Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
SIX Biological Evidences for Creation - Pt.2
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 авг 2024
- Some people claim that life has evolved over millions of years, but where's the proof? Does the evidence actually point to these long spans of time or is it just wishful thinking?
Host Trey and Dr. Jeff Tomkins discuss this important topic on episode 53 of The Creation Podcast!
Watch Part 1: • SIX Biological Evidenc...
-
Do you have questions about science or Scripture? Post them in the comments and we might answer them in future episodes.
Tune in every other Tuesday here on RUclips for new episodes. You can also find the audio version on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music, and Google Podcasts.
Don't forget to subscribe to our channel to get notified about all of our upcoming episodes!
Hope to see you next time on The Creation Podcast!
-
Learn more about the Institute for Creation Research: www.icr.org/
Shop our store: www.icr.org/store
Support our ministry: www.icr.org/do...
Plan your visit to our Dallas creation museum and planetarium: discoverycente...
![Gunna - today i did good [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ulGLk8TaXcI/mqdefault.jpg)
God is truly amazing. Thanks for sharing the truth.
Those who attempt to "create" without God, will forever be stuck on day zero! Only those that acknowledge & praise the creator of ALL shall enter day seven i.e. His rest, Amen🙏.
Everything in this video is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.
This guy needs to go on joe Rogan he has a lot of information and doesn’t choke on camera so he would be able to debate joe Rogan and educate him further than any guests by far
I wish to thank you for sharing this awesome Christian video with me .
It's not an awesome christian video, it's a gross misrepresentation of everything in it, which a tiny little bit of research would soon tell you if you bothered to look.
We live in a world of lies and deceit.
by who?
Before the first children were born to Man, we were already living with lies.
@larrycarter3765 By the authors of textbooks that are taught as virtual fact. And who ever with holds known truth. But it's okay if you think placing one's head in the sand is reasonable.
J
EVERY BODY KNOWS THIS
YOU NOW WAKE UP
We live in a world where they try to denounce God. Take a look around you... abortions, transgenderism, etc... I am just wondering how far God will let this go on.
If the Lord has chosen you, you are truly blessed. For none can come to the Father unless they are called. May you open the door when Jesus knocks
Bless you fam 🫀
Our creator made them all at the same time in perfect working order.
No, RNA was first. mRNA, rRNA, tRNA and amino acids made protein. DNA if mRNA was for a _Reverse Transcriptase_
Amen
Wrong. If you actually bothered to take the time to understand the Geologic column and the fossil record, you would know your statement is false.
@@jonathanrussell1140 if you actually took time to read the Bible you would realize that your statement is false
@@samuelrodriguez9199the fossil record proves you wrong I'm afraid. The presence of junk DNA proves you wrong. The presence of cancer in newborns proves you wrong. Miscarriages prove you wrong. The recurrent laryngeal nerve in the giraffe prove you wrong. Everything proves you wrong. Radiometric dating proves you wrong. The Himalayas prove you wrong.
If the bible were the infallible word of god it would say "In the beginning was the word. And the word was me and the word was with me.". But it doesn't , does it, because it is the fallible word of fallible men designed as a political tool to promote shock and awe.
God bless ICR and all creationist channels (YEC). God protect them and encourage them 🙏
There is a Creator God and we know Him personally.
To anyone interested, if you've never seen what these things inside our cells look like, please search Drew Berry's animation. Most fascinating. Once people see this, it's impossible to believe evolution or random happenstance.
All honest scientists must concede that cells are intelligently designed.
Honest scientists reject Intelligent Design, they only accept the truth: natural selection
Man 9maghione thinking this is even a real argument. Science is based on evidence and facts, but si8nce you have neither, you rely on nonsense like "this does look possible to me" yea tht is becvause you do notz underhstrand evolution not because evolution is wrong
Yes, cells are amazing. They did not get that way overnight. Evolution works its magic over time, a VEEEEERY LOOOOOOOOOOOONG time. Things that are complex today came from much simpler ancestors billions of years ago. On a football field symbolic representation of earth's existence (4.5 billion years), humans have been here for about 1/8 of an inch, and human civilization has been here for about the thickness of a light bulb filament (old-fashioned incandescent). There is no sign of intelligent design outside of our own wishful thinking.
I'm going to look up that animation. Thanks for sharing that.
All it shows is cells are replicated - with all the good information and junk information replicated along the way. This contradicts intelligent design before you're even out of the starting gate.
Unless you want to state that god created RNA and DNA, in which case evolution still stands. *AND HAS NEVER BEEN DISPROVED*
Thank you Dr for your research. Thanks to ICR for creating this content in a time when it is much needed. Highly informative! So thankful I found this! Keep up the brilliant work!!
ICR - Dumbing down America
What a beautiful closing statement in an an ultra informative series. Can't get enough of it. The evidence is powerful.
J
Don't you find it odd that the title is "...biological evidences..." when biology is based on evolution?
@taylorthetunafish5737 So you think you're related to a tuna fish huh? Which part of you is most tuna like? Have you ever fished those things early morning from a tinnie trolling at 5 am and seen how fast they are? Perfect design. You guys think we have a set of remnant gills- I still can't get over this. Comedians.
@@UserRandJ So you think you're related to the number 77? Which part of you is most 77 like?
Biology is based on evolution. How is there biological evidences for creation when biology is based on evolution?
Why does such a simple question put you on the offense?
@taylorthetunafish5737 Your reply had little to do with showing a connection to evolution- I asked about a tuna fish because you guys think we came from fish. Not because of your channel name. But you were too frightened to discuss remnant gills, and sidestepped with a poor effort of trolling/ offensive. Flapping your gills at mW for some reason- but it's all bluff.
@@UserRandJ You did ask me because of my handle. There's no need for you to lie about that.
I'm not frightened of any of your queries. What ever made you think that? You asking me how much I'm like a tuna fish is the same as me asking how much you're like the number 77 because it's in your handle.
There's no bluff here. You may just be too dim to think about my questions before answering.
How is there biological evidence for creationism when biology is based on evolution? I think this question is the only real problem here for you. There's no way to justify or prove creationism with biology when evolution disproves creationism. Are you too frightened to answer? Does the answer conflict with your absurd beliefs?
As a biology nerd, this just ministers to my soul! Some people come to the Lord because of relational experiences and think you have to take creation and miracles on "blind faith", but there are a lot of people like me that can't just turn off the scientific part of my brain. This kind of stuff tuggs at my heart and nakes me tear up, often more so than listening to someone's testimony of their experiences with God. We are not all the same and this ministry really is so important. It brings forward the awe of God's creation, but it also reinforces that since Genesis is true, then the rest of the Bible is true too.😢
You're a "biology nerd"? - so scientifically inclined and therefore skeptical?
*THEN DIG A LITTLE DEEPER!!!!*
Adam is a Hebrew Golem spell, Moses is entirely fictional, the Global Flood never happened - it's borrowed from the Epic of Gilgamesh, people don't live to ripe old ages of 200+, snakes and donkeys don't talk - which bits are actually true?????
I’m just tracing my genealogy as I listen to this on Family Search…. Cool stuff !! The Bible is a genealogy… and the touch of God & the Messiah upon all of us - one big family. Love y’all . 🌺💕
It will be good to take formal action to correct the "origin of life" teaching contents in science textbooks in as many countries as possible. The numerous dead end paradoxes and unknowns should be detailed.
You might not have heard of the 1925 Scopes trial in the US. Back then, belief in evolution was rife supported by what is NOW known as falsified evidence. Based on that evidence, the judge backed evolution. Creation was forced out of the classroom, atheist organisations argued and won to force the Bible out of the workplace, and a movement in the 1960s forced prayer out of the classroom. No such prohibition was placed on any other text. Back in 1883, it was decided by a few they 'wanted Moses out of the classroom.' That was always the aim. There was a purge of creationist thinkers, philosophers and sciences in 1912. Virtually overnight their membership of academic bodies was cancelled by niche atheist groups, and have been largely deciding what does and does not get published ever since. There is a herd mentality to gang up on science they don't like and don't welcome. That herd mentality produced the educators and Professors since the 1950s. And here we are, the theory has fallen, and they're closing ranks around it against allcomers.
Urey - Miller in 1952 is about as far as the origin of life progress has come and several other essential amino acids were not produced. Nobody has ever identified a natural scenario where that can be proven to happen - the repeatable results require human intelligence. Amino acids are downstream, the predecessor bio chemistry is far more complex - listen to James Tour on this
Not with the amounts of misinformation in this video, though.
@@voiceofreason162 So what othere texts where there in the classrooms that should have been included ? None of the evidenmce in the scopes trial has been debunked and since then evidence supporeting evolution has grown exponentiaqlly, stop lying it violates the religion you supposedly support
@@daftwulli6145
Loved this interview, it is so fascinating and so disappointing that the evolutionists still want to deny Creation even if the evidence hits them in the face!…
Actually they are denying Creation because they are denying the existence of GOD!
It's like Ken Ham said. It's not an issue of data, it's an issue of the heart.
You do not (by accident or on purpose) understand evolution. Evolution makes no claim whatsoever concerning the origins of life or the universe. It only seeks to explain the mechanism by which we came to have this dazzling variety of plants and animals today. The only problem I see for god-believers is that it makes a literal reading of Genesis less believable. Nowhere does evolution deny the possible existence of a god.
@@travisbicklepopsicle The courts have ruled that atheism is a religion....so...
@@travisbicklepopsicle actually according to Plato Stanford this conflation of agnosticism and atheism appears to be based purely on a desire to remove the burden of proof from the modern atheist. It's quite clear to anyone that has seen these discussions that atheists are not merely skeptics but are actually cynics that hold their position regardless of evidence or logical arguments. The other problem with your assertions of "lacking belief" is that this is akin to calling yourself an inanimate object like a rock or a water bottle because this would be a claim of brain state rather than a simple disposition. Furthermore if one rejects a position as basic as the existence of God then it's a pure dichotomy which entails intrinsically that you at the very least believe that it's possible that all things came into existence from nothing like Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Kraus have openly admitted. There is no in-between with these types of discussions.
@@travisbicklepopsicle so basically you're admitting that atheists constantly commit category errors and use fallacious logic on a daily basis to uphold their beliefs? Thanks for letting us all know that you haven't really taken much time to think things through. If you want to be in the category of that which "lacks belief" then say nothing as you aren't even qualified to enter a debate about the topic in the first place by that admission. If you actually go look into the origins of the word and it's original use you will see that it's not until very recently that atheists began calling themselves those who lack belief in God or God's because they specifically deny that they hold a burden of proof for their beliefs. This is of course untrue and completely sleezy by I digress. Don't enter the arena if you aren't willing to back your beliefs.
Thank you! Excellent work!
Amen ICR 🙏🙏🙏
Great talk, brothers! Loved the “BIG SPLASH” pun @16:32 😂
Thank you to ICR for its great altruistic work in defending Truth. Would love to visit some day.
Would love to see some of the studies hes referenced
Hey, I love your content. Just a tip from an old broadcaster: 'everyone' is not your audience. Your audience is individuals, one at a time, usually alone. So 'Hello everyone' instantly depersonalizes them and places an emotional barrier between you and the listener/viewer.
So: just say 'hello'. There is no 'everyone'. When you address the listener it is always singular and addressed as 'you', as in 'You may have heard of..." or 'You may be aware..." or 'I'm glad you've tuned into this podcast today...' You get the picture? Imagine an old friend you've not seen for years is your listener. Talk to them! You will be much warmer, the listener will feel at personally addressed, and more involved and cared for. You will come across as warm and personable.
Absolutely not to be combative but I don't feel depersonalized by the word everyone. Actually i think everyone refers to every single individual listening/watching this presentation. God bless
Hi
The existence of horseshoe crabs AFTER Noah’s flood posits the question of HOW they survived seeing they suffered seeming extinction by fossilisation on a huge scale!
Shalom to us only in Christ Yeshua returning soon to reign over His Creation from Jerusalem forever.
An entertaining and easy-to-understand book about the Genesis creation and evolution debate is Axis of Beginning.
Dr. Tomkins is a very astute, down to earth biologist with very well researched points he elucidates. Thanks so much.
The one thing he lacks....
Is research.
Unless you count quote-mining...
Ñathaniel Jeansen has made research in this field. I'd encourage everyone to follow his podcasrs too
Is Nathaniel Jeansen the best you could dredge up? He is a joke.
Dr John C Sanford, Dr Rob Stadler, Dr Christopher Hayes, Dr Change Laura Tan, Dr James Carter, and Dr Sye Garte are all biochemists and medical engineers that have made vast breakthroughs in their respective fields and became creationists through their own research having been atheists before. There are many other examples but the evidence is quite stunning when you begin to look more into it.
@@pigzcanfly444 "Vast breakthroughs" is a bit of an exaggeration. And whether or not they were atheists before or not is immaterial; evolution makes no claim as to the existence of a creator god or about how life got started. It does offer the best explanation to date for the vast variety of plants and animals on the earth. It only conflicts with religion because it tends to make a literal reading of the Genesis story seem unlikely.
@@stevepierce6467 you really don't have a clue what you're talking about. Darwinian evolution has been falsified. John C Sanford is the inventor of the gene gun which is used to generate crops at nearly double the rate we used to make them. Rob Stadler invented devices that deal with the cardiovascular system for patients that have heart problems particularly like arrhythmia and palpitations. You aren't even using the word immaterial correctly. When all is said and done you will slowly come to realize that the things you were taught as a child throughout school were all lies used to propagate a belief that specific groups desired for your to believe to their benefit.
Or purchase one of his books there very informative.
The Cohen modal haplotype is a big deal since it identifies the sons of Aaron as being J1 P58 which in turn identifies IJ as being the Hebrew and Arab descendants of Arphaxad. The C paternal haplogroup has to be the Hamitic descendants of Nimrod the son of Cush. The D paternal haplogroup has to be the Canaanite tribe of Sinim in Asia and Japan. Eurasian K paternal haplogroup descendants share the IJK SNP marker with the descendants of Arphaxad the oldest son of Shem. Everyone else is a process of elimination by way of their movements and migrations.
K is Tubal in Italy and Asia.
L is Tiras of the Thracians.
N is Meshek in Siberia
O is Magog in Asia
P & Q is Madai of the Medes
R is Gomer in Europe
T is Javan in the Mediterranean
IJ is Arphaxad of Hebrews and Arabs
H is Elam of the Elamites
G is Asshur of the Assyrians
F is Aram of the Arameans
F2 is Lud of the Lydians (also F3)
A B & C is Cush of the Cushites
E1 is Phut of the Phoenicians
E2 & D is Canaan of the Canaanites
E3 is Mitzrayim
If there are any corrections to make, let me know. I did this entirely from memory. I am an I1 M253 (M170) originating from the norther Alps and then later ending up in Scotland, probably from the Israelite tribe of Dan. There is also I2 in the Mediterranean and Southern Europe which also seems to be from the tribe of Dan. The Phoenicians in the days of King Solomon consisted of R1b T G E B I1 I2 J1 J2 and Q paternal haplogroups also often found in Judaic populations also found in American Native populations. Incidentally the X2a mtDNA is also found in these populations notably near the ancient copper mines of the Great Lakes region. You can possibly figure out what all this means yourself.
Great info , thank you for breaking it down like that !
Is there a source for this information, other than "from memory"? Where can we learn more?
@@michellestrebchuk4781 It's all from doing searches for the various haplogroup maps and information online. I became interested after I did a DNA test and then I did a Y chromosome test. The SNP markers are used to try to establish the out of Africa belief but it works out better the opposite way since we all came from Mesopotamia and the Eurasians are the oldest and Africans are the youngest. Neanderthals are most like Eurasians to begin with, not Africans.
It's a good thing that it is not by physical descent who are God's children.
@@paulbriggs3072 It's by following the leading and conviction of the Holy Spirit.
Although agreeing greatly with most of what is said here I notice a couple of issues.
1. Y chromosome analysis, routing back to 3 males doesn’t make sense as all those males inherited their Y from Noah, so back to one Y would make more sense. Mitochondrial analysis to 3 ancestors of Noah’s daughters in law would make sense though.
2. The reason that I have heard given for the ‘out of Africa’ hypothesis is that there is a lot more present diversity in African DNA than in the rest of the world. Although this is ‘consistent with’ ‘out of Africa’ , it is far from proof as it is also consistent with going ‘into Africa’ if they took greater diversity with them (eg if Ham’s wife was more distant to him that the other two wives were to their spouses). What can be seen are the routes from the Fertile Crescent to Europe, across China to the americas and a route to or from Africa.
Check out Answers in Genesis Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson. From what I remembered, that is exactly how he is working to trace all civilizations back to the 3 sons of Noah.
Even after all this knowledge why are we still losing?😂 The Scopes trial is a perfect example. The best caller we could come up with couldn't answer the "monkeys on typewriters"defense? 🤣🤣🤣 I just came up with 7 good reasons right off the top of my head! 🤣 And I'm just poor dumb hillbilly 🤣🤣🤣
Men are liars, therefore = losers.
"God is not man that HE should lie."
( Numbers 23:19)
The Almighty will establish His king of kings on Jerusalem. Psalm 2
Because this is mostly nonsense.
And again... Self-proclaimed knowledge of the entire universe... Pardon me... now the wild guesses have us occupying the "multiverse" 🤣🤣🤣.... Saw a video yesterday telling me we don't "fall down"... The earth falls up towards us! 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Just can't make this stuff up people! (Well I guess actually you can 🤣)
@@jimhughes1070may i ask, how old do you believe the Earth to be?
@@d8dknee8rjdje8 how old are you think it is? 🤣🤣 See how Goofy that sounds? 🤣... Anybody that cares to look at the evidence and knows that radiometric, carbon 14, or any other ancient dating methods are "everything" ...except reliable 🤔... the age of the Earth has nothing to do with how complex life is... Or how fragile it is.. (appoint curiously left out of every "origins" debate I have ever witnessed (and that's a bunch)... All of the speech is directed at the absolute impossibility of chemicals turning into life... And that's good 😍... But no one ever addresses the painfully simple truth!... Let's say The atheist professor is correct... "Give us one miracle and evolution will take care of the rest" 🤣🤣🤣.." Ludacris" , I know!... But stay with me here.... How long does it take a single cell wall, to degrade and break apart, killing the organism? Alright, I'll wait.... Not really. 🤣 Any idiot that has observed them under a microscope, knows that it requires "almost nothing"!(water's pretty devastating in a lot of cases)... And yes, I know they're idiots out there with phds. Claiming this "miracle cell" existed, with superhuman abilities to live for a million years(within a bubble).... While it continues to subdivide, presumably deciding on a body plan on the way! 🤔🤣... Protected, Inside of some bubble, but still able to find food 🥑😳😁... And in case I didn't make my main point clear... Continue to live! Far beyond the life expectancy we see in laboratories! Regardless of what you "believe" could happen under those circumstances... That is one hell of a belief system! 👍 Billions and billions spent for the last seventy-five years trying to prove that it "happened".... And all they've done is prove that it is far too complicated to ever happen by "luck"... 🤔 Wait a minute luck and good fortune are associated with false gods... I forgot the preferred term is "accidental"... I almost forgot. how old did you say you thought the Earth was? I still remember when they told us several hundred thousand years... And when it approached a million... And when it jumped up to 3 million... But we were already laughing our asses off when they got to a billion 🤣🤣🤣 scientists are some freaky dudes ain't they!?!?... It's going to be great when they finally realize what their job is... Doing actual science. 😁 Instead of insanely wild guesses, in order to get people to believe in their religion!... Have a wonderful day now
Outstanding video.
WOW I'm loving science.
Nah, you're not. This isn't it.
Horseshoe crabs have power in their blood! Who can we thank for that, Amen🙏
The definition of Evolution: One day staring at a bag of trash on my porch wondering when it was going to be taken out to the dumpster, I pondered millions of years and that if that bag of trash sat there on my porch for 3 maybe 30 maybe 350 million years that it would eventually grow legs and walk itself to the trash!
And that's science!😂
Which came first… the lipids… the sugars … or the proteins ( in a prebiotic world)?
Answer…. All three came first
We don't know yet. But we've come a lot further than the 1950s which is where Tomkins wants you to believe we're still stuck😂
What we do know is that life did not begin with god making Adam from clay (Adamah means clay) and breathing life into him like an ancient Hebrew Golem spell. That much we know.
You know less than in 1950 because more is known of how intricate the “ simple” cell is ! Things like chirality-induced spin selectivity and protein folding have made chance all but impossible! There are less numerical particles( protons, neutrons) than the possibility many times over for chance!! The information required to produce this universe not including life is staggering and to say otherwise is foolish at best!
Interesting Stuff, thank you.
Contradiction is everywhere making faith necessary for believers of any belief.
Problems occur when people’s beliefs aren’t tolerated.
This is part politics,and the way people are.
Wow!!!
I am in the YEC Camp.
What I have recently been challenged with is the argument that there is seemingly no Historic Break or evidence of the Flood occuring in the Historic Record at the proposed approximate date of the Biblical Flood....being at around 2500 BC.
My determination is that the Flood occurred at around 3000 BC and that the age of Creation is 6600 years old.
Then there's the Heat Problem which reduces the earth to a ball of radioactive plasma, destroying the ark and all life in it and sterilising the earth for millennia . Guess again.
Genesis Flood. Paluxy River basin. Human and dinosaur footprints. Silence for 50 years from creationists (of which I am one), but I wonder why have we abandoned it.
They are now saying the human footprints are other dinosaur footprints. They now look altered, eroded.
Dr. Carl Baugh hasn't been silent at all my brother... Creation evidence museum is located just above the bank of the river... Near Glen Rose Texas... In fact his model of creation, are the world before the flood) is displayed and taught there. And with many other phds in association. 38 years ago you could actually walk in the human footprints. Alongside and some within dinosaur tracks.😂🙏😍
@@wms72they weren't that eroded 38 years ago.... And probably still aren't.... Somewhere actually destroyed by an atheist, who just couldn't have other people seeing them!🤣 Don't forget. You have an enemy that lies continually 🤳🙏
The main reason big YEC orgs don’t endorse them is because the evidence is scant and the documentation isn’t any better.
Some of them are actually convinced that the prints aren’t human.
I’m somewhat on the fence about it myself.
Doesn’t matter to me because the evidence the we do have is very, very strong with or without human and dino prints together.
@@mmaimmortals yeah everything was done under official documentation... Of course the evolutionists aren't going to endorse... Can't be messing with their cash 🤣 they dissected at least a couple of the rocks containing both dinosaur & human footprints.... They are clearly authentic... I've walked in them myself, along with about forty others in our group. (Probably 35 years ago now)
In segment 10 of Part 2, the description of the modeling of earth population suggesting 4000 years is not well described. This approach seems weak. The main variable that would be hard to estimate accurately is the mortality rate for humans over time. This would be dependent on culture (war, politics/leadership, religion, etc.), technology (know how for agriculture, medicine, war, ...), the population density/distribution and disease virulence and immune system strength, perhaps natural disasters, etc..
Under any particular set of conditions, if technology and other factors are stagnant, it is reasonable to think that the overall population in "mature" areas could stagnate (reach an equilibrium) that could even last for millennia. That is, is it reasonable to think that the total effective population growth rate was nearly uniform over such time periods, and could thus be accurately estimated--or did they use a particular historical timeline to set the assumptions (this would be a self-fulfilling model that is guided by the expected result).
I believe the Bible timeline, but unless the model used is in this model is seen as reasonable and very robust (hard to see how it could be wrong) by evolutionists, they will discount this kind of evidence--and claim the model is rigged to give the result we want.
Keep going
Amen 🙏
To Darwin evolution cultists: Debunk that horse shoe crab are living fossils. Or prove horse shoe crabs evolve into a creature that is not a horse shoe crab anymore.
Prove that man was made from dirt.
What???? Not all species have to evolve into new species. Not all species have to go extinct. Horseshoe crabs clearly didn't need to for whatever environmental reasons persisted throughout their existence. Nowhere in the theory of evolution does it say that species have to behave the way you seem to want to argue. Your post is irrelevant.
And in any case once a horseshoe crab, always a horseshoe crab, that's always been the case, whatever new species it may or may not evolve into, if it evolves, it will always be a horseshoe crab. It will always have horseshoe crab as one of its many ancestors. You display a typical YEC misunderstanding of what evolution actually is. Beware Hovind Syndrome. It's incredibly toxic.
Bear in mind that the extant species on this planet give us a snap-shot of where we are now. The fossil record and the geologic column combined give us a host of different snapshots of where creatures were then.
YEC is the wrong hill to die on. It's not even a hill. It's a molehill.
The coelacanth is another example of a "living fossil", although the fossil record does show that coelacanth today do differ slightly from their ancestors.
Thanks a lot
Nice stuff. I don't need any more proof about the validity of the Bible or God.
My life is a living testimony. Life is an amazing creation by an amazing YHWH.
it is very interesting to see the creation side, of the argument, challenge the evolutional side..
... And lose
“The global Y chromosome tree is the key to human history.” - Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson
What keeps already formed cells that have died from coming to life as in abiogenesis?
Why cant they be rejuvenated
Abiogenesis doesn't forme cells you literally jump the RNA problems of resistance and the complexity elements
Nobody knows.
@@rubiks6 just as nobody can explain consciousness
J
being dead... There are videos showing what happens to a cell when it dies... It degenerates completely.... Just like in the supposed "abiogenesis", there is nothing to "come alive".... After 70 years there has still no mechanism been discovered to bring the necessary components together to build a single cell... Let alone bring it to life. "The more you know"😂🤳🙏❤
Fascinating!
What do we tell people when they ask why such important news is being withheld from the public? Our media is basically one sided when it comes to evolution and it’s really frustrating.
There's a reason for that. Overwhelming evidence by thousands of scientists, over many many disciplines, over 160 years point to and confirm evolution.
The rest of us are still waiting for theists to present their alternative theory for peer review and to collect the Nobel prize.
Still waiting.....
Still waiting....
Impressive. Big thanks from Sweden!
I thought Swedish people were sensible!!!
Can the respected speaker please explain the principle of how looking only at modern mt-DNA, or Y-chromosome, to transform the diversity in modern specimen to the chain of diversity in time? And how can we know, orr rationally assume, what the Eve's mt-DNA, or Adam's Y-chromosome, was?
For y-chromosome search picture World_Map_of_Y-DNA_Haplogroups.png. You can even see the influence of Genghis Khan
are there any studies that show, mitochondrial or genetic, we are 3 million years old? any at all, why or why not are they fallacious?
I wonder if you have any figures to account for how much erosion would occur before a bare earth could get covered with plants.
That is a really interesting idea.
No plants does equate to higher erosion rates, but there is a problem with even trying to calculate that.
Namely that 500MYA the moon would have been about 10% closer with about 23% increase in gravity.
Tides would have been monstrous and the lunar cycle would have been shorter than now. Around 25 days or possibly less per month.
All this adds up to the reality that there wouldn’t be any continents after a few hundred thousand to 1 million years.
Everything would have been scrubbed down and washed into the oceans.
And it wouldn’t have even mattered if there were plants covering the land at that time.
The earth was probably mostly land. We can deduce that from mammoths found at the pole. All that dirt was pushed around by tides and is pretty much the same as we see it now.
If the earth was of old age erosion would have carried all the land into the sea. The river deltas would be evidence of time but they are tiny for an ancient earth. Grace
There may be a case for an eve chromosome. But how can you guys claim 6000 years to Adam when all the male chromosomes would have been bottlenecked to Noah and his three sons...
@ Enoch was 14000 years ago and the 7 generations from Adam of Seth. Noah's grandfather was nine hundred and change before the flood and . Noah had daughters and started the ark © 100
@ccConcerts: DNA
@@tommerphy1286 what's your point? If you're claiming young Earth and that only male lineage that survived was Noah passing down his y chromosome to his sons then no other y chromosome should exist past the 4,000 year mark when Noah and his sons were the only male survivors.
@@tommerphy1286 the age and descendants of everyone pre Noah should be irrelevant to any y chromosome discussions.
@ Adam to Noah=over 6000 years.
DNA in cells never improves in offspring. The only way it might, would be from the other parent's DNA. That's my understanding.
One atheists said that "evolution works whether life was originally created by a deity or originally formed naturally. " In my opinion he was off the mark, because that subject does not deal with the "evolution working" but the very existence of evolution.
Evolutionists try to present evolution as self-evident, but nothing can be self-evident as long as nobody can tell how it has started. There is no scientifically proved evolution, neither abiogenesis on which the beginning of evolution could be based. According to the law of entropy, abiogenesis can not happen. The other choice is creation. There is no known third choice.
The abstract of "evolution" is like a building that is sketched on a paper. In that sketch the building has no footing. Evolutionists work on that sketch, study it and add all kinds of "evidence" and details to the building to make it look good and credible. However there is no footing under that building on the paper, and evolutionists don't know how they could draw it. The end result is that their building is only on paper and it will forever stay on paper. This evolutionist "building on paper" can't actualize in real life, just like the theory of evolution can't actualize in real life.
I've never heard an evolutionist explain how a non-human gave birth to a human.
Because that is NOT what evolution teaches.
@@MrJones1972 Explain please.
@Breas-pt7vi 😂
@@rollingstone3017 very easy. Nowhere, in the theory of evolution does it say, or even imply, that a human gave birth to a non human.
+ *Rolling Stone* How does a baby become a toddler? There's no hard line, but at some point what once was a baby is then a toddler.
Really, all that's happening is the same gradual change they've always experienced. That doesn't really matter, though. As long as we know babies become toddlers, or that proto-humans become humans, we know that there's some sort of transition.
Q for the 'evolutionists'? For a BIG BANG to happen whenever, there HAD to be matter to make such an explosion. Where did that matter come from???? Also, the universe is not flying apart like it would from an explosion; it is in circular motions in all directions.
You are goings God's work by unraveling all of the unhealthy programming done upon us by secular (junk) science. Thank you.
This is how Stanley here remains ignorant
Yes, "junk" science. Just like the "junk" science that made the internet on which you are commenting. Or made the stable structure of the house you live in. Or filtered the water you drink. Or developed the infastructure for the electricity you use to power the appliances you need. Or cured diseases and developed medical science. This is all obviously junk
@@captaingaza2389So you are here listening to truth, facts, and conclusions and all you do is throw insults. Noone including myself wishes to live in ignorance. Politely and seriously do enlighten us. Convince me evolution is true. In my prayers.
@@johnglad5
If you think you are listening to truth and facts in the clip then you are beyond help because you didn’t arrive at your current belief through truth and facts. Calling someone ignorant is not an insult, it’s a response to ignorant claims.
Evolution is true, wether you believe it or not.
The fact remains
We are an evolved species
Maybe you should try reading more than one book
@@captaingaza2389 I asked for scientific proofs of evolution. Just more insults and the montra its true.
I have come to the conclusion evolution is false from over 50 sources, pro and con.
So it seems you've read something and it fits your paradigm so you are locked into a belief.
I have looked into the science of genetics and concluded that the Tree Of Life is false.
I'll go through a recent evolution and request a rebuttal. Humans have evolved from some apelike ancestor with 48 chromosomes. Humans have 46 so this is a reproductive barrier.
So this first creature, the progeny of apes had 46 chromosomes and Noone to mate with. For the species of man to go on this must have happened twice with the outcome producing opposite sexes. This had to happen at the same time and place and they had to mate and produce all of humanity. This scenario seems quite impossible. Do you think this is possible? Or is there a flaw in my scenario. Grace
Somebody get Dr. Jeff a drink. Poor guy sitting there talking with dry lips and Trey has a big ol' cup in front of him. Somebody grab Dr. Jeff a Yoohoo or something. Great info Dr. Tomkins, thanks for the fact gathering and research.
Devoid of info, quote-mining and putting the pre-supposition before the evidence. EVERY. SINGLE.TIME.
God done it, and not all that long ago. Just as the Scriptures say.
Didn't Noha and his wife have more children after they got off from the ark?
Do you really believe the entire earth was entirely populated by the same incestuous family twice over?
A groundhog day in the life of the "Institute of Creation Research"
Creationisticalist A "I've got this 2000 year old book"
Creationisticalist B "What is it"
Creationisticalist A "It's the holy bible - it's the infallible word of god"
Creationisticalist B "Did god write it?"
Creationisticalist A "Well, no, I don't think so because it's written in the 3rd person - by lots of different people - a long time after the events described"
Creationisticalist B "Oh, so it might be written by fallible humans?"
Creationistcalist A. "Well yes. But it says god is infallible"
Creationisticalist B "That's good enough for me. What does it say about the Grand Canyon?"
etc ...
Disappointed that no mention was made of the huge size of the present earth population if it arose over 100,000 years. If we have come to 8 billion in 6,000 years, the earth's population arising from 100,000 years of breeding, using the same model, should be close to 100 billion, shouldn't it?
I believe they did mention it.
I’ve seen a few of these with Trey so I may be mistaken, but I think they did cover it in this video.
You assume medical science, food production, weather, natural calamities and other factors were consistent or was existing respectively for thousands of years. If Putin decides to nuke Ukraine and NATO decides to nuke Russia and Iran, China, and North Korea joins the game; world population become ZERO.
Caused by invention of agriculture
@@globalcoupledances
Population explosion was more than likely the result of not having so many wars, catastrophes, plagues, etc. And people settling down into more civil civilizations.
The Egyptians were quite efficient at agriculture long before the agricultural revolution.
@mmaimmortals - Hunters/gatherers and other nomads don't build pyramids
How does 6000 years line up with the Bible? Is it that the Bible does not give us a timeline but science says that it is 6000 years, which supports creation over evolution?
Sometimes when I listen to creationists explaining their views on this subject of God created life. I am convinced that I hear them agreeing with the fact of evolution. THEY just need to reach farther back into the time scale.
But they won't because the paycheck is better than in the real world, where their strapline would be
"Do you want fries with that?"
Seems the more some try do prove evolution the more creation makes sense. At least for me. I was asked the question if there was a creator, who created the creator. How would I know? The question is one of those for which no one I know of has an answer for. Maybe the creator lives outside our limited understanding of time and space. An infinite being. No one to the best of my knowledge has ever answered the question did the chicken or the egg come first. I think it was the chicken...which would imply creation. I don't see any possibility of the egg coming before the chicken. No answer to that either. Interesting video and discussion.
Evolution has been established as fact for well over 100 years now. It's well proven. There's overwhelming evidence for it. There's more evidence for evolution than there is for gravity.
Maybe...but how is it provable the egg came first? That's one of the questions that seem to not have an answer. Something has to lay and egg. Otherwise there will be no egg. So...how did an egg form and from what?@@travisbicklepopsicle
LOL. My lack of understanding? Ok, that's fine. Science changes often as more information is discovered. Science is never settled. There have been scientists that have studied the great flood and found there's reasonable evidence it did happen and explains many things like big rocks that appear where they aren't expected. Remember once the earth was believed to be flat. The earth was also thought to be the center of the solar system. The question of evolution vs. creation isn't settled. You can believe what you like based on your understanding of science same as everyone else. You might be right, but you might not be. The greatest minds would tell you there is much more to learn about the history of earth and the universe. Otherwise, they'd stop searching for more information. Nice talking to you, but to assume I'm wrong because of my lack of understanding is off base. Would be the same if I assumed that about you.@@travisbicklepopsicle
@@danielhanawalt4998 There were egg laying animals around millions of years before chickens existed. In that sense the egg did come first.
How so? An egg laying reptile laid a chicken egg? Some velociraptors evolved in to birds? Sorry, I don't buy that. If that were true, then a bird and a horse could mate and produce a flying horse. Or a cat/dog. While there have been those who bred two different dogs and actually made a new breed of dog, no one's made a cat/dog breed. Every animal, fowl, fish, etc. reproduces within their own kind. @@taylorthetunafish5737
I’m curious if y’all ever interact with the scientist over at reasons to believe? They have course would absolutely agree with the fact that we are created, but their timelines do not agree with yours. And they would say that their timeline is also in agreement with the Bible. So I’m just curious if you ever interact with them.
Need plough through scientific pulps fiction channels to get like this one?
Either Scientific research labs to've existed 'in the Beginning' or God the Creator both of eyesight & timeline!
Just a question. People say the human come fro the 3 sond of Noah. So I am just wondering. Didnt Noah and his wife have more children that could have been part of populating the earth as wel. Or did they just stop having children after the flood.
Nope - because they are not real people.
You mean how did all races come from apes
No apes have kinky hair or slant eyes or blonde hair
So what would make ape turn to man
Diet or learning to throw a stick
And man still cant make a grain of sand
I don't think Genesis mentions any other children. But it does say that from Shem, Ham, and Japheth "came the people who were scattered over the whole earth."
The puppet masters make it difficult to even comment on icr videos, ao people are discouraged from commenting.
He he... Somehow, I can't say Nathaniel Jensen without an Australian accent😊
Sooooo... Does that mean I can play DNA, RNA, PROTEINS instead of rock paper scissors?
How fun!
All three where formed at the same time.
Regarding OoL research, virtually everything that the OoL scientists appear to be doing is Intelligent Design (i.e. use of Mind/Conscious/Intelligence); then claiming Methodological Naturalism (i.e. non-use of Mind/Conscious/Intelligence).
*_”In biology, abiogenesis … or the origin of life (OoL) is the natural (i.e. non-intervention of consciousness or mind) process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities on Earth was not a single event…”_* (Wikipedia)
*_”This more traditional concept of natural things that can still be found today implies a distinction between the natural and the artificial, with the artificial being understood as that which has been brought into being by a human consciousness or a human mind.”_* ( Wikipedia)
In order for OoL experiments to be a valid explanation for abiogenesis, then only “Prebiotically Relevant Chemistry” must be applied in the experiments. Investigator Interference or Intervention through the use of man-made chemicals, processes, equipment, etc. invalidates experiments from being considered pre-biotically relevant (i.e. before biology like the human mind).
Are you using science to prove or disprove creation? Will you accept the evidence?
📯🕒⏳⌛; KJVB Isaiah 52: 14 Revelation 19: 13 John ALL Exodus 20: 1-18 Matthew 22: 36-40 } Isaiah 34: 4 Revelation 6: 14 Nahum 1:5, 6
Wait a minute ! Wouldn’t the Y chromosome genetically speaking go only back to Noah ? All of the Y chromosomes back to him and his sons. Right ?
Hmmmm
But apparently the 2 trillion stone tools in Africa just slipped your mined huh💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀😆
At 15:50 he almost laughed. Probably because a previous evolutionary theory about coelocanths has been debunked
Ya bless!
Hey! I have an uncle who's a chimpanzee. That side of the family is a little slow.
the vast majority of secular scientists live in Egypt, on Denile.
I think those are creationists, though.
Abiogenesis is a mathematical impossibility (anything beyond one in 10 to the 50th power is no longer a probability). The chances of a viable very basic protein forming by chance is estimated to be one in 10 to the 164th power. The number of atomic particles in the observable universe is 10 to the 80th power. Even if such a protein did form it is not life or anything infinitesimally close and would have been instantly destroyed by sun light (UV). So life by natural processes never even got started much less crawl out of the sea and develop arms and legs.
If everyone realised that every living thing is devolving and will go extinct due to genetic entropy, they would stop believing the lie of evolution. Evolution absolutely defies science. All we see is adaptation within kinds because the Creator built in regulatory mechanisms (eg. DNA sequences) so creatures could adapt to different environmental conditions.
Well done, a combination of personal incredulity and a misunderstanding of entropy, combined with ignorance of evolutionary biology and an unsubstantiated claims about the "creator" building in "regulatory mechanisms" I'd like to see that passage in the bible!
It wasn't long ago that you people wouldn't have any truck with evolution, god created everything immutable, but now you accept "micro" evolution!
13028 years old
The out of Africa theory is a distortion of the tower of babel historical event.
NO it's not - it is millions of years ago.
Humans are born with the ability and equipment and mental capacity for speech.
And?
@@richardgregory3684 23 pairs= 46 /48 pairs ÷ 2 = 24 so the theory is one chromosome fused . yes? So in the ape line one chromosome mutated and it had now 23 .yes? (Assuming male) then a females gnome mutates and leaves her with 23 and now we have a breeding pair . Whose number of chromosomes after a successful coupling will birth one with 46 ..Yes? Does that make it human? And what are the odds of the same mutation happening to both male and female. and be within the area to meet and during their lifespan. Or was the mutation a virus that effects all of the species?
@@richardgregory3684 let's suppose your math is correct...and one pair is the mutation . Which pair is it and what does that pair govern?
@@richardgregory3684 what about the extra single (trisomy) or(monopsony) or the theory that genetic mutations can't develop normal form and function!
@@richardgregory3684 fusion is certainly a mutation .
Don't take a deeper dive Trey, you'll bang your head in the shallow end. Or maybe you already have...
There is some very interesting information here but how about Gobekli Tepe? That was buried 12000 years ago who knows when it was built!
The fact that creationists don't "see" anything is only affirmation of their willingness to look the other way.
The fact that you don't have to be an evolutionist to find something tangible to support it, puts you out of the "findings" argument.
I cannot say with evidence that there is no God.
I can say with little or very poor evidence, the chances are little or very poor.
I can also say I do not wish there is no God.
I would agree with your characterization of creationists that act like there is no good evidence for God but I'd say you are doing the same thing in reverse.
@@blusheep2 excuse me.....where did I say anything about creationists acting like there is no evidence of a God?
I'm saying they act like there is no good evidence for evolution...
And thank you for that last part of your comment, I'm certainly acting like there is plenty of evidence for no need for a God...because it holds 💦
@@rickallen9167 It was a typo. I meant to put "no good evidence for evolution" there and not "no good evidence for God."
Being that "good" evidence is subjective then I wouldn't brag about it. That is all they are doing. They are discounting all the "evidence" for biological evolution because, in their mind, it is unconvincing and so they say its not "good" evidence and if its not "good evidence" then it isn't even evidence in their minds. You do the same thing and this is not something you should win an award for. Its the opposite.
@@rickallen9167 Trial and error in DNA construction doesn't work even in theory. Mutations can't do it, there is no way.
Accumulating mutations quickly degrade the structural and thermodynamic stability and function of protein folds. Stable Tertiary Structure is lost long before the mutations in question could generate a novel protein fold. 3-15 mutational trials and errors are enough to destroy a DNA section while different possibilities for error are counted in millions. A successful evolutionary process is practically impossible.
Specific genes and signaling molecules interact to form an integrated circuit that controls and directs cell differentiation and organization during animal development. ”Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any we’ve ever created.” (Bill Gates)
Trial and error -method can't work in DNA. Only intelligent design works. I happen to know the intelligent designer is Lord Jesus 🙂
There is a possibility that evolution is God.
Genesis 1:26
Then God said, "Let us make a man - someone like ourselves to be master of all life upon Earth and in the skies and in the seas".
27. So God made man like his maker. Like God did God make man. Man and woman did he make them.
28. And God blessed them and told them "Multiply and fill the Earth and subdue it; you are masters of the fish and birds and all the animals."
So God makes two people a man and a woman (Adam & Eve) and tells them to multiply (have intercourse and give birth to children).
Notice the problem here. Who when the children are older are they going to have intercourse with to continue this multiplication of the Earth? Are we to assume each other incestuously? It has to be that if the Bible is to be taken literally. But that then implies God approves of incest.
So what's it to be? Genesis is the word of God? So God does approve of incest or Genesis is just an allegorical story? In which case don't take the Bible seriously or perhaps Genesis and the Bible are a load of made up nonsense? In which case you'd be better advised to avoid.
Everything begins with a thought so who's mind is thinking?!(rhetorical question!)
@ Thought is where wisdom is born
@@tommerphy1286 wisdom comes from knowledge, personal experience and the willingness to learn!
@@Georgia-Vic I repeat wisdom is BORN in the mind . Pain makes man think thought makes man wise wisdom enables man to endure
@@tommerphy1286 yes,I agree but we all have a choice at any given time, to go either way.Everything begins with a thought and decision is made to either, do or not do what stems from them. Pain can make you stronger or like my younger brother told me "meaner!" He chose to take that road, while I chose to take the other. One is productive and the other leads to despair. Pain has made me the toughest S.O.B. that I know.I could have easily allowed it to make me depressed and cynical (and there for a while I was!) but there comes a time to grow and learn. I'm also the most stubborn person that I know and by doing that I have made my progress slow in the process. I'm not perfect by any measure.I allow my own progress. There's no such thing as control but learning how to divert the continuous flow of negativity or positivity in one's life. The idea of "control" stems from the ego wanting to selfishly dominate the environment and therefore is never content.The trick is to acknowledge that, adapt and learn how to navigate those treacherous currents in the rivers and find the calmer areas; to find a haven, to relax and regroup until we are ready to, once again get back into the "stream" of life!(please excuse all of the puns and analogies!)
@@tommerphy1286I believe the point she was making is that a mind began everything we see and even the things we can't see.
In astronomy we see many galaxy collisions at various stages of their collision. Some are approaching each other. Some are mid collision. Some have already passed through each other leaving each galaxy torn and malshaped from their collision. When you extrapolate their rate of movement it's obvious that the collision process has gone on for millions of years.
Galaxies vary from several tens of thousands of years in diameter to the size of Andromeda which is 200k light years diameter, or even larger. The galaxy travel speeds are extremely slow compared to the speed of light so I wonder how it is possible to rationally hold to the young earth view of the days of Genesis in spite of the evidence God has given us in creation.
The same goes for the extrapolation of the expansion rate of nebulae, the remains of stars that has gone supernova.
The same goes for spiral galaxies. They form from 2 galaxies, one often being much smaller than the other, getting caught in each other's gravity. To get such a smooth spiral like our galaxy, it seems we're talking about billions of years.
I have to ask how you can possibly believe a super giant black hole has been around for 4 to 14 billion years and has not yet eaten the galaxy? Your very own secular scientists just recently said hmm that's not what we expected to see out-of the model of the big fart we hold to. So they had to go back and rethink things. How do you also get planets spinning in opposite direction if it all came out of the big bang. How do you get soft tissue on dinosaur bones that are supposed to be 65 to 250 million years old. Seriously there is NO KNOWN MECHANISM to allow soft tissue to last that long. You guys have many little things to explain that can't be explained very well. That's not even getting into the genetic evidence showing life appears to have all came about at the same time fully developed. So there is no transitional forms. No known early simple cells. The simplest parasitic cell we know of uses half a billion pairs of dna and parasites itself to live. There is still no known form of abiogenesis. They can't even begin to really understand how life came about. Your the one that refuses to look at evidence for the truth. You want it to validate your system of belief and that's all your looking for that validation. So it doesn't matter what I or anyone else shows you. You'll just smugly deny its true and believe what ever rescue device you can find.. that I am very sorry for. I hate it for people like you, you just simply won't admit or see evolution has so many problems its obviously not true the way its taught.
@@vikingskuld I didn't get a notification of your reply. I only saw it by checking out the comments.
When they say "super-giant black hole" you might think it's half the size of our galaxy. It's a tiny dot compared to the size of our galaxy. It seems that it being large that much of the galaxy "has" been pulled in, but, the fact that our galaxy has spiral arms indicates that our galaxy has absorbed at least one minor galaxy. This you would get from theist scientists...the secular scientists aren't "mine", lol.
Planets spinning in opposite directions? Possibly from prior collisions from moon large moon sized bodies. The Coriolis effect, like what you see when the water in a bathtub drain, usually only spins in one direction. However, it can be manipulated by an external force to spin in the opposite direction.
With the soft tissue found in dinosaur bones, the material found in those dinosaur bones is not the original material. In certain conditions transformative processes occur.
That's already been addressed. It was a hopeful hype for the young earth creationists.
It's been a couple of years since I've focused on this so I'd have to dig up the specifics again.
A book, "Dinosaur Bones and the Age of the Earth" by Fuzale Rana goes into what is happening on the chemistry level over time.
Polymers (the soft tissue) breaks down over time and new cross-links form into graphite like structures which are much more stable (yet still soft).
The book was published in 2016 and is just over 70 pages. At that time the debate on this was still young but now, from what I understand, there is more info to confirm this.
You said, "You guys have many little things to explain that can't be explained very well.". That's just false. You just haven't heard the right person explaining it.
I agree with you that God created the diversity of life on the planet fully formed. Evolution can't explain it nor the origin of life.
You said, "Your [sic] the one that refuses to look at evidence for the truth.". You don't know what I've looked at. You haven't asked. You even assumed that I embraced evolutionary theory without asking. Please be fair.
You said, " You'll just smugly deny...". You're a jerk, lol. Why don't you explain what we see in the galaxies that I addressed or the nebulae instead of telling me that I'm looking for "whatever rescue device you can find.", and "I hate it for people like you".
What kind of people do you think I am? An Ignorant atheist?
@@TheGuy.. hey first off soft tissue is one thing I have really spent time looking I to. It's definitely not biofilm. Next iron poyermerization can cause as much or more degradation as supposed preservation. The other side of thar argument for me is the ostrich blood was used. The cells were completely destroyed to release the iron. Was that done chemically were preservatives used to store the blood. I don't think Mary got her blood from an ostrich out back. So was there shelf stabilizing chemicals used in the blood. We don't know. Also last count there have been over 120 different soft tissue finds In an age range of over 250 million years now. Yes actual proteins like collagen and Many others have been found. Nerve fibers tendons and other soft tissue has not just been found but proven beyond a doubt to not be bio film. Also if you look at some of the experiments preformed you will be able to see there is no way that stuff can last over a million years at the very best. So no there is absolutely no known way you can cross link anything and make It last 65 to over 250 million years. The discoloration from one of the cross linking papers isn't found in any sample so even drying the sample out with heat doesn't help preserve it that long. There just as of now no known way to preserve them that long. Plus the entire slow process of replacing the bone and layering of the fossil is proven to be crap. Also I am sorry if I read into your text. I will absolutely apologize for me being a jerk. I probably should not read and reply in the middle of the night. Best of luck to you
@@TheGuy..
Don’t extrapolate.
Especially extreme extrapolation over deep time.
Sometimes it “appears to give you the ‘right’ answer”, but more often than not it leads to absurdity.
For example, Dr. Lisle has extrapolated the rotation of galaxies using real physics (he’s an astrophysicist) and shown that they can’t be even 1 BYO because the spiral arms would have blurred completely out after that much time.
If you extrapolate today’s erosion rates, the continents would be completely washed away in just a few million years.
If you extrapolate earth’s magnetic field you get the earth and everything on it being fried to ashes about 10k years ago. Or you get the need for another alleged reversal within the next 3k years per secular geophysicists because of how weak it would be, especially when referencing how strong it should have been just 3k years in the past.
And there are many more.
You covered a lot of ground on galaxies, but you talked as if you had actually seen them form.
The actual observable evidence doesn’t demand hardly any of your claims.
On dino soft tissue, you are absolutely categorically incorrect on this.
The proteins and DNA fragments that have been found were tested using binding agents that only bind themselves to specific molecules.
The tests were completely unambiguous. And these are secular scientists doing this research.
Add to that the fact that C14 has been found in dino fossils in a specific gradient that indicates that the fossils themselves are the source of the C14.
This is documented by Korean scientists and is available on YT.
These aren’t short lived hypes for YEC, they are legitimate problems for deep time.
And the Bible still says that the Lord created the earth in six days, Adam was created on day six, the stars were given to discern times and seasons, and Adam’s genealogy is documented all the way to Christ.
@@vikingskuld No problem on the jerk moment, lol. Looks like you thought I was some atheist jumping in to cause trouble. No, I'm a Christian with a different conclusion of the Genesis text and the record of antiquity of the earth. I like to always see the best of both side of an argument and to have my views always open to critique.
I see God leaving us with a mountain of evidence to see in creation, as Psa 19 declares, to see a record of what He has done, to His glory.
I see the little bit of evidence, that I mentioned to you, through astronomy plus more in astronomy which I haven't mentioned yet plus the evidence from radiometric dating, erosion rates, cratering rates, lake varves, sediment varves, tree-ring sequential overlapping, successive fossil deposition, geology and more and then occasionally, anomalies like the Schweitzer soft tissue finds in dinosaurs that seem to give a different story on the age of the Earth.
You mentioned biofilm. That is such a dated hypothesis and I would never mention that today and I didn't. What I did mention is cross-linking. There are several ways you can get cross-linking bonds. Some are more durable than others. Multiple crosslinks also make for a stronger and longer lasting structure. In an accumulative way you get much more stable connections of polymers as they break down which still leaves them soft...a graphite "like" structure.
Anyway, I agree with you that there is no way to keep the amino chains from breaking down with all of the different ways (mechanisms) in the environment acting on them. The question is whether or not there are other things happening to mimic its preservation.
From what I've read, I see that to be the most plausible since there is so much showing an ancient Earth.
Radiometric dating has been done on this material. Sounds like you probably know that the limits of C-dating is from around 800 to 50,000 years. If the dinosaurs existed 3000 to 6000 years ago then the dating would suggest that. Instead we are getting dates of over 35,000 years.
Two things there. If the dinosaurs were millions of years old, then it seems we wouldn't see ANY C-14. Well, we know that there are contaminations that deposit trace amounts of C-14 everywhere so now you would expect to find at least some.
Next, Young Earthers claim (without Biblical reference) that God sped up the physics during the first 3 creation days and also during the flood by an order of millions. Well, if that was the case, we would find only trace amounts of radiometric materials of any kind. That's not the case though.
Anyway, we can disagree here. But I'm curious of you view of my points on galaxy collisions and the formation of nebulae.
I have a question. Was Dr. Jeff Tomkins a believer before or after he became a doctor? The answer is he was obviously a believer before he became a doctor, how do I know this? because he would not now be a creationist if he had become a doctor before he was a believer.
Hold up, how do you know the Mitochondria are... 6000 year old (btw as said, mitochondrial eve is about 100000 years old and the only people claiming otherwise I could find were ICR and it doesn't look it states *how* they get to the 6000 years (and that article even said that scientists found eve to be 100,000 to 200,000 year old) so I have no idea where you get that number from. So, does anyone here have the name of the paper? I don't think I can't find it because it's too old. Mitochondrial Adam is much much older than 6000 years too from what I could find
Isn't one of the most famous Abiogenesis hypotheses the RNA world? Heard that more than anything else so far
They do the out of Africa model not just because chimpanzees? Australopithecus is known *only* from Africa and if I'm not mistaken then Homo erectus is found in there too
Oh and to the similarity according to Gutsick gibbon and someone else your methods wouldn't align human to itself 100% and she found different numbers
I could not find anything about mitochondrial Eve around 6000 yrs ago. Can't therate of mutation vary over time?
You have to look at the math in the actual papers. Not just the papers claims
When you do that you'll see that their initial measurements were done with pedigree rates. (Meaning measuring mutations from one generation dirrectly to the following one, and contrasting it) which is the only experimentally verifiable method.
With pedigree the calculations give roughly 6000 years give or take slightly depending in different variables. But it maxes at like 15,000.
They clearly couldn't let that calculation stand.
So they switch to making calculations based on phylogenetic trees. The problem with doing the calculations this way is it requires you to assume the common ancestry rather than letting the evidence dirrect towards or away from it.
Basically with a phylogenetic rate you take the supposed time between human and chimp divergence (3 to 6 million years ago to modern day) and then calculate the amount, and rate of mutations required to go from said common ancestor to us over said millions of year timescale. Then using that new rate you extrapolate backwards from the diversity of our modern mitochondrial genome, to a singular ancestor genome and that's what gives you the hundreds of thousands of years timescale for mitochondrial eve. And likewise Adam.
The obvious bunk with this method is there is no experimentation to support it. It is all done through the assumption of common ancestry 6 million or so years back and then building the math off of that.
It requires you to activly ignore the measurable pedigree mutation rate we can verify through observation.
The go to rescue device as to why the pedigree mutation rates, don't match what we need for the phylogenetic rates is that over time natural selection must cull out enough mutations to make the over all rate match the phylogenetic rate through deep time. Again first issue is that it's an assumption, with no experimental verification. You have to just take it on its face.
And there are a variety of issues with the assumption itself. The first one I can think of is that most mutations, yes even the bad ones, are what are called "near neutral". Which means yes they do negatively affect the organism, but it's on such a small scale as compared to the other members of the population that said mutation induces no selective disadvantage. This means by most mutations very nature they are invisible to any selective pressures, and thus cannot be removed. Sure the really harsh mutations will get selected away because those do produce huge disparities between members of a population, but that's such a small fraction of mutation that affect organisms that harshly that you can't count on that to do near the amount of selection you would need to reduce the pedigree rate to the phylogenetic rate.
And as far as I've been able to read on it, most on the phylogenetic team of this are just not addressing it. And just kinda counting on the fact that most people, even most other scientists who aren't dirrectly involved with this just don't know it. And the few times I've seen any of them accurately pressed on it, they just sort of default to the classic "okay, yeah we don't know why this is, or how it could happen, but one day we will figure it out, until then just trust the phylogenetic rate"
Only people claiming mitochondrial eve is more then 6000 yrs. old are secularists. Why do you question only the result of several studies by creationist scientists and not the secularist studies? Australopithecus was simply an ape and was shown to be fraud long ago. The resent genome studies don't gel with the out of Africa hypothesis but more like so middle eastern.
I saw your questions here. I noticed before that this guy makes some mistakes. I think it's sad since we are promoting the only way out from under the wrath of God. All and all the evidence for young earth is going to increase. There will be mistakes on both sides of the fence, creationists and evolutionists. Keep researching, but remember to take a prayer. If God wanted you to be convinced by the evidence He would do so. He is after humble hearts that are ready to admit they are fools and need him. Most of us have come to faith be personal revelation of Jesus. All this stuff is just fluf. It is good that this is done and eventually it will be a cold cut decision to either accept the facts and turn to God or keep rejecting. There is no accidents in this world. Next time you gas up your car remember that it is a sobering reminder of what happens to those who will not surrender from their rebellion and accept Gods peace offering. Oil is made out of people and animals that were drowned in the days of Noah. That is not an accident. Love
It is the case that God in the Bible created everything about 6,000 years ago. Creation is not older than that. God himself claims this, and all research by honest real scientists shows that this is correct. If nothing else, you are not a Christian and neither believe in the Bible nor God's word where God himself says this in his own words. There is more documentary evidence for a young creation than old. May God bless you and open your heart so that you truly understand the facts. When you open your heart to God, He will open the truth to you. I speak from experience. All glory to God.
proto-RNA sure was first. It's more simple and auto-catalytic,
while all its' nucleobases can be produced from formamyde - very simple organic substance.
sounds like both people in this room aren't qualified enough
Obviously they're different definitions of simple.... After trying for 70 years, still no success at this simple problem😮😅
Yeah this is a greatly oversimplified description. Its not just the chemicals, its the arrangement. Its the fact that RNA dissolves in water, in a relatively short amount of time. Its the fact that RNA is no small molecule. It in itself is more complicated then a protein.
Protocells and RNA Self-Replication (Pub Med)
Gerald F. Joyce1 and Jack W. Szostak2
They describe it this way, "The general notion of an “RNA world” is that, in the early development of life on the Earth, genetic continuity was assured by the replication of RNA, and RNA molecules were the chief agents of catalytic function. Assuming that all of the components of RNA were available in some prebiotic locale, these components could have assembled into activated nucleotides that condensed to form RNA polymers, setting the stage for the chemical replication of polynucleotides through RNA-templated RNA polymerization."
and
". The concept of a “protocell” refers to a compartment where replication of the primitive genetic material took place and where primitive catalysts gave rise to products that accumulated locally for the benefit of the replicating cellular entity. Replication of both the protocell and its encapsulated genetic material would have enabled natural selection to operate based on the differential fitness of competing cellular entities, ultimately giving rise to modern cellular life."
So we can see that its not as simple as you present. Not only does RNA have to arrange itself into RNA, there has to have been a place on earth where all the ingredients were not only in a condensed space but also encapsulated by some other material.
@@blusheep2 that's a pretty accurate description of the theory my brother!! 🙏 Well done... Sadly, after 70 years and billions of dollars...... 👅 And then there's the other 10000 questions... Got to have DNA to make RNA... To make DNA to make RNA.... But first!!! You have to have the mega complicated cell wall to house it in... And all the other machinery contained within to keep it functioning and alive... And then there's the math 😳... Not to mention the incredible delicacy of a single cell... (no one ever addresses this seemingly insurmountable hurdle)... Millions of years,. 19 amino acids finally lineup to make a protein... 4 seconds go by... Oh sh! #$!! Aaaand we start over 😳... But that's just one protein... Not a cell wall... (Which is maintained by all of the organelles inside... Oh wait, I'm getting ahead of myself 🤣 they're not there yet 😭)...
@@blusheep2hi
Nobody talks about what this ‘ Protocol life’ would eat! Only plant life can synthesise direct sunlight! And then there is the ever present inconvenient fact of DEATH! At the ORIGIN OF LIFE STAGE , that would be the end of the show!
Shalom to us only in Christ Yeshua returning soon to reign over His Creation from Jerusalem forever.
Proto life
Jehovah God is the Creator, even Jesus said that in Matthew 19:4.
Humans and Chimps have a different number of chromosomes making it impossible for one to come from the other. Evolutionists have tried to explain it with a fused chromosome model but that has been unobserved.
Of course humans did not come from chimpanzees. Humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor. The chromasomal fusion happened *after* this.
@@richardgregory3684 Humans and chimps have a different number of chromosomes...meaning the progenitor of humans cannot be chimps. It is simple enough to understand. It a myth that man came for chimpanzees. Even the fossil record attests to that ...Evolutionists should just keep looking for those missing links and let the real science be done by those willing to follow the science where it takes them. Evolution is 19th century conjecture masquerading as 21st century science.
@@richardgregory3684 There is no common ancestor between man and apes...the fossil record and genetic incompatibility prove that.
You don't need to pretend you're dumb 😂😂😂😂