understand the how. God used the processes of evolution to create all the plants, animals and ultimately us. Scripture says that creation was a proccess. God didn't just snap his fingers and poof, there everything was. No. Instead He commanded the earth/nature to make the animals. Inspired by the Lord the authors of the Bible wrote: "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so." (Genesis 1:24). Only the old Hebrew didn't yet have the understanding we have to today. So they couldn't understand His full meaning. We now know that God used the workings of evolution to carry out his will. At least for that part we now better understand God's creation. We no longer have to say: It happend through God's mysterious ways. The initial creation of life itself however still still eludes us. But over time we will figure this one out as well. After all He gave us the free will, curiosity and ingenuity to understand the world around us. So we shouldn't squander those gifts by getting stuck on the level of knowledge from 2,000 years ago.
@@uzul42 I am confused, you started your OP with "most compelling argument against ID" and now you are talking about theistic evolution ? which is it ? do you believe in God or not ? lastly, I dont care about any form of macro-evolution since we can not see/replicate or otherwise prove it.
It would appear many people have left comments without listening as extensive reasons and scientific studies were mentioned. But not everyone is comfortable with open discussion and evidence.
It would appear that some got as far as the first three of the points that were ridiculous about the point of "killing evolution" It didn't even dispute the facts.
these 3 papers do nothing to destroy evolutionary theory. 2 are opinion papers cleverly disguised as review papers and the other is a pop science article and we all know how accurate those can be. do better
Honesty is how Satan loses power. And maybe confessing any transgressions against others. Like, embellishing to make a point. Or... coveting those grandmothers' dishes in an estate settlement causing conflict in the family. If the follower of the Way goes to the one offended and asks for forgiveness... and restores that relationship, then the follower will have a clear conscience. This is what the Holy Spirit uses to bring us out of our flesh ways. And those who have clear consciousness will not have their faith shipwrecked. Or you can do it, man's ways, and get the new experimental shock therapy. You may forget why your conscience is bothering you, but you still feel the guilt of transgressing. Therefore, God's Word is true... guilt is a function of the spirit and not the mind.
The only thing keeping evolution alive, is the worldview that requires it to be true. That, and the fact that people have paid tens of thousands to be educated in it, and have made careers teaching it.
I don't need evidence bit I do love hearing evidence that proves athiests to be nothing more than lost son's who are using athiesm as their " distant land" out of The Father's sight
Faith is not blind. Rather, it is based on the realities that are seen, that proves the promises that are said. That is what’s straightens our Hope. So hope is the fruit of our faith. 😊❤
@@debbieburton938 do you think science can determine truth? Do you think a person like Dr Fauci can be science? You have been deluded by the great deluder
@@cjgrysen I just can't with you people 😂 science does a pretty good job at finding out the truth.. Fauci oh dear I'm not a dumb American..why do you people think everyone on the Internet is American.. It really does show the educational divide... Why are Americans so dumb compared to the rest of the world... I would honestly like to know.. I find it fascinating how one country has completely screwed up on educating the population..what is it sweatpea.. Masks?? Tell you what when you can explain barrier nursing and how it works.. You may.. May just have a argument.. The fact that you choose not to read the entire study and believe those cherry picked.. Fallacies is all I need to know about your... Opinion on anything "scientific" read a book...Last time I checked Fauci wasn't a evolutionary biologist so why you bringing him into it.. Clowns
@@cjgrysen okay here we go AGAIN.... Evolution does not depend on Darwin for a start. Darwin got many things wrong but being in the 1800s he had no way to test his theories.. He wasn't even the first to think of evolution., he was just the first to write it down.. You can remove Darwin and it changes NOTHING.. All life came at the same time this is normal it's natural and happened multiple times.. We have a very fragile ecosystem. You could have something as simple as a virus taking out a small amount and a entire ecosystem can collapse.. You are completely ignoring all the life that came before and the 1 in 10 that was here before us.. Maybe if you hid all the fossils and specimens around before modern day you may get away with it.. The actual study proved evolution if you actually bothered reading it.. You going to hide all the transitional fossils??.. In fact the people who did this study literally put in the first line.. Our study is grounded in and strongly supporters Darwins observations.. They found the older the specis tend to have a greater average difference in mitochondria DNA.. Making sense as generic adaptations tend to accumulate over time.. Which can lead groups of individuals within a species to diverge into entirely new species.. When they do mitochondria DNA is notabley different.. Mitochondria dna is hard to date they have different mutation rates from the rest of the genome.. Tracing the Linage back to one individual does not mean that individual was the only person alive at that time.. Only that the genetic lineage coalesced that it cannot be traced back further due to evolving emerging new species.. You look at a family tree you see how many people never produce and progeny. They may die young never marry or never produce male offspring..so there lineage will collapse.. Real lineages don't coalesce quickly.. Unless something out of the ordinary happens.. When they do coalesce always due to stochastic processes... The authors of this study said.. The reason for clustering within species and separation between species is a bottleneck event ( a population crash for all species that essentially reset mitochondria dna) we already know population crashes have happened throughout history.. Either from catastrophic events like the dinosaurs.. Viruses, ice ages volcanic activity ecosystem collapse.. Meaning if the ecosystem collapses other species cannot keep up with the loss of food or habitat.. Bit like a domino effect.. Also they can only really trace back humans as not enough DNA from other lifeforms to make a conclusion... So goodbye creation 👋 and also.. So where did people go before the bible.. Where did the people in valhalla, svarga, elysium, waheguru, hades, pacha, xibala, ya ha, wakan tanka, summerland, tian, Takaamanohara go once the concept of heaven came along.. Was they allowed to leave there religion's "heaven" these are from religion's before and current... Amazing isn't it.. There is ZERO evidence for your god.. The problem is YOU don't understand science... You would rather believe in some imaginary being.. Because a book written long after the events by anonymous sources tells you to.. There is evidence for all these other religions because people believed for 1000s of years before "god" came along....
And that's all you guys have. Blatant lies and wishful thinking. Why aren't these Creationists has ever published a peer review article about their "evidence"? Only talking on platforms and forums where there are no supervision, or any filtering? Funny! :D
All you need now is to hide all the fossils and specimens around before modern day life... Or you could just scream fake like you do.. In fact why did they leave out most of the study 🤔🤔🤔
Darwin was paid by his future father-in-law, an atheist, to make his 'findings'. Darwin wanted to marry his daughter, who was already the product of first cousin marriage. Yet, this so-called expert in genetics should have known what any farmer could tell us, inbreeding causes mutations harmful to the offspring. Darwin took pretty much everything from earlier evolutionists. Evo started as a religious doctrine in India.
Due to the added note of the authors to the study, seems that they themselves can't accept the outcome of their study still firmly believe to darwinian evolution despite the highly improbability of macroevolution.
Debunking Crick's idiot idea of junk dna? The irriducable complexity of cellular micro machines? Mathemathics having to be present before the universe? The calculation of the probability of a novel gene emerging from random, neo darwinian mutations, capable of describing how a functional protein?
I enjoyed the discussion, but would really enjoy a more advanced discussion of the concepts and study findings. Maybe labeled as such to alert some who would feel bogged down with that, but so that others who are interested in more genetic or biological concepts could watch them.
Yep. We need actual devil's advocate-level discussion. In a quick search I found biologos had a response to the way creationists view the first article. If we're going to cite these kinds of articles to unbelievers or even take them into account ourselves as evidence, we have to be able to dig deeper.
@@davidrobinson5180 you just have to represent the papers honestly - in which case they would be useless to creationists because they affirm evolution.
One question still needs to be answered. Actually two. First. If something can’t come from nothing then where did God come from and don’t tell me “ God was just always there” . That defeats your own argument. And secondly, What is considered a “world view”? Anything that is not Christianity... like Islam or Buddhism. Or is it Darwinism specifically?
(1) I favor emergence. I go into more detail in my Letter, but if you think of the very first thoughts of the very first ever entity to exist, it might be equivalent to... - "I" (awareness), then - "I am" (awareness of itself as existing) Then what? For higher thoughts, it would need the ability to self-reflect, and also to think about Other. But there is no Other, so this would cause, out of necessity, a kind of split, but still within the same "neural network" as it were. It would be a second "I am" that could now communicate with the first "I am." In Exodus 3, God reveals his name to Moses as: "I AM THAT I AM." This can also be translated as "I am because I am." In other words, God was the first to exist ("I am"), and he exists and is who he is because of a second "I am." This is also in perfect harmony with Christian theology, where the Word is effectively the second "I am" and becomes flesh in the form of Jesus, who said, "before Abraham existed, I am"... whereupon the Jews picked up stones to stone him. This doesn't explain what God is made of (although scripture says that he fills the heavens and the Earth, so the question is... what are the heavens and the Earth made of? 😉), but it can potentially explain the "origin" of God. This conflicts with what some Christians believe, but it's in harmony with scripture, and also explains mysteries such as the Trinity. Bottom line is, they were right to say the Word was "begotten" somehow yet not "created." This describes emergence!
28:35 "... from non-life to life is an obsolete concept ..." The dictionary is talking about a different abiogenesis and the speaker confusing this ancient belief and concept of spontaneous generation with the the abiogenesis origin of life. These are two very different concepts. Abiogenesis origin of life has not been proven but it has not been disproven either. If the speaker is honest, and since he is intelligent enough to have know the difference, he should not have blatantly confused the audience with this subterfuge.
Your comment fell on nobodies ears. Crickets are chirping. You know why? Life was designed abs created. You have a maker. But it's okay to dream. Sleep talking is funny. Sleep walking through life is sad though. Jesus is Lord and Saviour. J
"Abiogenesis origin of life has not been proven but it has not been disproven either." Wrong. Abiogenesis is scientifically proven absolutely impossible. No chance whatsoever. Because atheists do not recognize intelligent design, their "evolution" can only be based on abiogenesis. Creation rejected, abiogenesis can be the only possible footing for the atheists' imaginary evolution. There is no known third choice. However, evolutionists can't explain the possibility of abiogenesis since our world is ruled by entropy. Evolutionists/naturalists believe in the uniformitarianism i.e. the same natural laws and processes that operate in our present-day have always operated in the universe, and apply everywhere in the universe. That's obviously true ... Strangely, evolutionists/naturalists however seem to believe that in the past something could have magically changed the natural laws like the 2nd law of thermodynamics and make abiogenesis possible! The 2nd law of thermodynamics is formulated by the observation that the entropy (increasing disorder) of isolated systems, when left to spontaneous evolution, cannot decrease as the systems always arrive at a state of thermodynamic equilibrium where the entropy is highest at the given internal energy. An increase in the combined entropy of a system and its surroundings accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes. This irreversible path is unavoidably towards maximal disorder (increasing entropy). Entropy can be reversed only by using work and free energy. That's why abiogenesis is an impossibility. To put it simply: Abiotic matter can never stochastically self-organize to form functional structures (notice: clouds, sand dunes or ice crystals are neither functional nor stochastic). This again means that life can never appear from abiotic matter without a force that is not depending on the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Evolutionists like to claim that the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply in closed and open systems, only in isolated systems. They take this idea from the formulation of the 2nd law, because it in practice takes into account only the isolated systems. This however is a false interpretation. Earth is not isolated from the universe and the universe is an isolated system where the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies.
This is easy to verify. Take a cup of hot coffee and put it on the table. The heat from the cup starts immediately flow away and mix with the cooler air in the room. The room temperature similarly flows towards the cooler air outside. The equilibrium of temperature everywhere is the natural condition. Different temperatures appear where energy is used to change temperature above or below the general level. In a fridge energy is used to cool the interior, but when energy is cut off the equilibrium returns. This is exactly as the 2nd law of thermodynamics predicts. This also tells that abiogenesis is only a theoretical phenomenon never being able to happen.
Yet it somehow generates new hypotheses all the time, generates predictable and consistent results, and has never been debunked in almost 200 years of study.
@@dinohall2595 James Webb is out there showing that we are to be mocked just the way we mock Newton. No it's not predictable and it's been debunked decades ago, but it's a religion now, the white jacket guy is the new priest. BTW, the evolution hypothesis was proposed by a Catholic priest. Like I said, it's still faith.
@@silviomp The religious beliefs of the people who have proposed and studied evolution have no more bearing on its truth than their political beliefs, their ethnicities, or their taste in music. Yes, the theory produces predictable results. Phylogenetic studies consistently find similar relationships among groups of organisms using different lines of evidence, such as different nuclear genes, different mitochondrial genes, and comparatives anatomy. Flynn et al., 2005, for example, constructed the relationships among carnivorans based on three nuclear genes and three mitochondrial genes and found that (1) canids were sister to the rest of the caniforms, a clade called Arctoidea, (2) bears were sister to the rest of the arctoids, (3) pinnipeds were sister to musteloids, (4) the walrus is sister to eared seals, with true seals being sister to both of them, and (5) mustelids were sister to raccoons and ringtails in the most deeply nested clade of musteloids. All five of these results were matched exactly by Fulton & Strobeck, 2006, based on a completely different set of genes. Another example: In eukaryote phylogeny, stramenopiles, alveolates, and rhizarians are consistently recovered as a clade (SAR), having been found as such by Keeling & Burki, 2019; Strassert et al., 2019; and Strassert et al., 2021. Evolution also predicts changes we see in the fossil record should be reflected in the genetics and embryology of living animals. We have transitional fossils of legged whale ancestors leaving the land behind, and today, whale embryos briefly develop transient hind limbs and retain a vestigial pelvis after birth. We can even make predictions of what types of fossils we will find based on other lines of evolutionary evidence. Darwin himself predicted, based on morphological similarities between nonavian theropods and birds, that a bird fossil would be found with unfused wing fingers; Archaeopteryx was found just one year later. Tiktaalik, the well-known transition between fish and tetrapods, was predicted based on the fossils that were just older and younger than it, which also allowed paleontologists to correctly predict where to look for it. tl;dr Evolution makes plenty of predictions that hold up to scrutiny.
This is a false equivalency argument. There are many genuine problems with believing that the Universe and the Earth is billions of years old unlike when one believes that the Earth is only several thousands of years old. Such as the Faint Young Sun Paradox, Winding up problem (in Spiral galaxies), The short life of comets in the solar system and the lack of observational evidence for the Oort Cloud, The Origin of Magnetic fields on Earth and other celestial bodies in the Solar system, Number of supernova remnants in the Milky way galaxy etc.
At the 5.29 mark you state the study said there was no inter genetic relationship among species as you would expect with the Darwinian model. But this talk on your channel: ruclips.net/video/HHfvfgjTLDk/видео.htmlsi=XpDC5ECe6UejUPI- says at the 17.51 mark that there is an 84% similarity in DNA between humans and chimps/apes which he goes on to further explain it is impossible to evolve a human from an ape, you'd need 99% similarity. Can you please explain are you both saying the same thing because the first talk says there is no similarity.
You don't have a legitimate scientific reference. It's all contrived and hand drawn. And that's fine by you ? Which of the supposed transitional fossils are not known frauds if you search it?
It seems you don't even know what would be a "legitimate" scientific reference. Intelligent Design is not supernatural, abiogenesis and evolution instead are supernatural even to the extent of fiction. While "supernatural" explanations may be important and have merit, they are also part of science. While rejecting intelligent planning in nature, ”scientific” atheists rather choose the logically weakest option as long as it is materialistic. It tells that atheism has nothing to do with scientific thinking. True scientific thinking chooses the path of most compelling evidence, no matter where it leads. The atheist unscientific attitude means that whatever scientific evidence is presented for ID, it doesn't change the basic atheist worldview. "Life can only come from life and intelligent code can only come from intelligent mind" are compelling, proven and logical facts, telling of Intelligent Design. It doesn't mean they have any effect on the atheistic faith. The self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as Methodological Naturalism and is sometimes known as the ”scientific method." Methodological naturalism is favored by atheists, but it's not the only scientific method. In fact it is strictly taken not scientific at all, because science must not reject alternative theories for ideological reasons - not even for the atheist ideology. That’s why creationist science uses Critical Rationalism as the preferred method of scientific studies. In that method no theory is rejected for ideological reasons. We have basically two world views against each other, the naturalistic and the creationist. The scientific methods used are mostly similar in both, but the conclusions and the interpretations of obtained results may differ. Evolution theory doesn't fit into scientific thinking and one reason for it is this: "A scientific fact is the result of a repeatable careful observation or measurement by experimentation or other means, also called empirical evidence." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#In_science Evolution has never been proven by empirical evidence! Calling adaptive variation and subspecies as "evolution" does not make evolution. The Falsification Principle, proposed by Karl Popper, is a way of demarcating science from non-science. It suggests that for a theory to be considered scientific it must be able to be tested and conceivably proven false. Evolution theory has been tested in laboratories for almost 100 years and no sign of evolution has been observed. Fruit flies stay fruit flies, bacteria stay bacteria. A "too short time" is not an explanation, because flies and bacteria produce enough generations to simulate millions of evolutionary years in the slowly reproducing mammalia. Methodological naturalism is a ’ground rule’ of naturalistic science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify. - This however is not the practice in Neo-Darwinism, because evolution has never been observed, tested, replicated, and verified in a known scientific method. As a summary, one must understand that atheism is a religion which is based on the conviction that ID must not be. Atheism is on the one end of religious spectrum, involving a belief in no god, and agnosticism which holds that the existence of gods is unknown or unknowable.
Why do these supposed scientists study science if they do not believe what they are taught? Seems like a waste of time. It would be like me becoming a minister, which I can do on line, and starting a church. Even though I'm an atheist. Seems hypocritical.
6:30 *Mitochondrial can be traced back 140K years. Mitochondria can't be traced back further to prove common inheritance because it evolves mutates way to fast to prove common inheritance from another species. That doesn't prove creation 6K years ago!!! LOL. The genes of species however are conserved & do prove evolution*
5:00 *Mitochondria: there is 497 different Mitochondria types for humans. Plus different Mitochondria types for Neanderthal. Mitochondria (HyperEvolves) way too fast to prove ancestors beyond a few thousand years. Thus no carved in stone perfect design by an all knowing creator, passed on by Eve! Creation disproved*
Public education did its best to convince me that Darwin and evolution was true. However, before I even became a born again Christian I found evolution to be unscientific and ridiculous. In High School Biology class I recall my teacher giving a brief summary of how the universe and life began and he made no mention of God. I raised my hand and asked him about where God fits in and he mumbled a bit and said something like well: we can't talk about that in class. Wow, what an eye-opener that was for a teenager to hear.
@@sciencerules8525 If you want to learn the scientifically verified facts go and study science instead of listening Darwinist preachers in government financed schools.
@@sciencerules8525 "If you want to learn the scientifically verified facts..." "A scientific fact is the result of a repeatable careful observation or measurement by experimentation or other means, also called empirical evidence." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#In_science How many times has evolution been repeatedly observed or experimentally measured, getting positive empirical evidence? Answer: Not once. Evolution has been tested innumerable times, but every empirical test has proved that evolution can not happen. In a long test of 72 000 generations of bacteria the result was only more bacteria. Nothing else but bacteria. The same goes with fruit flies. During 100 years and thousands of generations of empirical tests simulating millions of years of mammalian evolution - no evolution, no new body plans, no new species, only intraspecific variation.
Woke up one day to find out, that my whole life I have been lied too. By the very construct said to protect us. I will put my faith into Jesus, the father, and the spirits. One that has never lied, encapable of lie, and loves me. The master of the universe loves ME! Opposed to a world that sees me insignificant mutation in the world of survial of the fittest. A very sad religion shoved down our throat as facts. Bless the scientists coming forth to show the tangebility of God's word! Hossana to the king forever and ever , in Jesus's name I pray amen!!!!
If you took twelve evolutionists who didn't know how to type, and blindfolded them and let them peck at keyboards for billions and billions of years, would they eventually type out Darwin's Origin of Species? Just a thought.
Heb 4:2 kjv : For unto us was the gospel preached as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
So heres the thing, if an individual has truly had a Born Again Experience, it is Not Possible for that individual to Ever be dissuaded from The Faith by any Scientific Claims. It simply Is Not Possible. I Know this from personal experience. Being Saved or Born Again cannot, and does not, come about from intellectual knowledge. An individual can come to believe and accept the scientific evidence in Intelligent Design.... And still not be Saved.
Not just America. “Higher Criticism” infected theology in the 1700s, especially Germany. Answers in Genesis has great breakdown of origins of evolution, deep time, etc.
m(__)m The universe was created in 1976. It is too hot to make a universe at the time of the big bang. It can be created at anytime. God is slow and easy. A human can do a lot with their lifespan. I got the hunk. God got the chunk. Everyone else can have the rest. That is song spirit of '76 by The Alarm.
Not only am I old enough to remember 20 years ago when creationists say evolution would be forgotten in 20 years, I'm old enough to remember 40 years ago when creationists said evolution would be gone in 20 years.
You should understand who is controlling society, thats Freemasons/Luciferians (hint they believe Lucifer is a Man&Woman in one). Just saying ... MACRO-Evolution is dead if you look at evidence, there is no known process that would add new information to our genom. Information is always lost/destroyed "Genetic Entropy". We dont evolve into getting better and better (that idea actually comes from occultism and not science) the opposite is true which also lines up with the Bible of a fallen world. How do you explain the symbiosis in nature like bees and flowers or our gut bacteria we need to break down food etc. They had to be there at the same time. What about sheep, they are so dumb they cant survive without a Shepherd and they evolved for millions or billions of years alone ? Not a chance. What was first ? Chicken or egg ? DNA or proteins (DNA is made out of proteins but DNA is the instruction manual) ? DNA or RNA (reparing DNA, without it you would mutate very quickly and be useless) ? The discovery of DNA in itself is already a big proof against MACRO-Evolution. It is like a language or code and for that you need a smart mind behind it. Darwin didnt have a clue about such things at his time, he also thought that cells are very simple but thats also not true they are actually as complex as a space shuttle. In the end MACRO-Evolution is simply the extrapolation of real science which we call and Darwin has observed "MICRO-Evolution". But the term is already misleading, its only variation in the same kind of lifeform in its limits of its genes (black, white, tall, small etc. and thats all). Big Bang also violates the first law of physics, matter cant create itself thats impossible.
Funny, I've been following the creation evolution debate for a while, and I don't remember anyone ever saying that. It amazes me that evolution has held on in spite of the obvious fatal flaws, but I've never heard anyone claim it'll be gone in 20 years.
I love it when apologists reference the "new science" or the "New Evidence," and then they don't elaborate on it. That's because there isn't any. It's one of those dog whistle terms they use because Christians respond to it pretty reliably.
(((^^;) We need to popularize the idea of getting God married. Getting God married is a good use of someone's time. You are supposed to make the environment intelligent so no God is needed. We fixed the video and audio for the best experience possible. Cameras are supernatural and all of them captured 3D that not a gimmick. The audio loud don't make violence so has depth. Nobody has to buy anything for it to work.
The paper your referring Called “ Why mitochondria defines species” states at the top: Note added by authors December 4, 2018: This study is grounded in and strongly supports Darwinian evolution, including the understanding that all life has evolved from a common biological origin over several billion years. This work follows mainstream views of human evolution. We do not propose there was a single "Adam" or “Eve” or catastrophic event, so where in the article does it show the Biblical creation story
That is just saying that the fact that these findings about evolution are coming to light does not automatically mean the belief in God. The middle way is better than just saying everything about revolution is wrong and vice versa
They don't care, they simply jerry-pick any scientific study to make their claims that "evolution is dead". They've been making that claim for years. They thought they "killed" evolution when they came up with their Intelligence Design claim. Which went know where & was proven to be simply creationism to be used to push the Christian god (and only the Christian god) in schools.
(__) The artifacts of a swastika is flobby with stazzle and a jumble that tumbled. That is a skeleton, human heart, signature, internal combustion engine, animation of the big bang and a wave. That unify the universe you can't do with math. A swastika is the simplest rendering possible for those artifacts and needs to be saved.
I feel bad for those who somehow need evolution to not be true to reassure them about their God beliefs. There's no reason you can't keep your faith without having to lie to yourself. Just the title of the video should send up a red flag about the messengers. They can only either be lying or neck deep in delusion. Evolution is a fact, and it has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not there's a God.
I've already spotted the first sign of intellectual dishonesty just in the first couple minutes. "Molecules to man" refers to abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is in no way an aspect of the theory of evolution. It is a separate hypothesis to explain a separate phenomenon. The conflation is not an accident. It is intentional in order to confuse the viewer
@@vikingskuld How do I find the video interview with the scientists that did the study where they say they were surprised by the results? Is it on RUclips?
@@teslasnek sorry not that I'm aware of. I have seen others talk about this paper and say the same thing. Your best bet is to look the paper up and read it yourself. Doing that allows you to know what's in it and that there is no exaggerated claims. It's going to take you what a half hour to go through it. You can skip around in it if your in a hurry then come back and read it. Do you honestly think a group of evolutionists would make it so easy for you they would read that part out and basically make evolution look bad? Sorry they are not typically going to do that. I'm just glad they have been as honest with the results as they have been. Yet several in that community say well its just a bottle neck and they obviously didn't go back far enough in time to see the common ancestors. That it's not going to show them over a few thousand years. So it's all about mindset noone is going to change beliefs by one paper. Best if luck to you
@@vikingskuld Dude logic science 101 Law of contradiction A=B impossible contradiction Non life caused the effect of life? Really? Lets check A non life caused evolved = B the contradiction effect of life As a scientist I must test a hypothesis for A=B impossible contradiction that will render the hypothesis as impossible not possible A non intelligence caused evolved = B the contradiction effect of intelligence Dude, logic science 101 doesn't lie. A no brain organisms prokaryotes caused evolved = B brainiac organisms like a worm EVOLUTION is a impossible contradiction, really dude? You believe EVOLUTION is true contradiction? Your intelligence was caused by intelligence not non intelligence.😍👍😎
I noticed a lot more comments come from " science " believers even though this is a Creatuonust channel. You'd think they would have better things to do than debunking religion like saving the climate or getting their eighth booster shot.
Here are the studies mentioned:
phe.rockefeller.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Stoeckle-Thaler-Final-reduced-002.pdf
phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079610722000347?via%3Dihub
Thank you!
I would have to strongly disagree with the guy who said it's not the parents or the Churches fault that kids are going into colleges unprepared.
It's have to say that's exactly whose fault it is.
I'm not condemning them, because I am one of them.
But if you have children, it's your duty to prepare them spiritually for adulthood.
Oh yeah... And that was a great video. Thank you for sharing!
And I have been saying for years that evolution was dealt its last fatal blow the minute we discovered the complexity of the cell.
There is no naturalistic explanation for how hundreds, thousands, even, of extremely specific chemical, information-rich, and electrical internal connections could have been organized and implemented to integrate with trillions of other cells to facet the whole of an anatomically diverse but completely functioning creature such as humans, bears, blue-footed boobies or any other creature you can name.
laugh·a·ble
so ludicrous as to be amusing.
@@lederereddy Yep. The cell is NANOTECHNOLOGY.
Whoa! These comments seem to think that Darwinism describes Evolution. "Evolution," is the fact that we are trying to explain and develop a theory. Darwinism seems to describe one small part of Evolution quite well. "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" describes one of the things that "Almost Surely" (that's a technical term) happens to some extent. I still haven't seen or heard of the theory of how "God did it!" I fully believe that God did it but I really, really want to know how God did it! I believe that we now have better science books than a 3780-ish year old, few short blurbs translated, abridged, re-translated, re-abridged, and re-re-translated to the Bible.
God created each kind with the ability to reproduce according to their kind. He designed the ability to adapt, within set parameters. And I don't think you understand how we got our Bible. Nearly all modern translations translate directly from the original Greek and Hebrew text. There's no abridgment or re translation.
You're a fool
See gutsick gibbon for the rebuttal. This guy is bunk.
How does DNA survive 125 million years? Does Gutsick Gibbons refute that?
@@sabhishek9289 read Dawkins , the selfish gene
@@jonathanjackson5255 Just tell me how does DNA survive for 125 million years.
@@sabhishek9289 It gets physically renewed each generation. The DNA in my body dies with me and rots. But I passed on copies to my kids, and they did the same to their kids.
@@stevepierce6467 No, the slightly deleterious mutations gets permanently fixed into the DNA and it is passed on from generation to generation. That doesn't get physically renewed. These slightly deleterious mutations cannot removed by natural selection because natural selection is blind to them. These slightly deleterious mutations will continue to accumulate until the population is unable to reproduce.
I was a member of this Institute before 30years ago. I admire your program .God bless you !!
Democrats have owned science for some time,
that is why it is all messed up.
After a Democrat names something a Theory,
they IMMEDIATELY call it a fact.
After that 97% of extorted scientists agree on the
new fact (let's call it global cooling, no lets call it
global warming, wait a minute, lets call it CLIMATE CHANGE.
Later this new FACT, all scientists MUST AGREE
or they lose their incomes mostly in the form of
grants, then they lose their positions, their homes, and cushy lifestyle.
Kinda how we play the Climate Change game and then it is
unleashed onto an unsuspecting middle and poor class
as they watch their money inflate and erode.
Then everywhere looks like a city in Venezuela
or worse yet another Democrat city.
Wow! What a dishonest reading of a study. The study acknowledges the difficulty in understanding why evolution has these kinds of bottlenecks outside of extinction events, but it in no way, suggests a "made in six days" explanation. The study states that "nuclear" DNA accounts for the diversity.
The study's author says, _"The simplest interpretation is that life is always evolving," said Stoeckle.
"It is more likely that-at all times in evolution-the animals alive at that point arose relatively recently."
In this view, a species only lasts a certain amount of time before it either evolves into something new or goes extinct."_
I guess they depend on viewers to either: 1. Not read the article or 2. Not be able to understand it.
Well at least this guess of yours is better than all the others " we don't know". But you still need evidence mutations could achieve more than a compost heap- in producing advanced life. Like all the transitional fossil frauds- your idea is a myth.
J
I would even say Darwinian Evolution isn't dead, because it was never alive to begin with. i.e something can't be dead if it never lived.
@@travisbicklepopsicle I'll respond properly tonight , but for now I'll state that No1 is grossly wrong. That there are vastly more people alive today than in Darwin's time is proof of this.
Darwinism is a virus, like influenza. However your immune system gets rid of this poison, a new variant will always emerge to attack reason, logic and scientific, empirical research. It's zombie science.
A bit like god then
@@Emiliocab47 you are correct , to be alive = to be part of Continuum = time , space and matter . Since God is not part of Continuum but the One that designed it you are correct. God can not be alive or dead God is.. same like a computer programmer when designing a game with NPC s in it is NOT part of the digital environment that he designed . it is quite simple for kids to understand this fact today but it seems a bit of a problem for those that do not understand basic coding . in short God is.. you can not ad your laws to God same way NPC can not ad NPC laws inside of the game to the programmer.. see how simple it is ? 2024 .. kids get it today super fast
@@jankopandza1072 Made up mumbo jumbo
Why are we mammilian? I would have expected God to have created us in our own unique class and not have to share the same category as Apes, Pigs, Sheep etc
Yeah, why wouldn't God ask any of us "What we think about how we should be created?".
"God created man in his own image"...apparently
@@Emiliocab47 beauty is in the eye of the beholder, apparently
His image is more than physical. Smart one.
Who had buildings and shapes the land with ideas, expresses themselves and can guide some animals to replicate it.
Knows right from wrong as animals simply exist not really knowing until humans teach them...
Like an ape will rape a man and to it... it's just what it does as an animal even if they can think kinda like us. And that actually happened to a man at zoo.
A dog...They just hump whatever even girl dogs do it which does nothing.
Will even mate with things they can't impregnate and don't have the concept of it or just don't care.... Could even be a non living teddy bear...
Humans are nothing like the animals that so many want to be equal to.
People condition themselves or get conditioned to not respond to the thoughts saying stop doing that it's wrong or bad....
Animals get conditioned to be orderly and follow right as wrong may be viewed the same.. Doesn't like it but doesn't care like humans either...
Camels even chew cactus needles like they don't notice. They do they just don't care it gets water and food and they can handle it. Sort of sometimes not great going through...
@@Blazeww Some animals look after their young, mourn their dead, look after their injured family/group. They don't need a God to do these things
I'm curious. From the paper ". Several convergent lines of evidence show that mitochondrial diversity in modern humans follows from sequence uniformity followed by the accumulation of largely neutral diversity during a population expansion that began approximately 100,000 years ago. " Doesn't this 100,000 years time period conflict with the Bible's 6,000 year old world or do we ignore that part of the research paper?
@@sciencerules8525maybe it's because you don't really understand the science.
The 100,000 years is arrived at by using the phylogenetic rate-they use it because they assume common ancestry with primates.
When they instead use observable mutation rates in humans (as 1 of the speakers in this video clearly said), the date lands at around 5000 years ago. This was the date that mitochondrial mutation rates initially showed, but they didn't like the results (we all know why) so they decided to use the "Monkey" rate because that gave them an age they'd like
But for argument's sake, the 100k age is granted because it's still a huge blow to evolutionary theory if all life emerged at the same time
@easyminimal_6130 Funny they refuse to consider the basis for their science is contrived.
@sciencerules8525 Did you just miss the part that says your science is based on assumptions were from chimps? Those papers are secular, and they won't budge from that atrocious starting point. But at least the papers show your views have to adjust significantly.
Could not predict that at all!
@mirandahotspring4019 Nah it does not- because it's still a secular paper that
believes were from apes and fish.
Get real dude. Mutations can't make a compost heap let alone specialised life. You're oxygen depleted or something.
@sciencerules8525 Mate, I don't care what it says, that was just my comment. Validate the context. Let's call them primates. It did not occur, and so why should it be incorporated into a study result? No transitional fossils that aren't fragments of filed down frauds.
15:12 *The soot stained caste iron Kettle calls the stainless steel pan black*
This presentation is either from ignorance or deception.
The first paper mentioned does NOT teach what is called the “biblical model” here. First, it says that most modern species appear to have taken their current form around 200,000 years ago. 200,000, not 6,000-10,000. Second, it doesn’t at all say that species spontaneously popped into existence 200,000 years ago; it says that the evolutionary development of the species tested appear to have reached something of a stable equilibrium roughly 200,000 years ago. According to the paper and its authors, the modern species have evolved from progenitor species in the past, they just haven’t changed substantially in the last 200,000 years. A completely different claim than that all these species were “specially created” as separate species at the same time.
The last paper focused on likewise doesn’t claim that evolution is wrong; it claims that “survival of the fittest” is an insufficient mechanism to explain the evolutionary process. It presupposes evolution as true, just says that the theory needs modification. The fact that one of the authors of the paper wrote a book about Miracles, it’s hard to imagine his motivation is pure-especially with the scope of the paper being outside of his specific scientific expertise.
I am a Christian; I’m not challenging Christianity. I am, however, challenging poor representations of Biology. Evolution is not a “theory in crisis”; biologists are not struggling to preserve the theory against all evidence. This is worse than a straw-man; it’s a cotton-ball man. Finding one or two papers (papers that acknowledge evolution as a reality; mere challenging some of the details) does not discount the entire field with millions of papers. To reiterate my first statement, this is either ignorance or dishonesty. Both look terrible for Christianity. They will know you are Christ’s disciples by your love for one another… Misrepresenting your opponents and declaring that you are more enlightened on the topic than the thousands of people who have dedicated much of their life to studying it doesn’t strike anyone as “love”.
Hey, take your melodramatic comment and recognise that what's been presented is to show that the secular models are debunked. From there is can be also shown there is ample evidence for biblical history, and sounds to me as though you refute that also? Yet you love Christ? How do you feel that He referenced Noah and the flood Himself? And are you pretending there was no Adam?
@sciencerules8525 Your comment is a bunch of childish imbecile troll moves and the rest was emojis. No fact. You don't care about the context of their statements. It's what you people do- twist anything to suit your empty heads.
I must say, it is very pleasing to see a self-declared Christian standing up for truth and honesty, and pointing out the flaws in this presentation. I fully expected the scientific community to argue hard against this video, but it's a breath of fresh air to see such arguments coming from someone in the video makers' target demographic. So I praise you for being able to reject bad arguments that support your faith without rejecting your faith itself. The world needs more people like you, people who can say "this is what I firmly believe" without leaning on faulty arguments and misinterpretations to try and justify those beliefs to others.
@NettoTakashi Nothing was miss-represented but you guys did not listen to the presentation. The study is a secular one- and therefore they still think we came from primates. That view is not supported by icr. They are bringing to your attention the other half of the findings. But no mention of those new findings from you it seems. ??
Jake
@@UserRandJ Did you read the papers yourself? They both presume common ancestry (which includes humans “descended from primates”). They do not challenge Evolution itself, that is: diversification of species by allele frequency changes in populations and that shared ancestry can be mapped onto a phylogenetic tree. One paper says that most CURRENTLY EXISTING species reached a relative genetic equilibrium roughly 200,000 (not 6,000) years ago, and the other paper challenges whether natural selection is a sufficient mechanism to drive evolution. Neither of these challenge the big picture of evolutionary theory; they are filling in and modifying details of the theory.
If this isn’t clear from the papers, it is possible that you aren’t trained in how to read scientific papers, which is fine. I give the people in this video the benefit of the doubt that they are; and because of that, to say that papers that PRESUPPOSE evolution actually DESTROY evolution seems incredibly dishonest.
Is this going for the record of most lies told in a single video 😂 you could take Darwin away it does not change anything.. Why are you leaving out half of the experiment.. You have left out 70% of the data from the study you quote.. As always you have cherry picked the parts you like and left out the rest.. You claim to be Christian but blatantly lie to people about everything.
Why dont he say that dinos are just lil lizards that are 1000 yrs old to be dino size. . That 1000 yrs cant happen in evolution. .
Thanks for the likes !! Glad someone understands!! And it's only christan people that can see this. . Bet ya !!
Everything under the Sun goes back to the beginning: Creation. Now, evil man is destroying the Earth...just as foretold. Keep your eyes on Jesus.
I and my father are one.
@@JessicaSunlight Amen💕
How is man destroying the earth? As far as I can see we are destroying ourselves boath physically and spiritually. The spiritual is the wise of the two.
I love your faith. But keeping your eyes on Christ has to do with Moses lifting up the serpent. Now days people are worshiping the end times instead of the creator. We must worship the creator, whom we steadily look to for the forgiveness of sins, and sanctifiction of the soul. We do this patiently laboring until His return. Not stoping the labor because we supposedly know it's the end. Because we do not know when the end is and the final trumpet sounds.
@@87DAM1987 I'm not stopping. Are you?
Every day I work for my Master. We are to watch and wait: that does not necessarily denote complacency (?)
Ignorance is one thing, but you're deliberately lying, because you know your faith is based in fantasy fiction.
Yet here you are, with 200 other trolls, gnashing your teeth as half the world is literally on fire... currency is about to go digital... and BRICS is forming just as the Bible said it would. 🤷♂
Funny.
If it wasn't so serious (due to the disproportionate sway these people have over their flocks, ie sheep) their understanding of science would be hilarious.
Christianity is based on history. Naturalism, evolution, are philosophy.
As shown by your own link to their paper, Stoeckle and Thaler emphatically disagree with this misinterpretation of their research. They added a comment to their paper:
Note added by authors December 4, 2018: This study is grounded in and strongly supports Darwinian evolution, including the understanding that all life has evolved from a common biological origin over several billion years.
I think the point is that regardless of what the scientists say, the evidence isn't showing that to be true. You can agree or disagree with the video, but that seems to be the fundamental assertion. If Science has been gripped by a religious cult, you certainly won't figure that out by asking their opinion, right? Mosts cults will say they have the truth on their side, even when they're clearly delusional, (Branch Davidians anyone?) so what people say isn't a good indicator of objective truth, even if they've been labeled as a Scientist.
Of course these Creationists would conveniently ignore all of that! What else should we expect from liars for Jesus?
@@copernicus99 Of course these evolutionists would conveniently ignore all of the evidence from this video! What else should we expect from liars for Darwin?
They're hiring cherry pickers in southern Oregon. Evolutionists welcome.
Of course they disagree with the conclusion. He simply discussed their findings. The facts.
the creationist method is to identify some niche area that is unclear or where something is unknown and propose that not knowing something in that niche somehow disproves the theory. which is a total fallacy because what is known fully supports the theory.
"If we are not able to ask skeptical questions, to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of those in authority, then, we are up for grabs for the next charlatan (political or religious) who comes rambling along." C Sagan
True. Except that we're not allowed to question the efficacy of covid vaccines.
@@KenJackson_USThe efficacy, do they prevent, is obviously false. And to make it worse vaccines have been shown to cause damage in some. It may be a small percentage but if you're in that group it doesn't matter. And to top all that the drug manufacturers have immunity by law from damages done. Grace
Ask away, seek and you will find. Some things are unknowable. My God tells me to test all things and one way is to listen to all opposing views. Evaluate what they say with reason and common sense. Unfortunately many do not believe they have either. Blessings
It’s too bad Carl didn’t take his own advice.
There is a difference between skepticism and "Skepticism."
The first is healthy thinking, the second is the religion of nihilist humanism.
Today the pastors are about tithing and being popular, it’s sad that they have set aside the power of the word or of God. Thanks for sharing.
What Church do you go to? I'm looking for a good Church.
You refer to evolution as "science fiction" but the evolutionary research community does not. You misrepresent the study by Stoeckle and Thaler and I am here to refute your intellectually dishonest spin of this study. How many of you that watched this video actually read the studies sited here? The first link you provide above refutes your comments entirely with the very first line: "Note added by authors December 4, 2018: This study is grounded in and strongly supports Darwinian evolution, including the understanding that all life has evolved from a common biological origin over several billion years." That's pretty clear, don't you think? And the last line from the same study: "Mitochondria drive many important processes of life. There is irony but also grandeur in this view that, precisely because they have no phenotype, synonymous codon variations in mitochondria reveal the structure of species and the mechanism of speciation." This study also concludes that most species that are alive on the earth today originated between 100,00 and 200,000 years ago. That's those that are alive today, not all that have ever been, which does not serve to support a young earth way of thinking. There is no 'evolutionary bias' in science.......there is only the ongoing effort to find truth by observation and experimentation. Even if Darwinian evolution was shown evidentially to be completely wrong it would not show the bible story of creation to be true. Evolution has nothing to do with atheism, which is simply a disbelief in any god. No rules, laws or theories are tied to this disbelief. We disbelieve because there is no demonstrable, testable evidence that a god exists, let alone created anything.
Yes, I am an atheist with an inquisitive mind. When I see a video that says Darwinian evolution is dead, certainly I am interested and willing to investigate what may be new information. After watching, listening and following up by reading the studies for myself I find that you have spun this information in a very poor attempt to find evidence for your god story. Reading through other comments here I see the blind faith of believers. To those brave enough to have read my comments this far, I say go read the studies for yourself. A landslide of evidence for your belief system? Please present the empirical evidence for the six-day biblical model of creation.
I read the study near to when it first came out. I agree it isn't proof of a Creationist worldview, but it definitely makes for interesting and thought-provoking reading, because a Flood of Biblical proportions would also create the same kind of bottleneck, since God didn't require Noah to take on board every SPECIES but only "kinds" (yes, we don't know exactly what those were, but God would know, since he brought the animals to Noah, in the story), so it's quite likely that most species would have died out in the Flood.
Of course, their dating doesn't align with a Bliblical flood, but there is a certain amount of circular reasoning in the mutation rate assumed from common descent with an apelike ancestor.
In other words, yes I think the video creators somewhat overstate the case. At the same time, such a recent genetic bottleneck (and yes, 100-200k is VERY RECENT in the evolutionary timescale) may well be an echo of the Flood, which would have provided THE quintessential genetic bottleneck!
Is there any way you could be less melodramatic? I know, how about take the information in the context he presented it, instead of whinging about your own imaginary narrative. The study is a secular study and shows your views are thwarted, and yet you still want to bring this back to arguing over God? You have zero evidence for your views on anything, and that is why you're sooking. J
"You refer to evolution as "science fiction" but the evolutionary research community does not." - The evolutionary research community is full of researchers who can't admit evolution is hoax, because they don't want to lose their jobs and their bursaries.
@@jounisuninen A mere deflection, and an unreasonable one at that. Do you seriously believe that every evolutionary biologist around the world proposes such a hoax just to maintain their jobs? Doesn't say much for humanity's character, does it? Much like those that swear the earth is flat, believers deny mountains of demonstrable evidence to the contrary and toss out ridiculous deflections as "proof" of their position.
Authors notes: despite contradictory evidence we still hold our personal beliefs. Peak science
Hahahaha! Sorry, evolution is true. I know you don't like it, but reality is that thing that doesn't go away even when you stop believing in it...
Keep clinging to that godless religion! Reality is waiting for you when you're ready to accept it!
🌺 Jesus, your Presence here, filling up the inner sphere. Life is now a sacred flow, God Vision we on all bestow. 🌺
These people are, at best, misinterpreting the studies they reference and, at worst, deliberately misleading you.
Refute their interpretation then.
It’s only taken 4,000 years for science to start catching up with Gods word.
And it took the so called God 100s of thousands of years after man appeared to even be found in history - if God created man and he cared about the laws that man lives by, why did he remain so hidden for so long? It must not have been a big deal with God or perhaps God was never there to begin with!
@@RC6790 if you’ll read the Bible you will find out it wasn’t hundreds of thousands of years. You are trying to limit God within an evolutionary time scale and that’s not the way it happened.
Yes, I know I wasn’t there to see it with my own eyes but the evidence is all around us. Finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones is proof that they are not millions of years old. Even scientists admit that soft tissue can not last for even one million years.
The geologic time scale was made up out of thin air by Charles Lyell with zero evidence to back up his theory. Carbon 14 is found in the remains of animals from every geologic period. Carbon 14 is also found in coal and diamonds which are supposedly millions and billions of years old respectively. An understanding of how carbon 14 operates will demonstrate that all of these shouldn’t have any carbon 14 at all in them. Only a young age for the earth and a great flood can explain all the evidence around us.
@@RC6790 You have the wrong basis. Man was created only 6000 years ago.
@@jounisuninen That is one of the silliest statements ever. There is zero evidence for such a claim.
@@RC6790 If you call DNA -evidence as zero ... Then nobody can help you I guess.
So much funding, yet still creationists don't seem to be able to find one flaw in evolution that creationism can fix.
Great video! But...
The first study seems to disagree? Haven't read the study yet, but they write the following in the header:
"Note added by authors December 4, 2018: This study is grounded in and strongly supports Darwinian evolution,
including the understanding that all life has evolved from a common biological origin over several billion years.
This work follows mainstream views of human evolution. We do not propose there was a single "Adam" or
"Eve". We do not propose any catastrophic events. "
Authors notes: Despite contradictory evidence we still hold our personal beliefs.
This is peak evolutionary science.
😂😂😂
The NDE prove Consciounesse to be not a brain process. That destroys Evolutionary theory. The Consciounesse can exist outside of physical body.
The organic chemistry proves that aminoacids cannot randomly build lifes relevant peptides. Never.It simply doesnt work.
Miller Stanley experiment, highly regarded by secular science,never took place in the reality. The earky earth Atmosphere were never reductional. Paolo Sossi and Team have proved that after they conducted old rock analysis .
The summary on the first page says, “almost all animal species have arrived at a similar result consequent to a similar process of expansion from mitochondrial uniformity within the last 1 to several hundred thousand years.”
All ANIMAL species came around 1 to several hundred thousand years. Not millions, saying humans came from fish.
@@matthewvandenelzen2337 Well . . . Not exactly. I think the study indicates the most recent common ancestor of each of the species studied, and thus a possible indication of a bottleneck, not when the species came about. Bottlenecks could be caused by a few things, including catastrophes and mass migrations. If we're looking at about one to two hundred thousand years ago, ice ages could be an explanation.
Dr. Stengler: "...if you mean there's adaptation within kinds of organisms..." Here is where there should be a definition of "kinds". What do they mean by that? Evidence shows the closest living relatives to whales are hippopotamuses. So are they the same "kind"? Are "kinds" just animals that look like each other? If that is the case, then humans must be the same "kind" as monkeys and gorillas. If looking like each other is not related to "kindness", then what are the criteria being used to determine which "kind" some animal belongs to?
Embracing the lie is easier than accepting a coming Judgement.
All these Creationists lie.
One would think God would disapprove of lies - even when they are in His name!.
😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@VincentCMercandetti you are absolutely correct... woe to the inhabitants of the Earth for Satan has been cast down to you filled with rage, for he knows his time is short... Look around. Deception, violence, hate and immorality are everywhere... Christians teach many false things... They themselves are not entering the kingdom of GOD and are preventing those who are trying.
@@Mxxx-ii9bu One truth is the lake of fire🔥 is not torment for ever and ever but rather the second death where body and soul are destroyed forever... So you can stop with the synchronized swimming lessons. It will be somewhat quick and absolute. 👍
Embracing a comfortable lie ( that the universe was made JUST FOR YOU and that you'll live forever) is easier than accepting demonstrable reality that is incredible, but doesn't make us as special as you want us to be.
4:06 - “I don’t want emotional stories, fables”. The irony is beyond rich! The ultimate emotional story and fable is the Christian story! These guys are more liars for Jesus, because they are misrepresenting the science. Yet again.
"Scripture can stand by itself." Well maybe if it can explain how Jonah lived in the belly of a whale for three days. That is what started my journey to atheism at the age of ten.
And don't tell me that I just wanted to deny god. At that time the nuns were telling us it was a sin to not do our homework. Three college degrees later, I will say that this was one of the more intellectually dishonest discussions I have heard.
I would advise seeking answers from God, before big noting yourself and trolling creation science. J
@@UserRandJ I agree, college degrees mean nothing if you can convince yourself that gods are going to give you answers.
I know Right , wouldn’t the digestive juices dissolve kill Jonah within three days. I mean if I eat corn on the cob and don’t thoroughly chew thoroughly, I see kernels within three days come out in my Doodoo!
@@mrgod679 Yellow submarine I guess?
@@mrgod679 😁
Mark your calendar down on that prediction of "evolution dead" in 10 or 20 years. I plan to live long enough to see that not happen, just as all the many predictions of the immanent demise of evolution before failed to materialize either. As for transition forms, if the proposed God didn't want me to believe in evolution he shouldn't have created therapsids, that was just plain dumb.
Got to love how every one of the papers they cited clearly supports evolution (with the first literally being published in a journal called Human _Evolution_ ) and yet they still pretend that questions about the mechanisms and extent of evolution are enough to undermine the best-supported theory in all of biology.
Hey, if the facts aren't on your side, you need to be "creative".
Give this guy more time. . That's what darwinists need. . More time. . Like a trillion yrs to evolve. .only way their formula works. . Our creator put life here in 6 days. . Factual. . Need help or more time ??
@@nickstreeservice4454 Ah, yes, a creation myth so factual that all observable evidence refutes it lol.
@@dinohall2595 which story book do read ?? 160 yr old darwins "orgin of life" ?? Story. . No fact. . Nova is fact. . Let there be light. .
@@nickstreeservice4454 Charles Darwin wrote _On the Origin of Species._ Not the origin of life. And while he made some speculations about life originating in "a warm little pond", he did not include them in his books, because he realized he had no evidence for them. What he did have evidence for, and that overwhelming, detailed, and falsifiable, was the evolution of life on Earth.
And in the 164 years since the publication of the _Origin,_ there has been a flood of evidence from many different fields- genetics, biochemistry, paleontology, anatomy, ERVs, etc, that Darwin was right on the whole: life evolved through inherited changes (Darwin didn't know what mutations are) and natural selection.
But believe what you want. I don't really care what people believe, as long as they behave nicely.
"E. coli is still E. coli"
The creationist movement hasn't learnt a lot the last 20 years.
The video mentions that evolution is not evidence based, but is merely an emotional choice of people who wish to reject the idea of God. This is very true.
Unfortunately, the choice to reject God is based on a lie--just like in the Garden of Eden. The person believes that the only way to find meaning and purpose and fulfillment in life is to live it apart from God. Nothing could be further from the truth.
A life apart from God is a with laughter but without happiness,
...with endeavors but without purpose,
...with relationships but without love,
...with longings but without fulfillment,
...with desires but without meaning.
So, the one who rejects God loses everything that they are hoping to find.
As Frank Turek says, people are not really on a pursuit of truth--they're on a pursuit of happiness. But this isn't necessarily a bad thing. The desire to be happy is a good thing.
So, how do you find happiness? Well, a wise person might look around and find who the people are around them who are living the most meaningful, purposeful, joyful lives--and then find out what their secret is and do that. If anyone would do that, they would find that this is found in true Christians.
You’ve got it precisely backwards. That is called projection
@isidoreaerys8745 Your belief in science is short lived # "we don't know"
Sin made us mortal, life without seeking the creator and loving Father ends for many at 73 to 78 years.
If God promises life in the Spirit beyond mortality in Christ, then seeking worldly pleasures is far too short a time to have value, and since they lead to destruction, they offer no lasting value.
The words of Christ and the apostles help a person throughout his life better than other beliefs, because Christ's love can save your soul and reconcile you at the bema seat.
You're not under a yoke of bondage , you are not under the mosaic law if you are a gentile in the church age.
These things require study with instruction.
The whole purpose of this life is to give us the opportunity to be redeemed to eternal life.
People who fail to seek salvation are wasting the entire purpose of this life. They are choosing eternal death of body and soul after a short life on this troubled planet instead of eternal life in paradise, no more tears, no more pain, no more death, which they are being freely offered. You are correct, they may find some happiness in this life, but it soon ends. I think you can judge the low intellect of atheists and evolutionists by their foolish decision to choose death, whether God, from their perspective, exists or not.
So, do you really think that atheists are more joyful and live more meaningful lives than devout Christians? Do you believe the suicide rates are lower among atheists than among true Christians? Because if you do, then you have it precisely backwards. @@isidoreaerys8745
🤔. This video is a religious video trying to disprove a theory that is anti-religion. That is a conflict of interest.
soon u will be asking urself "why u rejected eternal life"
@@geraroth9313 That had nothing to do with my comment.
Why should I believe everlasting life when nothing proves it.? We went up to heaven. All we saw was rocks.
Forgive me if I missed something, but I'm still confused about COI barcoding. It makes sense to me that it's useful to identify a species, but how is it used to date them? And how do they come up with a 100,000-200,000 year age for almost all the species they examined? That overshoots the creation model by quite a bit. Is there a creation science explanation for this discrepancy?
@@sciencerules8525
Thanks for the reply! Another question if you have the time: how is it that they're able to observe mutational rates in mtDNA in order to make such estimates on a longer scale? I thought the studies on bacteria mentioned in the video determined that these mutations occur (if at all) over thousands of generations which would be unobservable for organisms with longer generations.
@@sciencerules8525
I see. Thanks again!
It's because the people who conducted the study believe we came from primates. Once you ignore that their data shows evolution is a myth.
36:08 Saint Augstine is celebrated today orthodox, non-heretical churches. It is his 'feast day'-- think of a party. Imagine Christians celebrating your life and contribution to civilisation in the year 3,700!! His nationality? -- Algerian (in modern terms).
@@sciencerules8525You said it, you're an ape.😂
Wikipedia "Escherichia coli" it is clear that evolution had taken place
The fact that A chihuahua is a heavily mutated wolf is clear evidence of the veracity of evolution and natural selection.
"The fact that A chihuahua is a heavily mutated wolf is clear evidence of the veracity of evolution and natural selection." That's a lie. At 23:32 they demonstrate that variation has limits. You didn't hear that. The original dog "kind" had the genetic potential for variation within that kind to selectively separate into chihuahua's, Great Dane's, corgi's, and wolves, but they remain within the same type. Dogs will never become cats, wolves will never become possums, there are genetically defined limits to adaption. Dogs and wolves can interbreed, which defines a species type. Cat's and dogs will never interbreed, and dogs and wolves will never have gills, or wings. And a chihuahua is not a mutated wolf, a chihuahua and a wolf had a common dog like ancestor that was singularly created by God. Mutations are deadly. Dogs and wolves are related, dogs and bananas do not have a common ancestor, neither do pine trees and clams. Darwin's finches never "evolved" into anything other than finches, and there is no evidence that they descended from anything besides finches either. They show the same amount of beak variation that we find in different breeds of dogs with different shaped snouts, and it was shown that when the weather conditions changed, many of the large beaked finches interbred and reverted to medium size beak finches. That's a myth that the finches "evolved" into some other radically different type of bird. And you swallowed that myth.
@user_James_Foard - No, these mutations are mainly in the non coding part of the genome.
@@user_James_Foard bless your heart.
That is nothing more than variation within a kind. Anything outside of that is wild speculation.
@@ariasabe Sorry, secular imagination and wild speculation from people who force evidence to fit inside their materialist worldview is not fact. Grow up.
Micro evolution IS evolution in shorter time scales. There is no difference except in these deluded mjnds.
Amen ICR! The ministries provided by creationists are vital and crucial to leading people to Christ 🙏🙏🙏
How do you make the jump from positing a creator, to The Lord Jesus Christ in one fell swoop?
Isn't there a creator in Judaism, Islam, native religions?
Thanks as always ICR. Your videos are extremely helpful.
@@TheHairyHeathenMuch truth was divulged in this video. It would be wise to make conclusions from it.
@@TheHairyHeathen Until evolution can be proven, a mechanism is needed, it should be put in the shadows of science. Thank God creationists did the Encode Project and falsified junk dna. Genetics would still be in the stone age if not for Christians.
Every time evidence comes forth that disproves evolution changes to it are made. 60 million year old blood and vessels are the latest discovery. We constantly find OOP artifacts. We find Orfan genes which have no ancestors. Fossil find after find claiming to be the Missing Link are shown to be fabrications. In geology we find immense layers of sediment in the wrong sequence. PTL
I'm 20 minutes into this and you're discussing very little about science debunking evolution. Best to stick to the topic instead of talking about evolutionists and their attitudes.
The deeper they go into the building blocks of life the more complicated those building blocks become.
@@JewonastickAnd follow the science of chemistry to the logical conclusion, abiogenesis is impossible.
@johnglad5 - human from dirt looks like abiogenesis. So it is possible
@globalcoupledances Please show me dirt becoming human. Politely while being facetious. In the creation event God made man from dirt, matter.
Abiogenesis claims matter became life. Goes against the LAW OF BIOGENESIS.
Scientists have been trying to make life for decades using every concoction they could imagine. Basic chemistry and entropy show this to be false. The more we know about life the bigger the problem becomes.
Just the CODE OF LIFE written on DNA screams intelligent design. PTL
@johnglad5 - "dirt becoming human" is in Genesis: matter became life. Scientist just try to do the same. Not basic chemistry. Entropy has nothing to do with it. Many things are now possible, so it has to be possible. Real scientists are intelligent. So they are doing intelligent design
@@globalcoupledances Dirt did not become human, not by itself. God formed the dirt, matter, into a man and breathed life into him. Chemistry and entropy are physical laws that apply everywhere in the universe.
Anything is possible, then it's possible that God created. Using your logic.
Theory of information says codes only come from intelligence. The code of life came from intelligence before there was a living thing in the universe. Just like God communicated to us in the Bible.
If you have to lie to support your beliefs, it is time to get new beliefs.
If you have to sit in your patents house, in your childhood bedroom, admiring your subscription based computer that you don't own, and admiring your collectable unboxed pokemon collection, it is time to go get a life. Present some evidence for your views- or you're just another opinion with zero knowledge.
I wish I could give multiple thumbs up to this. What a fantastic episode and what an encouragement!
@mirandahotspring4019 You have a head full of lies. The paper shows they know nothing genuine in evolution. It can't just chop and change- you don't seem to care as long as you think there's no designer and creator.
Take a good look at yourself. You're not related to a moth. Did chimps come from fish?
I don't believe you've ever had an original thought of your own.
@@Moist._Robot how so?
@@Moist._Robot
So tell us what the truth is.....
@@ronfox5519 He can't because evolutionists never can.
Physics is the basis for all modern natural sciences. Robert Laughlin, professor of physics at Stanford University, and sharer in a Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on the fractional quantum Hall effect, describes evolution theory as ”an ideology, a logical dead end and an anti-theory”. Evolution theory is against the discoveries caught from empirical studies of natural science.
According to professor Laughlin, the observations which are used to justify evolution theory are questionable at best, and at worst they are completely false. Laughlin says that empirical natural science does not need the evolution theory and the evolution theory does not get support from empirical natural science.
Thumbs up lies?
Evolutionary theory is a process of the universe.
All Gods evolve according to the needs of society
Creation science and intelligent design was debunk in 2005, Dover vs. Kitzmiller. A real court case.
Newton was a creation scientist who discovered the laws of motion. Galileo discovered the motion of the earth around the sun. Faraday discovered electromagnetic induction. Need I go on.
Do you therefore believe in stupid design? Do you believe that a watch could come into existence through natural promises?
The consensus of scientists believed in bloodletting, junk dna, and abiogenesis. All have since been proved false.
Cause we all know "science" is what a lawyer decides. 🙄
@@jvt_redbaronspeaks4831 And we all know scientific theories becomes wrong when creationist propaganda sources claim ''it's dead''. The Dover VS Kitzmiller case had several scientists testifying. It's strange how when creationists pretend to speak about or for science it's always way, waaaaay different from what the actual scientists are saying. Strange, right?
How exactly were they debunked? I want details.
@@jvt_redbaronspeaks4831 It wasn't ''a lawyer". It was lawyers, judges and dozens of testifying scientists.
Just the name "Institute for Creation Research" tells me that your 'research' is going to be with a fixed outcome, i.e., that it must support creationism. That is not science!
And yet you do need actual evidence of some kind- have you found any? Is Lucy genuine since it had a baboon bone in it?
I find that one of the most compelling arguments *against* the idea of an intelligent designer (i.e. God) who created all the species as they are is the way the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve looks like in different animals.
The Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve connects the brain with the muscles of the larynx. In humans it does so by going from the brain down to the chests, looping around the heart and going all the way back up again to the larynx. Why that big detor? The theory of evolution can give a perfectly conclusive explanation for this. In fish the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve connects the brain to the gills by also looping around the heart, but in fish that is in fact the shortest route. When fish went on land and evolved into amphibians they grew a neck and their gill arches turned into the larynx. A truly intelligent designer would have scrapped his old design from the fish, toss out the looping around the heart path and connect the nerve directly from brain to larynx. But that's not how evolution works. Unless there is sufficient evolutionary pressure the process of evolution never goes back and changes existing structures. Making the nerve just a bit longer is not enough of a disadvantage to do so. So that's what happened. All the way up to the giraffe, whose brain is 6 feet (1,8 meter) removed from the heart so this nerve has to be twice that long to go all the way down to the chest and then all the way back up again to reach their voice box. Intelligent design proponents can give no explanation for this insanity, except "God works in mysterious ways".
i cannot explain why the laryngeal recurrent nerve is designed the way it is. but can you explain why the fossil record does not document the evolution of this nerve from one organism to another?
@@hatchet3755 It's very, very rare that delicate soft tissue like nerves are preserved in fossils. It does happen, look up '520 million-year-old fossilised nervous system' for one example, but I'm unaware of fossil samples were this specific nerve was preserved. But when one is found I would be very surprised if it wouldn't show the nerve using the same needlessly complicated path it does in modern animals. Except for fish, where it is still the most sensible path.
Edit: Look, it's good to believe in God! I do. Faith gives us the stability and hope we need in our lives. I believe God is a genius with a masterplan who laid the foundations of life billions of years ago and used the process of evolution that gloriously lead to our creation. Amazing!
What I don't do is take scripture literally. The bible was written by humans about 1,900 years ago. Yes, the various authors where inspired by the Lord, but except for the ten commandments He didn't dictate to them what to write word for word. So they interpreterd His visions of Genesis as best they could with the limited knowledge they had. They didn't knew about DNA, enzymes, mutations and all the other stuff about biology humanity only discovered millennia later. They only understood _that_ He had created them, but not exactly how. For them he really did work in mysterious ways. But we know better now. That is what I believe.
not understanding a design choice and not having any design are two different things, OP
@@bany512The thing is we do understand the why, because we understand the how. God used the processes of evolution to create all the plants, animals and ultimately us. Scripture says that creation was a proccess. God didn't just snap his fingers and poof, there everything was. No. Instead He commanded the earth/nature to make the animals. Inspired by the Lord the authors of the Bible wrote: "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so." (Genesis 1:24). Only the old Hebrew didn't yet have the understanding we have to today. So they couldn't understand His full meaning. We now know that God used the workings of evolution to carry out his will. At least for that part we now better understand God's creation. We no longer have to say: It happend through God's mysterious ways.
The initial creation of life itself however still still eludes us. But over time we will figure this one out as well. After all He gave us the free will, curiosity and ingenuity to understand the world around us. So we shouldn't squander those gifts by getting stuck on the level of knowledge from 2,000 years ago.
@@uzul42 I am confused, you started your OP with "most compelling argument against ID" and now you are talking about theistic evolution ? which is it ? do you believe in God or not ?
lastly, I dont care about any form of macro-evolution since we can not see/replicate or otherwise prove it.
How can someone just sit there and lie like that?
That's what religion is good for, it teaches to lie into the face of others.
Bravo.
It would appear many people have left comments without listening as extensive reasons and scientific studies were mentioned. But not everyone is comfortable with open discussion and evidence.
It would appear many people left comments without actually reading the study... Not just the parts they picked out
It would appear that some got as far as the first three of the points that were ridiculous about the point of "killing evolution" It didn't even dispute the facts.
I tried but still couldn't find any useful stuff.
these 3 papers do nothing to destroy evolutionary theory. 2 are opinion papers cleverly disguised as review papers and the other is a pop science article and we all know how accurate those can be. do better
Honesty is how Satan loses power. And maybe confessing any transgressions against others. Like, embellishing to make a point. Or... coveting those grandmothers' dishes in an estate settlement causing conflict in the family. If the follower of the Way goes to the one offended and asks for forgiveness... and restores that relationship, then the follower will have a clear conscience. This is what the Holy Spirit uses to bring us out of our flesh ways. And those who have clear consciousness will not have their faith shipwrecked. Or you can do it, man's ways, and get the new experimental shock therapy. You may forget why your conscience is bothering you, but you still feel the guilt of transgressing. Therefore, God's Word is true... guilt is a function of the spirit and not the mind.
It's amazing that your so called "scientific papers" don't show up in any pier reviewed journals.
Amazing how many 'peer reviewed' journals retract thier articles despite being 'peer reviewed'
So great, thank you, shared bigly!
Sad to see such dishonesty and self-deception.
The only thing keeping evolution alive, is the worldview that requires it to be true. That, and the fact that people have paid tens of thousands to be educated in it, and have made careers teaching it.
@@sciencerules8525 Yawn… more clichés. Do better, bud.
Wonder what shark or alligator mitochondria would show? Not a lot of evolution in the last 200 thousand years, I'll bet.
@@wooddoc5956 That, and no relation 😎
@@sciencerules8525 Cool story, bro.
@sciencerules8525 You kids are hilarious. Someday you will need to get a life. Not off to a good start.
I do not need evidence, but it's always nice to be supported in our belief ;-)
I don't need evidence bit I do love hearing evidence that proves athiests to be nothing more than lost son's who are using athiesm as their " distant land" out of The Father's sight
Amen!!!!
Faith is not blind. Rather, it is based on the realities that are seen, that proves the promises that are said. That is what’s straightens our Hope. So hope is the fruit of our faith. 😊❤
@@michaela.kelley7823Atheist here, doing just fine in that far away land.
Oh, and you really got to see or read something besides the INSTITUTE for CREATION RESEARCH!!!
Excellent. Thank you
One does so enjoy these comedy routines
Great video. R.I.P. evolution.
Yea it's easy to convince people when you leave out 75% of a study 😂 my god you people are seriously hilarious
@@debbieburton938 Evolution is a pagan religion wrapped in pseudoscience.
@@debbieburton938 do you think science can determine truth? Do you think a person like Dr Fauci can be science? You have been deluded by the great deluder
@@cjgrysen I just can't with you people 😂 science does a pretty good job at finding out the truth.. Fauci oh dear I'm not a dumb American..why do you people think everyone on the Internet is American.. It really does show the educational divide... Why are Americans so dumb compared to the rest of the world... I would honestly like to know.. I find it fascinating how one country has completely screwed up on educating the population..what is it sweatpea.. Masks?? Tell you what when you can explain barrier nursing and how it works.. You may.. May just have a argument.. The fact that you choose not to read the entire study and believe those cherry picked.. Fallacies is all I need to know about your... Opinion on anything "scientific" read a book...Last time I checked Fauci wasn't a evolutionary biologist so why you bringing him into it.. Clowns
@@cjgrysen okay here we go AGAIN.... Evolution does not depend on Darwin for a start. Darwin got many things wrong but being in the 1800s he had no way to test his theories.. He wasn't even the first to think of evolution., he was just the first to write it down.. You can remove Darwin and it changes NOTHING.. All life came at the same time this is normal it's natural and happened multiple times.. We have a very fragile ecosystem. You could have something as simple as a virus taking out a small amount and a entire ecosystem can collapse.. You are completely ignoring all the life that came before and the 1 in 10 that was here before us.. Maybe if you hid all the fossils and specimens around before modern day you may get away with it.. The actual study proved evolution if you actually bothered reading it.. You going to hide all the transitional fossils??.. In fact the people who did this study literally put in the first line.. Our study is grounded in and strongly supporters Darwins observations.. They found the older the specis tend to have a greater average difference in mitochondria DNA.. Making sense as generic adaptations tend to accumulate over time.. Which can lead groups of individuals within a species to diverge into entirely new species.. When they do mitochondria DNA is notabley different.. Mitochondria dna is hard to date they have different mutation rates from the rest of the genome.. Tracing the Linage back to one individual does not mean that individual was the only person alive at that time.. Only that the genetic lineage coalesced that it cannot be traced back further due to evolving emerging new species.. You look at a family tree you see how many people never produce and progeny. They may die young never marry or never produce male offspring..so there lineage will collapse.. Real lineages don't coalesce quickly.. Unless something out of the ordinary happens.. When they do coalesce always due to stochastic processes... The authors of this study said.. The reason for clustering within species and separation between species is a bottleneck event ( a population crash for all species that essentially reset mitochondria dna) we already know population crashes have happened throughout history.. Either from catastrophic events like the dinosaurs.. Viruses, ice ages volcanic activity ecosystem collapse.. Meaning if the ecosystem collapses other species cannot keep up with the loss of food or habitat.. Bit like a domino effect.. Also they can only really trace back humans as not enough DNA from other lifeforms to make a conclusion... So goodbye creation 👋 and also.. So where did people go before the bible.. Where did the people in valhalla, svarga, elysium, waheguru, hades, pacha, xibala, ya ha, wakan tanka, summerland, tian, Takaamanohara go once the concept of heaven came along.. Was they allowed to leave there religion's "heaven" these are from religion's before and current... Amazing isn't it.. There is ZERO evidence for your god.. The problem is YOU don't understand science... You would rather believe in some imaginary being.. Because a book written long after the events by anonymous sources tells you to.. There is evidence for all these other religions because people believed for 1000s of years before "god" came along....
It was dead a long time ago but it was being covered up so they didn't need to change the text books.
And that's all you guys have. Blatant lies and wishful thinking.
Why aren't these Creationists has ever published a peer review article about their "evidence"?
Only talking on platforms and forums where there are no supervision, or any filtering?
Funny! :D
All animal life arose at the same time, ... well, Shazam! -who knew? 😅
/The sun has set on evolution...
All you need now is to hide all the fossils and specimens around before modern day life... Or you could just scream fake like you do.. In fact why did they leave out most of the study 🤔🤔🤔
Science fiction! That’s exactly what Darwin’s theory is!
Darwin was paid by his future father-in-law, an atheist, to make his 'findings'. Darwin wanted to marry his daughter, who was already the product of first cousin marriage. Yet, this so-called expert in genetics should have known what any farmer could tell us, inbreeding causes mutations harmful to the offspring. Darwin took pretty much everything from earlier evolutionists. Evo started as a religious doctrine in India.
Due to the added note of the authors to the study, seems that they themselves can't accept the outcome of their study still firmly believe to darwinian evolution despite the highly improbability of macroevolution.
Any novel testable predictions made by any faith that science didn’t already do?
Debunking Crick's idiot idea of junk dna? The irriducable complexity of cellular micro machines? Mathemathics having to be present before the universe? The calculation of the probability of a novel gene emerging from random, neo darwinian mutations, capable of describing how a functional protein?
I enjoyed the discussion, but would really enjoy a more advanced discussion of the concepts and study findings. Maybe labeled as such to alert some who would feel bogged down with that, but so that others who are interested in more genetic or biological concepts could watch them.
I'm certain we can find the study online. I plan on reading it for myself. I think he said it was from The Journal of Human Evolution from 2018.
they can't afford to go into detail, because that would expose their dishonesty. They are lying. They are not representing the science accurately.
@@melanielinkous8746 they are pinned in the comments
Yep. We need actual devil's advocate-level discussion. In a quick search I found biologos had a response to the way creationists view the first article. If we're going to cite these kinds of articles to unbelievers or even take them into account ourselves as evidence, we have to be able to dig deeper.
@@davidrobinson5180
you just have to represent the papers honestly - in which case they would be useless to creationists because they affirm evolution.
One question still needs to be answered. Actually two. First. If something can’t come from nothing then where did God come from and don’t tell me “ God was just always there” . That defeats your own argument. And secondly, What is considered a “world view”? Anything that is not Christianity... like Islam or Buddhism. Or is it Darwinism specifically?
(1) I favor emergence. I go into more detail in my Letter, but if you think of the very first thoughts of the very first ever entity to exist, it might be equivalent to...
- "I" (awareness), then
- "I am" (awareness of itself as existing)
Then what? For higher thoughts, it would need the ability to self-reflect, and also to think about Other. But there is no Other, so this would cause, out of necessity, a kind of split, but still within the same "neural network" as it were. It would be a second "I am" that could now communicate with the first "I am."
In Exodus 3, God reveals his name to Moses as: "I AM THAT I AM."
This can also be translated as "I am because I am."
In other words, God was the first to exist ("I am"), and he exists and is who he is because of a second "I am."
This is also in perfect harmony with Christian theology, where the Word is effectively the second "I am" and becomes flesh in the form of Jesus, who said, "before Abraham existed, I am"... whereupon the Jews picked up stones to stone him.
This doesn't explain what God is made of (although scripture says that he fills the heavens and the Earth, so the question is... what are the heavens and the Earth made of? 😉), but it can potentially explain the "origin" of God.
This conflicts with what some Christians believe, but it's in harmony with scripture, and also explains mysteries such as the Trinity. Bottom line is, they were right to say the Word was "begotten" somehow yet not "created." This describes emergence!
Christian is one world view.
That was terrific! Thank you so much.
BS lying for GOD.😕😕
28:35 "... from non-life to life is an obsolete concept ..."
The dictionary is talking about a different abiogenesis and the speaker confusing this ancient belief and concept of spontaneous generation with the the abiogenesis origin of life. These are two very different concepts. Abiogenesis origin of life has not been proven but it has not been disproven either. If the speaker is honest, and since he is intelligent enough to have know the difference, he should not have blatantly confused the audience with this subterfuge.
Your comment fell on nobodies ears. Crickets are chirping.
You know why? Life was designed abs created. You have a maker.
But it's okay to dream. Sleep talking is funny. Sleep walking through life is sad though. Jesus is Lord and Saviour. J
"Abiogenesis origin of life has not been proven but it has not been disproven either." Wrong. Abiogenesis is scientifically proven absolutely impossible. No chance whatsoever.
Because atheists do not recognize intelligent design, their "evolution" can only be based on abiogenesis. Creation rejected, abiogenesis can be the only possible footing for the atheists' imaginary evolution. There is no known third choice. However, evolutionists can't explain the possibility of abiogenesis since our world is ruled by entropy.
Evolutionists/naturalists believe in the uniformitarianism i.e. the same natural laws and processes that operate in our present-day have always operated in the universe, and apply everywhere in the universe. That's obviously true ... Strangely, evolutionists/naturalists however seem to believe that in the past something could have magically changed the natural laws like the 2nd law of thermodynamics and make abiogenesis possible!
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is formulated by the observation that the entropy (increasing disorder) of isolated systems, when left to spontaneous evolution, cannot decrease as the systems always arrive at a state of thermodynamic equilibrium where the entropy is highest at the given internal energy. An increase in the combined entropy of a system and its surroundings accounts for the irreversibility of natural processes. This irreversible path is unavoidably towards maximal disorder (increasing entropy). Entropy can be reversed only by using work and free energy. That's why abiogenesis is an impossibility.
To put it simply:
Abiotic matter can never stochastically self-organize to form functional structures (notice: clouds, sand dunes or ice crystals are neither functional nor stochastic). This again means that life can never appear from abiotic matter without a force that is not depending on the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Evolutionists like to claim that the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply in closed and open systems, only in isolated systems. They take this idea from the formulation of the 2nd law, because it in practice takes into account only the isolated systems. This however is a false interpretation. Earth is not isolated from the universe and the universe is an isolated system where the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies.
This is easy to verify. Take a cup of hot coffee and put it on the table. The heat from the cup starts immediately flow away and mix with the cooler air in the room. The room temperature similarly flows towards the cooler air outside. The equilibrium of temperature everywhere is the natural condition. Different temperatures appear where energy is used to change temperature above or below the general level. In a fridge energy is used to cool the interior, but when energy is cut off the equilibrium returns. This is exactly as the 2nd law of thermodynamics predicts. This also tells that abiogenesis is only a theoretical phenomenon never being able to happen.
Evolution can't be dead because it was never alive. It's just a hypothesis, not even a theory. It's still faith.
Yet it somehow generates new hypotheses all the time, generates predictable and consistent results, and has never been debunked in almost 200 years of study.
@@dinohall2595 James Webb is out there showing that we are to be mocked just the way we mock Newton. No it's not predictable and it's been debunked decades ago, but it's a religion now, the white jacket guy is the new priest. BTW, the evolution hypothesis was proposed by a Catholic priest. Like I said, it's still faith.
@@silviomp The religious beliefs of the people who have proposed and studied evolution have no more bearing on its truth than their political beliefs, their ethnicities, or their taste in music.
Yes, the theory produces predictable results. Phylogenetic studies consistently find similar relationships among groups of organisms using different lines of evidence, such as different nuclear genes, different mitochondrial genes, and comparatives anatomy.
Flynn et al., 2005, for example, constructed the relationships among carnivorans based on three nuclear genes and three mitochondrial genes and found that (1) canids were sister to the rest of the caniforms, a clade called Arctoidea, (2) bears were sister to the rest of the arctoids, (3) pinnipeds were sister to musteloids, (4) the walrus is sister to eared seals, with true seals being sister to both of them, and (5) mustelids were sister to raccoons and ringtails in the most deeply nested clade of musteloids. All five of these results were matched exactly by Fulton & Strobeck, 2006, based on a completely different set of genes.
Another example: In eukaryote phylogeny, stramenopiles, alveolates, and rhizarians are consistently recovered as a clade (SAR), having been found as such by Keeling & Burki, 2019; Strassert et al., 2019; and Strassert et al., 2021.
Evolution also predicts changes we see in the fossil record should be reflected in the genetics and embryology of living animals. We have transitional fossils of legged whale ancestors leaving the land behind, and today, whale embryos briefly develop transient hind limbs and retain a vestigial pelvis after birth.
We can even make predictions of what types of fossils we will find based on other lines of evolutionary evidence. Darwin himself predicted, based on morphological similarities between nonavian theropods and birds, that a bird fossil would be found with unfused wing fingers; Archaeopteryx was found just one year later. Tiktaalik, the well-known transition between fish and tetrapods, was predicted based on the fossils that were just older and younger than it, which also allowed paleontologists to correctly predict where to look for it.
tl;dr Evolution makes plenty of predictions that hold up to scrutiny.
These guys are basically flat earthers
The Earth IS flat; otherwise you wouldn't be able to play football😂...
Nah, you'll be able to think for yourself when you leave kindergarden.
A flat earth, as far fetched as that is, is much more plausible then that humans evolved from chemicals over billions of years.
This is a false equivalency argument. There are many genuine problems with believing that the Universe and the Earth is billions of years old unlike when one believes that the Earth is only several thousands of years old. Such as the Faint Young Sun Paradox, Winding up problem (in Spiral galaxies), The short life of comets in the solar system and the lack of observational evidence for the Oort Cloud, The Origin of Magnetic fields on Earth and other celestial bodies in the Solar system, Number of supernova remnants in the Milky way galaxy etc.
At the 5.29 mark you state the study said there was no inter genetic relationship among species as you would expect with the Darwinian model.
But this talk on your channel:
ruclips.net/video/HHfvfgjTLDk/видео.htmlsi=XpDC5ECe6UejUPI-
says at the 17.51 mark that there is an 84% similarity in DNA between humans and chimps/apes which he goes on to further explain it is impossible to evolve a human from an ape, you'd need 99% similarity.
Can you please explain are you both saying the same thing because the first talk says there is no similarity.
I’m guessing these guys are only trying to convince Christians, the Bible is not a legitimate scientific reference. 😂
You don't have a legitimate scientific reference. It's all contrived and hand drawn. And that's fine by you ? Which of the supposed transitional fossils are not known frauds if you search it?
I'm guessing you don't want to really know what the Bible has to say about anything.
It seems you don't even know what would be a "legitimate" scientific reference.
Intelligent Design is not supernatural, abiogenesis and evolution instead are supernatural even to the extent of fiction. While "supernatural" explanations may be important and have merit, they are also part of science.
While rejecting intelligent planning in nature, ”scientific” atheists rather choose the logically weakest option as long as it is materialistic. It tells that atheism has nothing to do with scientific thinking. True scientific thinking chooses the path of most compelling evidence, no matter where it leads. The atheist unscientific attitude means that whatever scientific evidence is presented for ID, it doesn't change the basic atheist worldview.
"Life can only come from life and intelligent code can only come from intelligent mind" are compelling, proven and logical facts, telling of Intelligent Design. It doesn't mean they have any effect on the atheistic faith.
The self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as Methodological Naturalism and is sometimes known as the ”scientific method." Methodological naturalism is favored by atheists, but it's not the only scientific method. In fact it is strictly taken not scientific at all, because science must not reject alternative theories for ideological reasons - not even for the atheist ideology.
That’s why creationist science uses Critical Rationalism as the preferred method of scientific studies. In that method no theory is rejected for ideological reasons.
We have basically two world views against each other, the naturalistic and the creationist. The scientific methods used are mostly similar in both, but the conclusions and the interpretations of obtained results may differ.
Evolution theory doesn't fit into scientific thinking and one reason for it is this: "A scientific fact is the result of a repeatable careful observation or measurement by experimentation or other means, also called empirical evidence." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#In_science Evolution has never been proven by empirical evidence! Calling adaptive variation and subspecies as "evolution" does not make evolution.
The Falsification Principle, proposed by Karl Popper, is a way of demarcating science from non-science. It suggests that for a theory to be considered scientific it must be able to be tested and conceivably proven false. Evolution theory has been tested in laboratories for almost 100 years and no sign of evolution has been observed. Fruit flies stay fruit flies, bacteria stay bacteria. A "too short time" is not an explanation, because flies and bacteria produce enough generations to simulate millions of evolutionary years in the slowly reproducing mammalia.
Methodological naturalism is a ’ground rule’ of naturalistic science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify. - This however is not the practice in Neo-Darwinism, because evolution has never been observed, tested, replicated, and verified in a known scientific method.
As a summary, one must understand that atheism is a religion which is based on the conviction that ID must not be. Atheism is on the one end of religious spectrum, involving a belief in no god, and agnosticism which holds that the existence of gods is unknown or unknowable.
Why do these supposed scientists study science if they do not believe what they are taught? Seems like a waste of time. It would be like me becoming a minister, which I can do on line, and starting a church. Even though I'm an atheist. Seems hypocritical.
What can you do? If you want to hear some alternative for the atheistic gospel, you must go to a private school and not all can afford it.
That was the ultimate way to start our Saturday, thanks ICR. God Bless
6:30 *Mitochondrial can be traced back 140K years. Mitochondria can't be traced back further to prove common inheritance because it evolves mutates way to fast to prove common inheritance from another species. That doesn't prove creation 6K years ago!!! LOL. The genes of species however are conserved & do prove evolution*
Appreciate this content, equipping Christians with scientific studies to share with others....
None of which indicate that the scientific theory of evolution ''is dead'' like this propaganda communicated.
5:00 *Mitochondria: there is 497 different Mitochondria types for humans. Plus different Mitochondria types for Neanderthal. Mitochondria (HyperEvolves) way too fast to prove ancestors beyond a few thousand years. Thus no carved in stone perfect design by an all knowing creator, passed on by Eve! Creation disproved*
Public education did its best to convince me that Darwin and evolution was true. However, before I even became a born again Christian I found evolution to be unscientific and ridiculous. In High School Biology class I recall my teacher giving a brief summary of how the universe and life began and he made no mention of God. I raised my hand and asked him about where God fits in and he mumbled a bit and said something like well: we can't talk about that in class. Wow, what an eye-opener that was for a teenager to hear.
Fake story or idiotic teacher?
@sciencerules8525 Still living with your parents and playing pokemon it seems. Wow
@@sciencerules8525 Except # " we don't know" is not evidence you can be proud of either.
@@sciencerules8525 If you want to learn the scientifically verified facts go and study science instead of listening Darwinist preachers in government financed schools.
@@sciencerules8525 "If you want to learn the scientifically verified facts..."
"A scientific fact is the result of a repeatable careful observation or measurement by experimentation or other means, also called empirical evidence." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact#In_science
How many times has evolution been repeatedly observed or experimentally measured, getting positive empirical evidence? Answer: Not once.
Evolution has been tested innumerable times, but every empirical test has proved that evolution can not happen. In a long test of 72 000 generations of bacteria the result was only more bacteria. Nothing else but bacteria. The same goes with fruit flies. During 100 years and thousands of generations of empirical tests simulating millions of years of mammalian evolution - no evolution, no new body plans, no new species, only intraspecific variation.
Woke up one day to find out, that my whole life I have been lied too. By the very construct said to protect us. I will put my faith into Jesus, the father, and the spirits. One that has never lied, encapable of lie, and loves me. The master of the universe loves ME! Opposed to a world that sees me insignificant mutation in the world of survial of the fittest. A very sad religion shoved down our throat as facts. Bless the scientists coming forth to show the tangebility of God's word! Hossana to the king forever and ever , in Jesus's name I pray amen!!!!
“Evolution’s dead. Evolution’s dead, Dave. Evolution’s dead.”
- - Red Dwarf pilot episode
That is a pretty wild premise for Science Fiction!
Going to have to say brown dwarf
. Too small for fusion
***yes everything dies, everything that born will die, one poet once said "...the universe is always change taking a new quality every moment...***
***get a life***
"... Evolution’s dead.”
- - Red Dwarf pilot episode
- So, Fiction!
If you took twelve evolutionists who didn't know how to type, and blindfolded them and let them peck at keyboards for billions and billions of years, would they eventually type out Darwin's Origin of Species? Just a thought.
Praise The Lord thank you for your work lets keep spreading the news.
Heb 4:2 kjv : For unto us was the gospel preached as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
I wish to thank you for sharing this Christian informational video with me . Amen
So heres the thing, if an individual has truly had a Born Again Experience, it is Not Possible for that individual to Ever be dissuaded from The Faith by any Scientific Claims. It simply Is Not Possible. I Know this from personal experience.
Being Saved or Born Again cannot, and does not, come about from intellectual knowledge. An individual can come to believe and accept the scientific evidence in Intelligent Design.... And still not be Saved.
Not just America.
“Higher Criticism” infected theology in the 1700s, especially Germany.
Answers in Genesis has great breakdown of origins of evolution, deep time, etc.
Answers in Genesis much like this channel contains anti-science religious propaganda to mislead religious people about science.
m(__)m The universe was created in 1976. It is too hot to make a universe at the time of the big bang. It can be created at anytime. God is slow and easy. A human can do a lot with their lifespan. I got the hunk. God got the chunk. Everyone else can have the rest. That is song spirit of '76 by The Alarm.
Not only am I old enough to remember 20 years ago when creationists say evolution would be forgotten in 20 years, I'm old enough to remember 40 years ago when creationists said evolution would be gone in 20 years.
You should understand who is controlling society, thats Freemasons/Luciferians (hint they believe Lucifer is a Man&Woman in one). Just saying ...
MACRO-Evolution is dead if you look at evidence, there is no known process that would add new information to our genom. Information is always lost/destroyed "Genetic Entropy". We dont evolve into getting better and better (that idea actually comes from occultism and not science) the opposite is true which also lines up with the Bible of a fallen world.
How do you explain the symbiosis in nature like bees and flowers or our gut bacteria we need to break down food etc. They had to be there at the same time. What about sheep, they are so dumb they cant survive without a Shepherd and they evolved for millions or billions of years alone ? Not a chance.
What was first ? Chicken or egg ? DNA or proteins (DNA is made out of proteins but DNA is the instruction manual) ? DNA or RNA (reparing DNA, without it you would mutate very quickly and be useless) ?
The discovery of DNA in itself is already a big proof against MACRO-Evolution. It is like a language or code and for that you need a smart mind behind it. Darwin didnt have a clue about such things at his time, he also thought that cells are very simple but thats also not true they are actually as complex as a space shuttle.
In the end MACRO-Evolution is simply the extrapolation of real science which we call and Darwin has observed "MICRO-Evolution". But the term is already misleading, its only variation in the same kind of lifeform in its limits of its genes (black, white, tall, small etc. and thats all).
Big Bang also violates the first law of physics, matter cant create itself thats impossible.
Funny, I've been following the creation evolution debate for a while, and I don't remember anyone ever saying that. It amazes me that evolution has held on in spite of the obvious fatal flaws, but I've never heard anyone claim it'll be gone in 20 years.
I love it when apologists reference the "new science" or the "New Evidence," and then they don't elaborate on it. That's because there isn't any.
It's one of those dog whistle terms they use because Christians respond to it pretty reliably.
It's not just scraping life, but a replicating life form.
(((^^;) We need to popularize the idea of getting God married. Getting God married is a good use of someone's time. You are supposed to make the environment intelligent so no God is needed. We fixed the video and audio for the best experience possible. Cameras are supernatural and all of them captured 3D that not a gimmick. The audio loud don't make violence so has depth. Nobody has to buy anything for it to work.
The paper your referring
Called “ Why mitochondria defines species” states at the top: Note added by authors December 4, 2018: This study is grounded in and strongly supports Darwinian evolution,
including the understanding that all life has evolved from a common biological origin over several billion years.
This work follows mainstream views of human evolution. We do not propose there was a single "Adam" or “Eve” or catastrophic event, so where in the article does it show the Biblical creation story
That is just saying that the fact that these findings about evolution are coming to light does not automatically mean the belief in God. The middle way is better than just saying everything about revolution is wrong and vice versa
They don't care, they simply jerry-pick any scientific study to make their claims that "evolution is dead". They've been making that claim for years. They thought they "killed" evolution when they came up with their Intelligence Design claim. Which went know where & was proven to be simply creationism to be used to push the Christian god (and only the Christian god) in schools.
(__) The artifacts of a swastika is flobby with stazzle and a jumble that tumbled. That is a skeleton, human heart, signature, internal combustion engine, animation of the big bang and a wave. That unify the universe you can't do with math. A swastika is the simplest rendering possible for those artifacts and needs to be saved.
I feel bad for those who somehow need evolution to not be true to reassure them about their God beliefs. There's no reason you can't keep your faith without having to lie to yourself.
Just the title of the video should send up a red flag about the messengers. They can only either be lying or neck deep in delusion. Evolution is a fact, and it has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not there's a God.
I've already spotted the first sign of intellectual dishonesty just in the first couple minutes.
"Molecules to man" refers to abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is in no way an aspect of the theory of evolution. It is a separate hypothesis to explain a separate phenomenon. The conflation is not an accident. It is intentional in order to confuse the viewer
Where can I find the paper they are referring to so I can show it to people?
Look up dna bar code study done in 2018.. if that's the one your asking about... I read that one a while back it's a good eye opener.
@@vikingskuld How do I find the video interview with the scientists that did the study where they say they were surprised by the results? Is it on RUclips?
@@teslasnek sorry not that I'm aware of. I have seen others talk about this paper and say the same thing. Your best bet is to look the paper up and read it yourself. Doing that allows you to know what's in it and that there is no exaggerated claims. It's going to take you what a half hour to go through it. You can skip around in it if your in a hurry then come back and read it. Do you honestly think a group of evolutionists would make it so easy for you they would read that part out and basically make evolution look bad? Sorry they are not typically going to do that. I'm just glad they have been as honest with the results as they have been. Yet several in that community say well its just a bottle neck and they obviously didn't go back far enough in time to see the common ancestors. That it's not going to show them over a few thousand years. So it's all about mindset noone is going to change beliefs by one paper. Best if luck to you
We've pinned a comment with links to these studies.
@@vikingskuld
Dude logic science 101
Law of contradiction A=B impossible contradiction
Non life caused the effect of life? Really? Lets check
A non life caused evolved = B the contradiction effect of life
As a scientist I must test a hypothesis for A=B impossible contradiction that will render the hypothesis as impossible not possible
A non intelligence caused evolved = B the contradiction effect of intelligence
Dude, logic science 101 doesn't lie.
A no brain organisms prokaryotes caused evolved = B brainiac organisms like a worm
EVOLUTION is a impossible contradiction, really dude? You believe EVOLUTION is true contradiction? Your intelligence was caused by intelligence not non intelligence.😍👍😎
I noticed a lot more comments come from " science " believers even though this is a Creatuonust channel. You'd think they would have better things to do than debunking religion like saving the climate or getting their eighth booster shot.