Hebrews 4:12 “For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.” The Bible tells us that the word of God is alive. It is powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword. This verse from Hebrews shows how deeply God’s word can cut through our thoughts and intentions. It divides soul and spirit, joints and marrow. It judges our heart’s thoughts and attitudes. When we read or listen to these words, they change us. They work on our minds like a surgeon’s scalpel, revealing what we really think and feel.
Hebrews 4:12 is about the Holy Spirit of God, Spoken forth by God into action. This is why John reveals to us in John 1:1-3,14 and Revelation 19:13 that *JESUS* is The Word of God. He is the visual manifestation of the invisible Word (Spirit) of God. Hebrews 4:12 is not about the bible though, since the bible is simply ink text on paper. It is not alive, nor does it have a mind to discern the thoughts or intents of human hearts. Only the Holy Spirit of God could be the One Paul is writing about here. This is where most Christians make the mistake in quoting that verse, because they've been raised to constantly call the bible "the word of God" but not even Paul wrote that the scriptures are "the word of God". Jesus Himself said the scriptures BEAR WITNESS of Him (read John 5:37-41), yes, but the scriptures are not the Living Word of God. Jesus is. :)
I can only repeat: the devolution is fact. There are many examples of devolution. There is no single example of evolution. Why don't they teach the Theory of Devolution in place of the Theory of Evolution? Theory of Devolution is fact, knowledge, science. Theory of Evolution is a fairy tale or rather grand mystification :)
You’re conflating semantics to obscure the entropic principles at work in both cosmology and biology. You know full well what evolution conveys to people in the public sphere and thus the necessary distinction to justify the term Devolution
@@martinmoffat5417 Go ahead and write up your evidence, submit it for publication in a peer-reviewed professional science journal. Let us know how that turns out. 🙂
What is termed as microevolution _never_ entail the gaining of information but the _loss_ of information. This is _not_ evolution but the opposite. Further, _every_ cellular division causes a loss of DNA at the ends of the strands. There is _always_ a loss of information from generation to generation and follow the laws of entropy.
_never entail the gaining of information but the loss of information._ The "mutations only lose information" is one of the stupidest creationist claims of all time for the simple fact whatever one mutation can do, another later mutation can *undo.* If AAC --> AAG is a loss of information then AAG --> AAC must be a gain of information *by definition.* These mutations are seen in the real world. They're called reverse mutations or back mutations.
"Nonetheless, *most studies of recent evolution involve the loss of traits,* and we still understand little of the genetic changes needed in the origin of novel traits" (Nadeau, Jiggins, "A Golden Age for Evolutionary Genetics? Genomic Studies of Adaptation in Natural Populations," 2010) *"Many of the well-studied examples of adaptive evolution have involved trait loss,* such as the loss of bony structures in freshwater stickleback populations and the reduction of pigmentation and eyes in cavefish. However, over the broad sweep of evolutionary time *what we would really like to explain is the gain of complexity and the origins of novel adaptations."* (Nadeau, Jiggins, "Golden Age" 2010). "Of course, to some extent the difference between loss and gain could be a question of semantics, so for example the loss of trichomes [hairlike appendages on flies] could be called gain of naked cuticle." (Nadeau, Jiggins, "Golden Age," 2010).
@@jockyoung4491 Aren't most negative mutations so small that they cannot be selected for? If so, these mutations accumulate and spread into the gene pool, causing a population's overall health to decline.
@@williambillycraig1057 No. If a batch of very slightly deleterious mutations (VSDMs) accumulate enough to be visible to selection then all of the accumulated ones in that individual will be selected out _en masse._ There is no problem for evolution.
Proverbs 30:5 “Every word of God is flawless; He is a shield to those who take refuge in him.” Proverbs tells us, “Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.” We learn two key things here: 1. Trustworthiness. 2. Protection through knowledge and salvation. When doubts arise or when life throws challenges at us, these words remind everyone about finding safety in His promises.
@@IAMhassentyou You may have seen, touched and talked to him but while I was a Roman Catholic nothing like that ever happened, I have more belief in the tooth fairy, I put my baby teeth under my pillow at night and in the morning I got a quarter in return, god never appeared to me, spoke to me or answered to me, so far he is batting 0%
For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Hebrews 4:12 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path. Psalm 119:105
In Christianity, the Bible is considered the "Word of God," and there is much to find about this topic in scripture. The Bible is called the Word of God, meaning it can be considered a direct line of communication from the Lord, divinely inspired by the authors of the respective books. If the Bible is truly God’s Word, then we should cherish it, study it, obey it, and fully trust it. If the Bible is truly the Word of God, then it is the final authority for all matters of faith, practice, and morality. If the Bible is the Word of God, then to dismiss it is to dismiss God Himself.
In actual Christianity, the bible is not considered "The Word of God." In Christianity, *Jesus is The Word of God,* and the bible bears witness to this fact: John 1:1-3, 14 and Revelation 19:13. Jesus did not even call the scriptures "the word of God." Read John 5:37-41 to see Jesus differentiating between "scripture" and "word". Scripture is written information and it bears witness to certain things, but WORD is *spoken* by the mouth, not written. We must be careful to differentiate between the two. The English language is at fault for this though, as it claims "word" can be written, which is not true. Text is written, WORD is SPOKEN. 🙂 Most Christians today do erroneously call the bible "the word of God" when it's not. The bible *BEARS WITNESS OF* The Word of God. There's a monumental difference. 🙂
@@Harpazo_to_Yeshua actually the Bible is the written word of God. Jesus is the living word of God. That's the difference. No wrong in calling the bible the written word of God.
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. Matthew 4:4 But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” Psalm 119:105 Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path. John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
06:00 complexity and design requires a Designer! These types of things could not gave formed naturally. To think it is anything other than a design trait is absurd.
Evolution is a mindless process, it doesn't progress towards a goal or final destination. It doesn't have intent or foresight. It's a process of trial and error, of experimentation and adaptation. It's like a blind watchmaker. It's blind...to failure. It does not need help from a higher being, a deity. The design in our living world is an illusion. There are no deliberate designs in nature. When an organism’s circumstances change and demand a completely different body, evolution cannot go back to the drawing board. Instead, it works with what it has.
If all complexity requires a designer that creates an infinite regress problem which can only be solved by admitting that not all complexity requires a designer.
@@peopleofearth6250 by things that don't seem to be complex? Why would you think that would apply to an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent Creator?
@kattykitters5310 red herring fallacy and strawman. this video is talking about one species of bacteria which I am referring to. even speciation didnt occur
@kattykitters5310 congratulations on an other red herring. the process of evolution (which you say "occurs") is different than the theory which was developed in the 1800s. if you are unaware of this difference between the two, please learn about Charles Darwin and his theory which he wrote a book on. You don't seem to understand evolutionary biology at all.
Your fundamental lack of science knowledge is something AIG counts on. Unfortunately a youtube channel and a message board cannot fix that lack of knowledge.
@@newsgetsold Who used evolution to try and disprove Jesus? You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how evidence and logic as a whole works. All of science could be completely wrong and that doesn’t make belief in a genie true. You still have to show that genies exist.
Design demands a Designer. Complexity shows intelligence. Everything in creation points to our Creator. Amen AIG 🙏🙏🙏✝️ keep leading people to God's truth.
@@therick363 nothing false about it, my friend. God's word is truth. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. He offers salvation to any who call on his name and will not deny anyone who comes with a sincere heart. 🙏🙏🙏 God bless you
@@sciencerules2825 so because a bunch of atheists have talked to me I'm supposed to "know?" I know what you think is true. I don't agree with it but I know. And what happens if you are wrong? What if you are wrong and you wake up one day finding yourself standing in front of your eternal Judge?
God’s word demands what is right. (Psalm 119) The psalmist gladly acknowledges God’s right to issue commands and humbly accepts that all these commands are right. “I know, O Lord, that your rules are righteous,” he says (Ps. 119:75). All God’s commandments are sure (v. 86). All his precepts are right (v. 128). I sometimes hear Christians admit that they don’t like what the Bible says, but since it’s the Bible they have to obey it. On one level, this is an admirable example of submitting oneself to the word of God. And yet, we should go one step further and learn to see the goodness and rightness in all that God commands. We should love what God loves and delight in whatever he says. God does not lay down arbitrary rules. He does not give orders so that we might be restricted and miserable. He never requires what is impure, unloving, or unwise. His demands are always noble, always just, and always righteous.
Great explanation. At the rate bacteria reproduce, we should have seen a bacteria "evolve" into something that isn't bacteria. Just like fruit flies which reproduce a much slower rate then bacteria, but still very fast, even forced mutations just end up leading to the flies demise once straying to far from the original DNA coding plan created by God.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution that AIG is counting on. Unfortunately, a discussion board will not remedy your misunderstandings.
@@tobias4411 That's because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and that if you just add enough time puddles of chemicals can fizz into people... Science is a methodology. What you're talking about is an Atheistic Ideology, and that's about as Unscientific as it gets... In any case, the whole idea that it is somehow unscientific to believe in God and therefore in the possibility of miracles, is both historically and philosophically mistaken. Modern science owes its very origin to monotheistic religion. To quote C.S. Lewis: "Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver." Where do you believe our mathematically precise metaphysical laws of nature came from, as an Atheist? I believe that a Super-Natural God created the laws of nature, and thus He exists beyond those laws of nature - He said "This is what the LORD says: 'If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth," (Jeremiah 33:25). Do you believe there was a "Big Bang" and all of immaterial math and science happened? Mathematical precision looks like the product of an engineering mind, not the result of a "Big Bang." "Science" wouldn't be possible without these standard, constant, invisible laws that exist "for some reason" to give mathematically precise order to our universe in the first place. "The evidence of God... has been clearly seen since the beginning in all that has been created, so they will have no excuse" (Romans 1:20)
@@michaelg377 All you can ever do is mischaracterize evolution and disparage people who disagree with you. I have asked you multiple times can you explain why all humans have a tail that reabsorbs and is repurposed in utero? At least, it absorbs for all but the very few humans who are still born with a tail. No? I wonder why?
@@nathancook2852 What do you mean "mischaracterize," do you not believe that humans have fish ancestry? That's a staple doctrine of evolution...? *"Human Ears Evolved from Ancient Fish Gills"* (Bjorn Carey, Live Science, 2006) *"We are fish"* (P.Z. Myers, PhD, Associate Professor of Biology, University of Minnesota Morris) *"That’s because we, and in fact all tetrapods (four-limbed vertebrates, many of which live on land), share a more recent common ancestor with the coelacanth and lungfish than we do with ray-finned fishes."* (evolution berkeley edu) Now you didn't answer my question: *Where do you believe our mathematically precise metaphysical laws of nature came from, as an Atheist?* I believe that a Super-Natural God created the laws of nature, and thus He exists beyond those laws of nature - He said "This is what the LORD says: 'If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth," (Jeremiah 33:25) - and this makes sense of the mathematical precision and specified complexity we see in everything. But since you reject that, *do you believe there was a "Big Bang" and all of immaterial math and science happened?* As for your tail mythology, reposted for your reconsideration (TLDR: it's not a tail, never was, never will be - you're just forcing your mythology onto the evidence): It's not a tail, it's a coccyx - and it's an important connection point for tendons and ligaments and plays a particularly important role in elimination as a result - not a tail by a longshot. What you're doing is committing a logical fallacy that *begs the question* of your fish to philosopher belief system while looking at two things that look similar (human coccyx during embryonic development vs. "tail" in other species) and concluding (presupposing) that this means we have a common ancestor. In reality, it never was, never will be, and is not programmed to be a tail in your DNA at all.
@@michaelg377 You said "fish evolve into philosophers", which implies a direct evolution of a fish into a philosopher, hence a gross mischaracterization, as. I said.
As the definition of biological evolution is *_"the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations,"_* *_ALL_* the examples Mr. Smith gives demonstrate that evolution happens in accordance with its definition.
@annieoaktree6774 I don't think he is insincere in his beliefs, but the facts are that he does misrepresent things that he disagrees with even though he has been told where and how he is mistaken. Whether that would amount to "lying" in a court of law, I am unable to assess. It would be interesting to know if he would swear on his God that he was not lying according to his own definition of lying.
we know that "scientists'" and scholars know everything there is to know about everything that there is to know anything about and yet they still don't really know anything at all. I imagine what our world would be like if they all got real jobs?
@@jockyoung4491 Reverse Enginering the universe is blasphemous and has brought us nothing but more pollution and chaos than we can sustain for much longer.
I think I learn something new every time I watch one of these videos. So much more intellectually stimulating than the evolutionist arguments in the comments section. Also, it's interesting how omitting some important information, can make people believe that a bacteria has "evolved a new ability and metabolic pathway to live off of xylitol", when in fact it already had that ability, and lab-induced mutations simply broke a built-in preference for ribitol over xylitol. Instead of telling all these details, evolutionists will simply present it in a way that would make an ordinary person, who isn't privy to the details, believe that the bacteria has evolved some brand new enzyme and metabolic pathway. Very sneaky.
You’ve clearly never read the scientific literature pertaining to this, because every detail is there. You only go by what dishonest creationists(sorry about the redundancy) tell you. Why don’t you actually read the literature? Is it because you have to be dishonest like all creationists do?
First, when scientists talk about bacteria evolving new abilities, they're often referring to changes in how the bacteria operate based on mutations and natural selection. It's not always about creating something completely new but sometimes about modifying existing capabilities. In your example, if bacteria had the ability to metabolize xylitol but preferred ribitol, and a mutation caused them to use xylitol more efficiently, that’s still evolution. Evolution includes both gaining new abilities and changing existing ones. It's important to note that scientific communication can be complex. Simplifying findings for a general audience can sometimes leave out details, but that doesn’t mean it’s meant to be sneaky. The goal is often to make the science understandable to people without specialized knowledge. However, you do have a point that clarity is crucial. Misunderstanding can happen if key details are omitted. But in reputable scientific discussions, all the details are available for those who dig deeper into the research. So, while summaries might seem oversimplified, the full information is there for those who seek it.
@@FirstnameLastname-cx6go This channel is a prime example of why oversimplification of science terms is necessary. Unfortunately, the need for oversimplification of scientific terms and ideas leaves many open as vulnerable prey for these channels.
Notice how people who believe in evolution never say, "We know evolution is a fact because I have documents showing my great, great, great... grandpa had a tail, lived in trees, and ate dung."
Humans are a subset of apes, and the apes and Old world monkeys are separate branches within Catarrhini. Monkeys include both Old World monkeys (Cercopithecoidea) and New World monkeys (Platyrrhini). While apes and monkeys share a common ancestor, they are distinct groups within the broader primate order. We are genetically nested deep within the taxanomic suborder Anthropoidea (or Simiiformes) the "monkey clade.", which includes both monkeys and apes. If we didn't come from monkeys, then why are we still monkeys? Because cladistically, morhphologically, genetically we are a subset of monkeys, and birds are a subset of dinosaurs, in the same way as ducks are a subset of birds, and the lions are a subset of cats. Do you understand this?
@@tobias4411 "If we didn't come from monkeys, then why are we still monkeys?" - *That is a classic case of circular reasoning my friend, and it's because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers.* This monkey origins mythology has scientifically been debunked - you know this, we've talked about this. *“the percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 84.38%” and “4.06% had no alignment to the chimp assembly.”* (Richard Buggs, PhD, University of London's specialist in evolutionary genomics). "The higher-quality human genome assemblies have often been used to guide the final stages of nonhuman genome projects, including the order and orientation of sequence contigs and, perhaps more importantly, the annotation of genes. *This bias has effectively “humanized” other ape genome assemblies."* (Kronenberg, Z. N. et al. 2018. High-resolution comparative analysis of great ape genomes. Science. 360 (6393). [Regarding Human-Chimp DNA similarity]: "There is a 13.3% difference in sections of our immune systems when insertions and deletions are considered." (Anzai, et. a., "Comparative Sequencing of Human and Chimpanzee MHC Class 1 Regions Unveils Insertions/Deletions as the Major Path to Genomic Divergence," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100, no. 13 (2003). "The chimpanzee genome was 12% larger than the human genome... gene copy numbers revealed a 6.4% difference" (Jeffery Demuth, et al., "the Evolution of Mammalian Gene Families," 2006). [Regarding Human-Chimp DNA similarity]: "There is a 17.4% difference in gene expression in the cerebral cortex" (Jon Cohen, "Relative Differences: the Myth of 1%" Science 316, no. 5833, 2007).
Well, you have, or at least, had a tail as well. Were you born with yours or did it reabsorb in utero like most peoples do? Are few are still born with them.
There are approximately 45,000 denominations of Christianity. Which of them has the correct interpretation of 'God's word,' and which of them do not? How can one tell?
@@tobias4411 That's because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers. Actually all legitimate denominations are overwhelmingly united by the same common core beliefs, it's only on minor secondary issues like manner of dress, style of music, which day to go to church, what kinds of food to eat, interpretations of end times prophecy details, etc. where they differ. And God said those kinds of superficial differences are okay: *"One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind."* (Romans 14:1-5). *This is actually powerful evidence of a united faith across sociocultural boundaries.* Yet this common atheistic obfuscation persists...
@@michaelg377No, more than 2 billion Christians is separated into thousands of denominations. Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Baptist, Apostolic, Methodist - the list goes on. It's not minor difference. The Episcopal Church affirms evolution and rejects rigid creationist views. The United Methodist Church embraces evolution and finds it compatible with Christian faith. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) affirms that evolution and the Bible do not contradict each other. The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America is accepting of evolution. There are also huge variations in beliefs about the nature of God, salvation, the afterlife, and other core doctrines. (Live science, article "Why does Christianity have so many denominations?". "Since the very beginning, according to Diarmaid MacCulloch, professor emeritus of church history at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom. "There's never been a united Christianity," he told Live Science... Michelle Sanchez, an associate professor of theology at Harvard Divinity School, told Live Science via email. Protestants had used scripture to critique the Roman Catholic Church, claiming that any believer could read scripture and have a personal relationship with God. But then, "the obvious problem emerged: Whose interpretation of scripture was the right one?" Sanchez said in an interview. As believers debated the scriptures and sacraments, churches formed and split based on myriad biblical interpretations, ways of worship and organizational structures. From these debates, denominations such as the Presbyterians, Mennonites, Baptists and Quakers, among others, took root." Also, practices and rituals can vary significantly between denominations. Splits have occurred due to disagreements over doctrine, power struggles, and corruption throughout history.
@@tobias4411 And all of those "denominations" share the exact same core beliefs my friend - it's actually a testament to the incredible unity despite sociocultural boundaries. Your narrative really falls apart when you honestly look at the details - the kinds of things that separate "denominations" are church organization structure, food, which day to go to church on, etc. Now "evolution" creeping into the church is an entirely different issue, that's because we are all Uncritically Indoctrinated into the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers as young children today - it's no wonder there's so much confusion. As for the Roman Catholic vs. Protestant issue, you are sharing a half-truth there - to put it simply, Protestants basically said "you Catholics are doing it wrong" as their church institution was growing in corrupt and anti-biblical practices, so "Protestants" (from "Protest") split off and followed the "Sola Scriptura" (Only Scripture) philosophy in an effort to return to the original roots of the original church. In response to the Protestant Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church made a number of shady changes in addition to its other unbiblical practices and doctrines like addition of the apocryphal books to its canon, like 2 Maccabees in which the author expressly declared his writings are not Scripture. Then you have the many international "denominations" within Protestantism which all share the same core beliefs. Minor differences are okay, God said that (Romans 14:1-5), but on the core doctrines of Christianity we are overwhelmingly in agreement. I've been to Baptist, Southern Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Pentecostal (some unbiblical practices there but same core doctrines), and other "denominations" services, and honestly if I didn't know the minor differences them already, their differences were mostly superficial and negligible my friend. This half-truth you're sharing is just overemphasizing a common lie, you've been lied to, and now promulgating the same lie. And it's because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, evil people are not held accountable for their sin, and people like Hitler get away with their evil deeds for free. Great source "What about different denominations?" from CARM, I highly recommend.
@Haggis in response to your erroneous comment regarding finches...... #1 nice when you can define a new species any way you desire when the evidence seems to fit what you want it to say, isn't it? Funny how one of your requirements for classification is that they cannot breed and yet they find different species of finches breeding.
People who believe in evolution are like a small child who knows what he's eating but don't realise that, it costs his father's salary for buying those chocolates made by some big company ( lack of understanding and knowledge) ....😄🤗
Even if bacteria demonstrated "gain of information" through "beneficial mutations" in a much more obvious sense, it would still be a non sequitur fallacy to suggest that it demonstrates macro evolution is a fact, or even possible. It's kind of like saying if you drove your car to the top of the mountain, then you could also drive it to the moon.
(..) This is an artistic proof of a created universe. When you paint a shadow it's the opposite color of the object that made the shadow. Nobody knew what the opposite color of white was so the artists avoided painting white on white. The opposite color of white is baby blue and baby pink. The first artist to figure it out was Norman Rockwell. I was the second artist to figure it out. I saw it in the corner of a white room. The lighting was perfect to see it.
I recently discovered that they've also redefined (like they have so many words) "macro" evolution. It now just means "speciation"... Which it seems, they also equivocate on. [sigh]
@@burnttoast2790 The redefinition the term notwithstanding... Nothing we observe generates or even shows potential for generating what your faith requires, that being, new body plans, organs, and functions. Your faith is blind and flies in the face of what we actually observe. Variation within and net LOSS ≠ fundamental change into and novel GAINS. It's as simple as 1-1=0.
@@jessebryant9233 theists want to redefine and create words like evolutionist, theory, atheist, science, to name a few. Evolution is a scientific theory. Learn what that means. Also learn that science updates with new information and ideas. That seems something you don’t understand either. But I’m sure it will fall on deaf ears
The theory of Evolution is a logically fallacious explanation. One of the fallacies are circular reasoning. They require that people take their position without an argument. Examples of this would be: "Obviously evolution is true." "Clearly scientists know what they are doing." The other fallacy is stacking the deck. This is a logical fallacy that omits, rejects, or ignores the opposing sides argument. For example: "What if theres a possibility that the theory of evolution is flawed?' -"It's a fact 100%." "We have never seen bacteria evolve into a bug or tiny fish even though they rapidly and massively reproduce." -"Evolution takes billions of years so of course we aren't gonna see it."
False, the theory of evolution is not logically fallacious. It is the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth, supported by a large body of evidence from multiple disciplines, including genetics, paleontology, comparative anatomy, and embryology. Empirical evidence includes fossil records showing transitional forms, genetic evidence demonstrating common ancestry, and observable instances of evolutionary processes in nature and laboratory settings. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of evidence and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Evolution meets these criteria. It also makes testable predictions that can be and have been examined through scientific methods. This characteristic of being falsifiable (i.e., capable of being proven wrong if contrary evidence is found) is a hallmark of a scientific theory, not a logical fallacy.
You are 100% correct, and even here we see perfect examples of your claims with evolutionists already preaching things like "It is the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth" - "Best" in particular being an opinion-based qualifer. *All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12,* which A) says something about the "evidence" evolutionists think they have, and B) as atheistic evolution constantly has to radically ad-hoc rewrite itself every time it runs into a new problem (because it simply doesn't match reality), a biblical worldview can explain all the same evidence - no rewrite required. Radical ad-hoc readjustment (evolutionists ironically call it "progress") is a sign of a faulty worldview - its' an Atheist problem, not a problem for a biblical worldview Fish don't evolve into philosophers, and puddles of chemicals don't fizz into people by chance, no matter how much *Time* you add to the pot. That's just not how science (a methodology) works, that is an atheistic origins mythology (an ideology).
The Atlantic Salmon has 46,598 genes and out-in-the-wild bacteria has about 4000, olus or minus 3000. How do you expect a singular bacterium to completely change its cell formation, organelle composition, and gain about 11 times the amount of DNA in your lifetime, including the amount of times where the bacteria or transitional species don't have a mutation that propels them towards fish status?
@@eleeuroandoro3041 Well anything is possible with evolution right? The time it takes to evolve is not fixed and it can be lenient with many timescale interpretations. Also how about let's talk about bacteria. How fast do these bacteria reproduce? Also no one is saying it has to completely change it's cell formation.
@@eleeuroandoro3041 Jesus said: *"“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’"* (Matthew 19:4). As a Christian Evolutionist, do you agree with Jesus that male and female were created "at the beginning," or do you believe it happened after billions of years of chemical reactions? *How did male and female evolve?*
@@samuelrodriguez9199 What a great amount of ignorance and arrogance. Of course you are not interested in any fact of evolution, and you pretend to avoid reality. Several major Christian denominations accept evolution as compatible with their faith: 1. The Roman Catholic Church generally accepts evolutionary theory as the scientific explanation for the development of life. 2. The Episcopal Church affirms evolution and rejects rigid creationist views. 3.The United Methodist Church embraces evolution and finds it compatible with Christian faith. 4.The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) affirms that evolution and the Bible do not contradict each other. 5.The United Church of Christ accepts evolutionary theory and sees it as a way to understand faith in a new light. 6.The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America is accepting of evolution. 7.The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America also accepts evolution as compatible with their faith. 8.Many mainline Protestant denominations have long accepted evolution, with acceptance growing even among some evangelical Christians. As a yec, you are getting very lonely. For instance, in the 18-34 age group, belief in Young Earth Creationism dropped from 34% in 2019 to 25% in 2022.This trend indicates that more people, especially younger generations, are moving away from strict Young Earth Creationism and towards acceptance of evolution, either guided by God or through purely natural processes.
Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just wait a really long *Time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people by chance? Check out GotQuestions sometime, we are all about asking questions. Let me ask you this... Our planet earth meets 122 precise conditions required for life, which is estimated to be about 1 in 10^138 chance (that's a number with 138 zeros) from something like a "Big Bang." For example, it's just the right distance from the sun - just a little closer and we'd incinerate, a little further out and we'd freeze. The tilt of our axis is just right to allow seasons and agriculture without causing the polar ice caps to melt or extreme temperatures. The rotation speed is just right so we don't have violent tidal waves running over the continents, etc. The oxygen content of our atmosphere is 21% - just a few percent higher and we'd have random fires and/or gas explosions, just a few less and life as we know it would suffocate. *Do you believe there was a "Big Bang" and earth randomly clumped together meeting all these conditions required for life?* The odds that a planet could randomly meet all of these conditions is estimated to be 1 in 10^138. To give you an idea, the number of particles in our entire observable universe is about 10^90. In other words, the idea that earth could form so perfectly to be able to support life is 40 orders of magnitude less likely than if I were to draw an X on a Particle somewhere in our universe and I sent you out blindfolded to randomly pick that one. It's a miracle. *How do you believe this happened?* *"The evidence of God... has been clearly seen since the beginning in all that has been created, so they will have no excuse"* (Romans 1:20) "For this is what the LORD says- he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; *he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited* - he says: “I am the LORD, and there is no other." (Isaiah 45:18)
Where is the halfway evolution - an odd feature that is neutral for survival, which can evolve into something beneficial? Why don't all animals evolve cognitive brain features like humans? The brains of animals can do amazing things, why not math?
I think they can do math, but without abstract language to communicate it. I think it takes some instinctive calculations for a bird or squirrel to figure out how to land precisely on a tiny branch from a great distance. However, that doesn't serve to prove evolution, but demonstrates the glory of the Creator.
Why don’t we evolve wings Why didn’t god give us the ability to shit Ice cream It just didn’t happen doesn’t mean god isn’t real tho same thing to evolution 😊
Example of evolution: 1st human and 1st chimp look the same. But can you explain why current humans and chimps differ? What is the first step of evolution?
So, you’re wondering where the "halfway evolution" is-those neutral odd features. Well, surprise, they do exist! Look at the wings of flightless birds. Penguins use them to swim, and ostriches use them for balance. Not just sitting around waiting for a better use. Who knew? And about animals not evolving human-like brains? Let’s imagine if every animal could do math. Wouldn’t it be great if your dog could help with your taxes? But evolution isn’t about what’s cool or helpful to us; it’s about what helps the species survive in its environment. Dolphins are smart in their watery world, but they’re not solving algebra problems because it’s not necessary for catching fish. So, evolution has a way of working out what’s needed, not just what would be impressive to us.
There is neither micro no macro, as Evolution doesn't actually exist. Evolution is a made-up fairy tale for adults who want to wish God wasn't their Creator.
Do you say that because you prefer to listen to Atheistic-Naturalist apologists, and believe instead in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just wait a long enough time puddles of chemicals can fizz into people?
@@cygnusustus more over though all science is :hypothesize, test, observe, confirm/adjust. If we shot down every idea that was contrary to our own, we would still be worried about miasma, wearing mask filled with herbs and germ theory wouldn't exist either. Don't be a hypocrite! " Learn science from scientists!" while defending bill nye... An actor...
"To muddy the waters surrounding the very meaning of evolution itself... ...which are really the reshuffling or damaging of pre-existing genetic information." Micro-evolution does not refer to to reshuffling or damaging of pre-existing genetic information. This assertion is ironic, as it misrepresents what micro-evolution describes. So, let's start with what we do understand: Through generations of any organism, we can observe some genetic mutations that occur (regardless of the cause). That is to say, successive generations will have incidents of DNA that is distinctly not an exact copy of DNA sequences from any genetic ancestor. The link between micro and macro-evolution is simply that the culmination of those mutations over millions of years are readily observed in morphological differences from the ancestral species (though, that may not be so easy, if the ancestor species has not survived alongside the divergent species). What isn't appreciated about evolutions is that species divergence (aka macro-evolution) doesn't necessarily happen in the same geographic location. Our common ancestor to chimps didn't evolve into chimps in the same place as it involved into pre-modern humans. To clarify, common ancestor (A) could have lived in places Y & Z. Due to the differences in the environment in Y & Z, the divergent ancestor to chimps micro-evolved in area Y, while the ancestor to humans micro-evolved in area Z. While they could have interbred then (technically), they didn't because they literally didn't live in the same areas. The divergence last long enough (millions of years), and by the time A-Y reconnects with A-Z, they have changed sufficiently that they are not only not able to interbreed, but also are markedly, morphologically different (A-Y is starting to look more like a chimp and A-Z is starting to look more like a human). To be very clear, the muddying of the waters here is even bothering to talk about "reshuffling or damaging of pre-existing genetic information". It doesn't matter how or why the mutation occurred. The critical factor that generally leads to macro-evolution is often geographic isolation (as in, the common ancestor lives apart for enough generations that the mutations diverge their species; interbreeding would prevent this). The critical elements are that there are genetic mutations that show up over time and that isolated populations of the same species will diverge over time. To say it is is "reshuffling" or "damaging" shows either limited knowledge on the topic or a deliberate attempt to frame it in a way that misleads what evolution describes.
As suspected, Young Earth Creationism is decreasing while Old Earth Creationism is increasing. Numerous Gallup polls support this trend. The decline is particularly pronounced among younger generations. For instance, in the 18-34 age group, belief in Young Earth Creationism dropped from 34% in 2019 to 25% in 2022. This trend indicates that more people, especially younger generations, are moving away from strict Young Earth Creationism and towards acceptance of evolution, either guided by God or through purely natural processes.
It would be easier in a way to believe in evolution than in creation. Believing in God implies an afterlife and judgement. Of course that's not the only reason for the argument. For me it was a desire to know the truth. The theories of evolution and creation were both hard for me to accept. The more I search however the more creation makes sense. The code of life, DNA appears to be like computer programs. Just far more complex than we can imagine. Computer programs don't and can not write themselves. I've been asked the question if God created everything who created God. I have no answer for that. Same question can be asked about the big bang. Who, or what caused it? No answer for that either. The beginning goes beyond our limited box of knowledge and understanding. We can't just go with what we can observe since none of us were around at the beginning therefore it's not observable. Both theories of creation and evolution require a pretty big leap of faith. Maybe a huge leap.
The complexity of DNA and biological systems can be explained through evolutionary processes over long time periods, without requiring intelligent design. As an atheist, I handle the idea were matter came from according the scientific consensus. Matter in our universe originated from energy in the earliest moments after the Big Bang. In the first fractions of a second after the Big Bang, the universe was filled with an extremely hot, dense soup of energy and particles. As the universe rapidly expanded and cooled, this energy was converted into the first matter particles like quarks and electrons. Around one ten-thousandth of a second after the Big Bang, quarks combined to form protons and neutrons - the building blocks of atomic nuclei. It took about 380,000 years for the universe to cool enough for electrons to be captured by nuclei, forming the first atoms (mainly hydrogen and helium). The leading theory for the origin of all this matter and energy is cosmic inflation. This model proposes that the universe began with an unstable energy field that rapidly expanded, then decayed into particles. Remarkably, all the matter in the observable universe could have arisen from an incredibly tiny seed of this primordial energy, perhaps as small as a pea. So matter came from space. But where did the energy came from? Quantum fluctuations in singularity. They allow energy to emerge literally from nowhere (complex concept simplified). There are places in the universe where our laws of physics simply break down. A quantum fluctuation (vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary random change in the amount of energy in a point in space, as prescribed by Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. To understand what a singularity is, imagine the force of gravity compressing you down into an infinitely tiny point, so that you occupy literally no volume. These "singularities" are found in the centers of black holes and at the beginning of the Big Bang. However, the application of this concept to the origin of the universe remains speculative. In essence, the energy didn't "come from" anywhere in the conventional sense - it was the starting state of the universe itself. The Big Bang theory describes how this energy evolved into the matter and structures we see today, but there are still open questions and areas of ongoing research, particularly regarding the ultimate origin of the initial energy that led to the Big Bang. It's important to emphasize that while this explanation is based on our best current scientific understanding, it's still an area of ongoing research. As new evidence emerges and theories are refined, our understanding of the universe's origins may evolve.
@@tobias4411 "In essence, the energy didn't "come from" anywhere in the conventional sense " Does it concern you that as an Atheistic-Naturalist you have to break the 1st law of thermodynamics (a law of nature) to sustain your "natural" worldview? *The only way for nature to create itself is if nature is pre-existent, like God.* The Atheist ironically has to attribute qualities of God to 'Nature' in order to sustain their story. "The evidence of God... has been clearly seen since the beginning in all that has been created, so they will have no excuse" (Romans 1:20)
@VFA666 Analogies are simply comparisons to make a point for an idea or belief. Something to help lead to a conclusion. The conclusion might need a leap of faith whichever conclusion one draws. Do you not think the simple mouse trap would require some level and process of thought? Do you not think thought requires a mind?
I love all the expert non scientists whose arguments from ignorance against evolution have yet to win their nobel peace prize for debunking the scientific theory of evolution. Keep the faith I guess.
Do you say that because you believe in the constantly radically ad-hoc rewritten origins mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and that if you just wait a really long *Time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people by chance?
@@michaelg377 No I say that because the scientific theory of evolution is the best scientific explanation for the diversity of life on this planet, regardless of the fact that you don't understand what evolution is based on your assertions about fish and philosophers or some other such nonsense. You sound as dense as Kirk Cameron and ray comfort when they start talking about not believing evolution happens because they've never seen a Creature that is part kangaroo-duck-dinosaur.
@@RobertSmith-gx3mi All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, which A) says something about the "evidence" that evolutionists think they have, and B) as atheistic evolutionists are constantly radically ad-hoc rewriting their modern mythology every time it runs into a problem, all the same evidences can be explained by Genesis 1-12, no rewrite required. That's not "the best scientific explanation" for anything, that's a constantly radically ad-hoc changing atheistic origins mythology my friend. *Scientific Theories are supposed to be Falsifiable, Religions are Not: Given its extensive history of radically ad-hoc readjusting itself every time it runs into problematic evidence, what would it take to "Falsify" the Theory of Evolution today?* In 1982 a federal court ruled that Creation can't be taught in schools because "it is not falsifiable." Evolution has a long history of radically rewriting itself as it runs into more and more problems - what would it take to "falsify" Naturalistic Evolution? Over 500 Living Fossils? Debunked "Junk" DNA? Finding a 70M year extinct *evolutionary ancestor to tetrapods still alive, unevolved, with no evidence of it ever evolving?* Discovering that many "vestigial" (leftover) organs actually have a normal function, like the appendix? Finding "millions of years" old creatures with no signs of evolution? Fully developed vertebrate creatures in the Cambrian explosion? An Ankylosaurus fossil found where it's not supposed to be buried among sea creatures? Whale fossils deep inland in the United States? Trilobites found appearing suddenly and fully developed with complex eyes in the Cambrian - and in every fossil layer indicating they were buried rapidly? Maybe measurably young tissues in dinosaur fossils that look similar to 4000 year old mummies or the Tyrolean Ice Man? Early jawed placoderm fossils showing fully developed complex jaws - causing evolutionists to claim that they must have evolved, de-evolved, and then re-evolved those jaws to maintain their story of shark evolution? What if scientists admitted that Human-Ape DNA is down from 99% "similar" to only 84% "similar" and admitted their bias in "humanizing" the ape genome? ...or should we just reinterpret all of these problematic evidences to keep the belief in Atheistic/Naturalistic evolution alive, and why? We are all *uncritically indoctrinated* into this Atheistic-Naturalist religion of evolution in our public education system today... Should evolution be held to the same religious standard as Creationism? All of the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, and if you understand "science" then you understand the implications of a competing explanation. *"The evidence of God... has been clearly seen since the beginning in all that has been created, so they will have no excuse"* (Romans 1:20)
@@BlackHat-v4j black, you do not know that blue eyes is the result of Evolution. But it is interesting that you refer to something that is a genetic loss of information as Evolution. Evolution is a false religion, like many others Satan has come up with.
@@tobias4411 tobias, Evolution is a religion, because it purports to explain how we humans got here, and thus, how we should live our lives, and where we are headed. If Evolution is true, people who believe in it will go to dust, and people who don't believe in it will go to dust. If Christianity is true, people who believe in it will go to heaven forever, and Evolutionists will go to dust.
How do you know that blue eyes are a result of a mutation and are not part of the genetic variation within the human population that has been there ever since humans were created?
Excellent points, excellent video. Further more, some critiques! I personally feel that the artificial back grounds are tacky and take away from the perceived validity of anyone who is already suspecting these videos to be a hocked loogie. Second, I'd love to have your sources and references if possible. They would make an incredible difference in my life to be able to study them, and believability to my atheist friends when the topic comes up
See, that is the problem. Calvin doesn't have sources or references. And if he quote mines something, when you go investigate, it actually supports the opposite of what he claims.
@@nathancook2852 Actually his video is full of sources and references, some of them quite embarrassing for evolution because they expose its embarrassing history of radical ad-hoc readjustment and tendency to sweep problematic evidence under the rug. I think you misunderstand the value of a "quote mine" - quoting a Creationist would have no effect, you wouldn't listen, but quoting an evolutionist corroborating a Creationist position (!!!) - that's worth a lot, which is why it makes Atheist Activists so angry. "Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded... *The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time... Some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record... have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."* (D. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50, no 1 (1979), 25) Yes, this is an evolutionist - and he admitted that time is not proving to be very nice to 'evolution' in terms of having to throw out "some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record...". Meanwhile, All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, except as evolution is constantly radically ad-hoc rewriting itself, a biblical worldview can explain all the same evidence - no rewrite required.
@annieoaktree6774 Case in point above, as I said. Here are a couple examples of recent "Evolutionary Curve Balls" and truly implausible rewrites evolutionists have had to invoke: *Discovering lignin in algae that wasn't supposed to be there, and consequently that the SAME material had to evolve TWICE in two entirely separate evolutionary trees by chance...:* "Because monolignol [lignin chemical] synthesis is exceptionally complex, it seems unlikely that Calliarthron and terrestrial plants evolved monolignol biosynthesis and polymerization completely independently." (ie. Scientists discovered that the algae Calliarthron contained lignin - something that wasn't supposed to exist, and this necessitates that it evolved twice, separately, in completely different creatures according to evolutionary thinking). (Martone, "Discovery of lignin in seaweed reveals convergent evolution of cell-wall architecture," Current Biology, 2009) Related to this: "The pathways, enzymes and genes that go into making this stuff are pretty complicated, so *to come up with all those separately would be really, really amazing. Anything is possible, but that would be one h_ll of a coincidence."* (Professor Mark Denny) ("Discovery of *Land Plant Characteristic in Seaweed May be Evolutionary Curve Ball,"* UBC science news, 2009). And an embarrassingly implausible story change: *Discovering fossilized soft tissues in early armored fish, the predecessors to modern jawed creatures like sharks, showing that they actually had fully developed and complex jaws from the beginning - so evolutionists claim they evolved those jaws, must have de-evolved them, and then evolved them back to maintain their story?* Evolutionists *Believe* that jawless creatures evolved into jawed creatures, and believe that certain ancient armored fish were the evolutionary predecessors to modern jawed fish, sharks, etc. However, they discovered placoderm fossils with preserved soft tissues showing that they had fully developed and complex jaws - not the soft early less developed jaws they expected which "present an anatomy that differs radically from the shark model" of evolution. *Now they theorize that these placoderms evolved fully developed complex jaws with more advanced modern muscle connection points, the muscles then disappeared in later descendents, and then they "re-evolved" later.* Meanwhile, while evolution is rewriting itself and adding side stories to sustain itself, it seems those fish had everything they needed from the very beginning of their existence, almost like they were deliberately created and engineered from the start. Radical ad-hoc readjustment is a sign of a faulty worldview - the reason evolution keeps having to be radically ad-hoc rewritten so often is because it simply does not match reality, clearly showing there is another motive there. Science is a methodology - evolution is part of a constantly radically rewritten ideology, which is why we readjust it rather than falsifying it. Meanwhile, All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12... no rewrite required.
@@michaelg377 _"Meanwhile, All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-1"_ 🤦♂ We know that genesis is riddled with errors. You might want to get a better source....
The bit about the bacteria/ enzyme changes allowing digestion of different sugar was quite interesting. The fact that a mutation adds or removes information is quite frankly neither here nor there. The outcome is adaptation to a changing environment. A reasonable try nonetheless and no one would suggest that this was a model for natural evolution. Loss of feature is just as much a sign of evolution as gain. Humans have lost a hairy body but retain the vestigial ability to have goose bumps when cold. A characteristic only useful with hair, as it increases insulation. ‘We see incredible design degenerated by sin’. This is where my exasperation knows no bounds. How can otherwise intelligent people believe this. Really!
@@therick363By all means point out the lies or errors. Tell us what is really going on. Tell us the truth. Simply stating “no it’s not” simply won’t do.
@@m0x910 you missed or ignored the point. Either we both have to support what we said or no one does. Which is it? I’m just looking for some fairness from creationists
The 1st law of thermodynamics doesn't allow energy to "naturally" come from nothing. The 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy) says that energy is always being converted into a less usable form, and it doesn't allow energy to remain usable forever, because in the infinite past it would have been infinitely used up by now (Heat Death). *So if our universe can't "naturally" have a beginning from nothing, and it can't have just always been here (otherwise all of our energy would be infinitely used up), how do you naturally explain the beginning of our universe?* The only way for nature to create itself is if nature is pre-existent/self-existent, like God. The atheist has to attribute qualities of God to "nature" in order to "naturally" (atheistically) explain our origins, it's the ultimate irony. Have you ever wondered why the "reasonable" Atheistic-Naturalists have to appeal to such wild and sci-fi sounding theories to sustain their "natural" (atheistic) beliefs on our origins? *Infinite* alternate universes, an *eternal self-existent* singularity, alternate unobservable metaphysical laws of nature, *pre-existent* phenomena... they have to attribute supernatural qualities of God to "nature" in order to "naturally" explain our origins. This is the Atheist's Natural-Supernatural (!) worldview. It's an internally inconsistent and self-refuting belief system... the only way for nature to create itself is if nature is *pre-existent - like God.* *"The evidence of God... has been clearly seen since the beginning in all that has been created, so they will have no excuse"* (Romans 1:20)
_"The 1st law of thermodynamics doesn't allow energy to "naturally" come from nothing."_ So you're refuting the bible.... _" 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy) says that energy is always being converted into a less usable form,"_ No that's not what it says. It says that there is a tendency for entropy to increase over time in a closed system. _", because in the infinite past it would have been infinitely used up by now (Heat Death)."_ Which refutes the bibles claims of an infinite being. _" So if our universe can't "naturally" have a beginning from nothing"_ Only theists claim this. You're again refuting theists... So many arguments here refute the christian account and I'm only a few lines in....
_"how do you naturally explain the beginning of our universe?"_ We don't know. _"The only way for nature to create itself is if nature is pre-existent/self-existent, like God. "_ huh? wait what? That's simply an argument from ignorance. 'We don't know ...therefore my favourite god did it. ' It's actually a little sad that people still make this argument today. _"This is the Atheist's Natural-Supernatural (!) worldview. "_ Everything you've said is confused up to this point including that statement. 🤦♂
The second law of thermodynamics does not directly contradict the idea that energy came from nothing. Our universe may not be a truly isolated system. The expansion of the universe may affect entropy calculations. Quantum fluctuations and theories like inflation may provide mechanisms for energy to arise within the laws of physics. It's important to note that our understanding of physics breaks down at the extreme conditions of the early universe. The laws of thermodynamics as we know them may not apply in the same way at that scale or in those conditions.
God’s word provides what is good. According to Psalm 119, the word of God is the way of happiness (vv. 1-2), the way to avoid shame (v. 6), the way of safety (v. 9), and the way of good counsel (v. 24). The word gives us strength (v. 28) and hope (v. 43). It provides wisdom (vv. 98-100, 130) and shows us the way we should go (v. 105). God’s verbal revelation, whether in spoken form in redemptive history or in the covenantal documents of redemptive history (i.e., the Bible), is unfailingly perfect. As the people of God, we believe the word of God can be trusted in every way to speak what is true, command what is right, and provide us with what is good.
"God's verbal revelation?" Using the Bible as evidence is circle reasoning. It's just an ancient book, of superstitious goat herders. Myth and folklore.
@@tobias4411 That's because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just wait a long enough *Time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people by chance - Modern atheistic myth and folklore. The "Bible" is a compilation of 66 separate historical texts of various genres from 40+ authors which all claim primary/secondary knowledge and interaction with God in various ways throughout history, corroborated by over 25,000 pieces of archaeological evidence. The original author of the Torah was traditionally an educated Egyptian Prince, not a 'goat herder' as scoffers tend to proclaim. Fish don't evolve into philosophers, no matter how much *time* you add to the mix. Let me ask you this... what are your thoughts on the stele Sinai 115 which corroborates portions of Genesis and places the ancient Hebrews in Egypt exactly when Scripture says they were there, in contrast to the secular narrative of human origins? *"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths."* (2 Timothy 4:3-4)
@@michaelg377For the Mother of Nature, I have already answered you about Stele Sinai. Why do you repost the same questions to me over and over? 👀 The archaeological artifact, Stele Sinai 115 is primarily written in Egyptian hieroglyphs, and the disputed signs are more likely to be Egyptian characters rather than early alphabetic script.
I find it hard to believe for someone to talk about a subject for so long and don't grasp it's basic concepts, so I have to assume this is blatant deception and lies.
Only the Bible gives us the source of truth and the true history of all things. If you don't start with that, you will forever be lost trying to figure everything out.
@@therick363 read a book. Visit a website or two. There are literally thousands (perhaps tens of thousands of more) Christian sites and channels on the internet. Why bother to explain it to someone who hasn't even bothered to do that?
@annieoaktree6774 many of them have evidence for God. Name one? You're on one. AIG. Then go to got questions, Apologetics press .....take your pick. There are plenty.
@@sciencerules2825 Much more evidence of an eternal, transcendent God "poofing" DNA into existence. 1 gram having the equivalent information storage capacity of 88 million grams of 1 terabyte hard disk drives, a 4 letter code compared to the whimpy, primitive zero's and one's, using 100 million times less energy than the computers scientists are using to examine DNA with
@@sciencerules2825 There's much more evidence for a eternal transcendent Creator poofing life into existence and all the specific instructions for replicating all organisms that have ever existed on DNA, including itself than not. 1 gram of DNA has the equivalent information storage capacity of 88 million grams of 1 terabyte hard disk drives, using 100 million times less energy, a 4 letter code compared to the "primitive" zero's and one's the computers scientists are using to examine DNA with
The study has shown that a specific genetic mutation that occured in bacteria exposed to a new environment led to an increase of given bacterias' ability to reproduce in that environment in comparison to the bacteria without the mutation. In other words, new strain of bacteria has *evolved* due to outside pressure. The feature lost was one that was limiting their reproductive capabilities. Do humans have more or less features than apes? Feature count doesn't matter, in fact it is very hard to find a concenzus on what a feature is.
The study you mention shows that bacteria with a specific genetic mutation had a reproductive advantage in a new environment. This is a classic example of natural selection in action, where a beneficial mutation helps an organism thrive in its environment. The bacteria didn’t “evolve” into something entirely new but adapted to their surroundings. Regarding features in humans versus apes: It's not just about counting features. Humans and apes share many features due to common ancestry, but we have differences in traits related to our unique evolutionary paths. The exact number of features isn’t as important as understanding how and why those features evolved. So, the key takeaway is that evolution isn’t about having more or fewer features but about how traits change and adapt over time in response to environmental pressures.
@@FirstnameLastname-cx6go With respect, that's because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers - All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12 without evolution. *Did you know that the mythology that we are "99% similar to apes" has been debunked?* We were all Uncritically Indoctrinated into this lie. *“the percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 84.38%” and “4.06% had no alignment to the chimp assembly.”* (Richard Buggs, PhD, University of London's specialist in evolutionary genomics). "The higher-quality human genome assemblies have often been used to guide the final stages of nonhuman genome projects, including the order and orientation of sequence contigs and, perhaps more importantly, the annotation of genes. *This bias has effectively “humanized” other ape genome assemblies."* (Kronenberg, Z. N. et al. 2018. High-resolution comparative analysis of great ape genomes. Science. 360 (6393). [Regarding Human-Chimp DNA similarity]: *"There is a 13.3% difference in sections of our immune systems when insertions and deletions are considered."* (Anzai, et. a., "Comparative Sequencing of Human and Chimpanzee MHC Class 1 Regions Unveils Insertions/Deletions as the Major Path to Genomic Divergence," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100, no. 13 (2003). *"The chimpanzee genome was 12% larger than the human genome... gene copy numbers revealed a 6.4% difference"* (Jeffery Demuth, et al., "the Evolution of Mammalian Gene Families," 2006). [Regarding Human-Chimp DNA similarity]: *"There is a 17.4% difference* in gene expression in the cerebral cortex" (Jon Cohen, "Relative Differences: *the Myth of 1%"* Science 316, no. 5833, 2007). We ONLY observe biblical speciation within each creature's kind (finch>finch, dog>dog, bacteria>bacteria) never even ONCE a change between kinds as atheistic evolution requires (fish>philosopher, dinosaur>chicken, placoderm>shark, scales>feathers, gills>ears, etc.). The former is observable scientific evidence, the latter is a constantly radically ad-hoc readjusted atheistic origins mythology about the unobservable past with which we are all Uncritically Indoctrinated as young children today. It's no wonder there's so much confusion.
Evolutionists are professionals at manipulating and avoiding the point. For years, me n my wife have consistently challenged them to provide the evidence which proves non living matter has the ability to create living matter which then went on to evolving into all of the animals for which they claim are a product of darwinian evolution. All that we ever get is them refusing to answer the question whereby they change the point by asking us questions, or they claim that before Darwinian evolution, there is macro-evolution and they are not to be held accountable to that area of evolution.
Microevolution refers to evolutionary changes within a species, typically involving small-scale changes in gene frequencies over time. Macroevolution, on the other hand, encompasses larger-scale evolutionary changes at or above the species level, including the emergence of new species. Speciation, a key process in macroevolution, occurs when one species diverges into two or more distinct species. This process typically involves the accumulation of genetic mutations and adaptations over time, leading to the formation of genetically isolated populations. These populations may become reproductively isolated through various mechanisms such as; the populations no longer recognize each other as potential mates or are not inclined to interbreed, prevent the populations from interbreeding, differences in breeding seasons or times prevent gene flow between populations, physical incompatibilities prevent successful mating, sperm and eggs from different populations are incompatible, if mating does occur, the resulting offspring are either non-viable or infertile. When these reproductive barriers become sufficiently strong, the populations are considered separate species. In some cases, closely related species may still be able to produce hybrid offspring, but these hybrids are often infertile or have reduced fitness. Example of hybrids are mules, ligers, tigons etc. Summary: There is no barrier between microevolution and macroevolution. They are just two sides of the same coin. They are both evolution. A lot of small scale things are going to make a big scale thing. A lot of bricks make a house. You accept 2+2=4 but not 2+2+2+2+2=10? I can show you evidence of speciation, macroevolution and transitional fossils.
@@tobias4411 tobias, there is no micro, nor macro Evolution anything, as nothing ever has evolved. "Evolution hasn't been observed while it's happening."
HAd the internet been around in Galileo's time, Calvin would have been there posting videos about how the argument that the earth orbits the sun might seem convincing, but had to be wrong because the bible said earth is at the centre around which everything moves. And no doubt he'd have been an ethusiastic suporter of the inquisition. It took centuries for the bible thumpers to finally give up on that one, but they're still int he proces sof beign dragged kickign and screaming into accepting evolution as equally true.
@@richardgregory3684 So when you said "...the bible said earth is at the centre..." you lied - the Bible doesn't say that then? "The bible" is not the same as man's interpretation or "dogma" in any cultural context.
@@michaelg377 No. It was Church dogma - and widely accepted by almost everyone at the time - that that is what the bible said. It's not my fault the bible is a mass of confused nonsense that can be interpreted to mean almost anything you want. At the tiem of Galileo, peopel sincerely believed Earth was at the centre of everything because they bellieved the bible said it was.
@@richardgregory3684 You're changing your story my friend - you lied above. It is your fault for making false claims - your entire scoffing comment hinges on that lie. "and widely accepted by almost everyone at the time - that that is what the bible said."
It's true - but the fact that it's still around despite its embarrassing history of radical ad-hoc readjustment demonstrates just how little "evidence" "logic" and "science" actually matters to the evolutionist - what matters is that we have a sustained excuse to attempt to explain our creation without God and suppress Him and His judgment against our sin. *"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."* (Matthew 5:28) That's why they're okay with things like "ape-human 99% similarity" being debunked, or ankylosaur fossils found buried among marine creatures where they're not supposed to be, making up preservative theories for observably young tissues inside of dinosaur fossils with no evidence of the side effects of such preservation mechanisms occurring, making up entire unobservable celestial objects to explain away young comets... the list goes on and on. "Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded... *The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time... Some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record... have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."* (D. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50, no 1 (1979), 25)
@kattykitters5310 What do you mean - do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and you're still holding on to the debunked modern mythology of "99% similarity" and ape-human evolution as well? *“the percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 84.38%” and “4.06% had no alignment to the chimp assembly.”* (Richard Buggs, PhD, University of London's specialist in evolutionary genomics). "The higher-quality human genome assemblies have often been used to guide the final stages of nonhuman genome projects, including the order and orientation of sequence contigs and, perhaps more importantly, the annotation of genes. *This bias has effectively “humanized” other ape genome assemblies."* (Kronenberg, Z. N. et al. 2018. High-resolution comparative analysis of great ape genomes. Science. 360 (6393). [Regarding Human-Chimp DNA similarity]: *"There is a 13.3% difference in sections of our immune systems* when insertions and deletions are considered." (Anzai, et. a., "Comparative Sequencing of Human and Chimpanzee MHC Class 1 Regions Unveils Insertions/Deletions as the Major Path to Genomic Divergence," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100, no. 13 (2003). *"The chimpanzee genome was 12% larger than the human genome... gene copy numbers revealed a 6.4% difference"* (Jeffery Demuth, et al., "the Evolution of Mammalian Gene Families," 2006). [Regarding Human-Chimp DNA similarity]: *"There is a 17.4% difference in gene expression* in the cerebral cortex" (Jon Cohen, "Relative Differences: the Myth of 1%" Science 316, no. 5833, 2007). Follow the evidence my friend. We were all Uncritically Indoctrinated into this atheistic origins mythology that fish evolve into philosophers as young children, they just never talk about its scientific problems or its embarrassing history of radical ad-hoc readjustment (it has to keep getting rewritten because it simply doesn't match reality). That's why most people don't even know how to question it...
@@eleeuroandoro3041 Reposted for your reconsideration: Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and you're still holding on to the debunked modern mythology of "99% similarity" and ape-human evolution as well? *“the percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 84.38%” and “4.06% had no alignment to the chimp assembly.”* (Richard Buggs, PhD, University of London's specialist in evolutionary genomics). "The higher-quality human genome assemblies have often been used to guide the final stages of nonhuman genome projects, including the order and orientation of sequence contigs and, perhaps more importantly, the annotation of genes. *This bias has effectively “humanized” other ape genome assemblies."* (Kronenberg, Z. N. et al. 2018. High-resolution comparative analysis of great ape genomes. Science. 360 (6393). [Regarding Human-Chimp DNA similarity]: *"There is a 13.3% difference in sections of our immune systems* when insertions and deletions are considered." (Anzai, et. a., "Comparative Sequencing of Human and Chimpanzee MHC Class 1 Regions Unveils Insertions/Deletions as the Major Path to Genomic Divergence," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100, no. 13 (2003). *"The chimpanzee genome was 12% larger than the human genome... gene copy numbers revealed a 6.4% difference"* (Jeffery Demuth, et al., "the Evolution of Mammalian Gene Families," 2006). [Regarding Human-Chimp DNA similarity]: *"There is a 17.4% difference in gene expression* in the cerebral cortex" (Jon Cohen, "Relative Differences: the Myth of 1%" Science 316, no. 5833, 2007). Follow the evidence my friend. We were all Uncritically Indoctrinated into this atheistic origins mythology that fish evolve into philosophers as young children, they just never talk about its scientific problems or its embarrassing history of radical ad-hoc readjustment (it has to keep getting rewritten because it simply doesn't match reality). That's why most people don't even know how to question it...
10:00 One problem we run into is somebody can make a claim. It will only require 30 words to demonstrate their plane. The Roberto showing that they’re wrong will take a 13 minute RUclips video. Jess, how many people are going to hear the claim and not listen to the remodel. This is because most evolutionist are also progressive. They are good at marketing, not understanding the truth.
The problem is creationists are largely scientifically illiterate and don't have evidence for their claims nor do they have evidence to falsify evolution. They rely on lies, misrepresentation, and quote mines to deceive their audience
@@nathancook2852 That's because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers - but this is a matter of competing worldviews over the exact same evidence. Science is a methodology, what you're talking about is an Ideology - that's something else, not 'science.' The ONLY thing we observe is biblical speciation within each creature's kind (finch>finch, dog>dog, bacteria>bacteria) never even ONCE a change between kinds as atheistic evolution requires (fish>philosopher, dinosaur>chicken, placoderm>tetrapod). The former is observational science, the latter is a constantly radically ad-hoc rewritten atheistic origins mythology about the unobservable past, not 'science.' The problem is evolutionists are largely Uncritically Indoctrinated into their atheistic-naturalist religious beliefs, and they just keep insisting that they have all the evidence, when *in reality all the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12.* They rely on lies, misrepresentation, and quote mines to deceive their audience about Creation.
@@michaelg377I was uncritically indoctrinated into Christianity before I grew up and ultimately left it. So you’re plain wrong. Please describe the process by which you think a fish becomes a philosopher.
@@Bomtombadi1 I don't think fish become philosophers lol, that is part of your atheistic origins mythology, not mine my friend. *Did you know that the common evolutionist mythology that we are "99% similar to apes" has likewise been debunked by recent discoveries?* "The higher-quality human genome assemblies have often been used to guide the final stages of nonhuman genome projects, including the order and orientation of sequence contigs and, perhaps more importantly, the annotation of genes. *This bias has effectively “humanized” other ape genome assemblies."* (Kronenberg, Z. N. et al. 2018. High-resolution comparative analysis of great ape genomes. Science. 360 (6393). *“the percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 84.38%” and “4.06% had no alignment to the chimp assembly.”* (Richard Buggs, PhD, University of London's specialist in evolutionary genomics). [Regarding Human-Chimp DNA similarity]: "There is a 13.3% difference in sections of our immune systems when insertions and deletions are considered." (Anzai, et. a., "Comparative Sequencing of Human and Chimpanzee MHC Class 1 Regions Unveils Insertions/Deletions as the Major Path to Genomic Divergence," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100, no. 13 (2003). "The chimpanzee genome was 12% larger than the human genome... gene copy numbers revealed a 6.4% difference" (Jeffery Demuth, et al., "the Evolution of Mammalian Gene Families," 2006). [Regarding Human-Chimp DNA similarity]: "There is a 17.4% difference in gene expression in the cerebral cortex" (Jon Cohen, "Relative Differences: the Myth of 1%" Science 316, no. 5833, 2007). *""Relative Differences: the Myth of 1%"*
Atheism: We don't know so therefore Atheism. Ignore the fact that even Atheists live in line with the image and likeness of God rather than their own "we're just chemical accidents" belief system. Science (a methodology): Conflate with the worldview (an Ideology) of Atheistic-Naturalism - Fish evolve into philosophers, puddles of chemicals can fizz into people if you just wait a really long *Time,* etc. etc.
@@michaelg377Michael with the LYING!!! Classic. Seriously how much do you get paid? Seriously tell us -what is a scientific theory? -what is theism? -what is atheism?
@@michaelg377 _"Ignore the fact that even Atheists live in line with the image and likeness of God rather than their own "we're just chemical accidents" belief system."_ What does this even mean? live in line with an image and likeness? Do you even think about the words you blurt out... 🤭
The logic in this video is very flawed. Evolution isn't about gaining stuff, .... its about modifications. Even if the changes shown here happens in reverse order, Creationists will still say its not Evolution.
@@colinpierre3441 Gaining wings comes at the cost of arms. Shells come at the cost of mobility. Scales come at a cost of mobility too. Any modifications comes at some underlying cost to the organisms concerned. That's how evolution works.
@@colinpierre3441 because not all creatures live in the same environments. Not all all creatures in the same environments encounter the same survival challenges. Not all creatures in the same environment face the same struggles throughout different points in time.
The human genome is 3.2b base pairs The _Paris japonica_ plant genome is 150b base pairs. Why does the _Paris japonica_ plant have a genome over 45X larger than the human genome?
For that matter, why is the Chimp genome larger than the human genome? *"The chimpanzee genome was 12% larger than the human genome* ... gene copy numbers revealed a 6.4% difference" (Jeffery Demuth, et al., "the Evolution of Mammalian Gene Families," 2006). "The higher-quality human genome assemblies have often been used to guide the final stages of nonhuman genome projects, including the order and orientation of sequence contigs and, perhaps more importantly, the annotation of genes. *This bias has effectively “humanized” other ape genome assemblies."* (Kronenberg, Z. N. et al. 2018. High-resolution comparative analysis of great ape genomes. Science. 360 (6393). *“the percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 84.38%” and “4.06% had no alignment to the chimp assembly.”* (Richard Buggs, PhD, University of London's specialist in evolutionary genomics). [Regarding Human-Chimp DNA similarity]: "There is a 13.3% difference in sections of our immune systems when insertions and deletions are considered." (Anzai, et. a., "Comparative Sequencing of Human and Chimpanzee MHC Class 1 Regions Unveils Insertions/Deletions as the Major Path to Genomic Divergence," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100, no. 13 (2003). [Regarding Human-Chimp DNA similarity]: "There is a 17.4% difference in gene expression in the cerebral cortex" (Jon Cohen, *"Relative Differences: the Myth of 1%"* Science 316, no. 5833, 2007). That last title is particularly revealing: *"Relative Differences: the Myth of 1%"* How many evolutionists today do you suppose still believe in this modern debunked mythology that "apes and humans are 99% similar"? We were all Uncritically Indoctrinated into this atheistic origins story as young children - but our textbooks haven't caught up to this debunked reality yet, instead these problematic findings for evolution are just swept under the rug and no one ever talks about evolution's rather embarrassing history of constantly radically ad-hoc rewriting itself... why?
Explain why all humans have a tail that reabsorbs and is repurposed in utero? At least, it absorbs for all but the very few humans who are still born with a tail.
@@nathancook2852 It's not a tail - never was, never will be, and is not currently programmed to be a tail in your DNA. There are deformities like spina bifida, but human beings are simply not programmed to have a "tail.' What you're calling a "tail" (an unfortunate consequence of calling it a "tail-bone") is actually just a coccyx - it's an important connection point for tendons and ligaments, and actually serves an important role in elimination. What you're doing is a common evolutionist logical fallacy where you say "A looks like B therefore they are related" - you look at human spinal cord development, then look at "tails" in other creatures, and conclude humans have tails - in reality, it's just a coccyx as programmed in your DNA from the moment of conception, nothing more. I hope this helps.
To summarize what I saw in the video, he realized that the changes didn't add anything new to any organism, and in order for evolution to work there would be new developments.
@@Jewonastick In the video example he showed, nothing new formed... he explained it so well I can't even remember everything he said, but check it for yourself.
The macro/micro evolution distinction comes from creationists in denial. It's the same thing. So no, not equivocation - you just don't understand what you're talking about.
Organisms, including us humans, have a system that governs DNA expression. It is called Epigenetics, it switches on or off and strengthens or weakens genetic impulses without changing the DNA blueprint. It can be quite rapid and is reversible. Today it is known that even the changes in the size and form of the beaks of the famous Galapagos finches can happen as rapidly as within a couple of years thanks to epigenetic functions. The system reacts to environmental changes, so it is temporary natural selection. A big part of what is interpreted as evolution is in fact epigenetic adaptation, not random DNA mutations. When researchers speak of micro evolution, they talk in reality of epigenetics.
@@sliglusamelius8578 _"You are making an unprovable claim, that lots of steps of micro evolution lead to"_ 1. Evidence supports this - the fossil record for example. 2. It's logically the same thing. Basically your 'argument' is that more of something doesn't mean more of something and you're just thumping the desk and saying 'not proven not proven' ..hoping that seems convincing.
@@MarkH-cu9zi The fossil record shows huge discontinuities, it does not show what Darwin or anybody else expected, which is the slow change from one form to another. It's not logically the same thing. We have all kinds of breeding experiments with drosophila melanogaster, every possible mutation has been imposed, every gene assortment etc, and we never yield anything but weird and bad mutations or color changes, but no new organisms or body plan changes. Higher organisms, same thing. Recently it was even shown that gray wolves are not ancestral to dogs, but scientists claim that some other unknown wolf species is ancestral. Well maybe. But that level of change is not even close to the claim that land mammals are ancestral to whales, a preposterous idea that should show thousands of slow progressive changes in the fossil record. Pakicetus and a couple other claimed and unprovable transitionals are not good evidence at all, there is not even agreement about what it represents..
Organisms, including us humans, have a system that governs DNA expression. It is called Epigenetics, it switches on or off and strengthens or weakens genetic impulses without changing the DNA blueprint. It can be quite rapid and is reversible. Today it is known that even the changes in the size and form of the beaks of the famous Galapagos finches can happen as rapidly as within a couple of years thanks to epigenetic functions. The system reacts to environmental changes, so it is temporary natural selection. A big part of what is interpreted as evolution is in fact epigenetic adaptation, not random DNA mutations. When researchers speak of micro evolution, they talk in reality of epigenetics.
@@s.unosson Epigenetics is just one more naturally evolved mechanism for improving reproductive success. Why you creationists think it is magic is the only baffling part.
The Japanese spider crab (Macrocheira kaempferi) is a species of marine crab renowned for its impressive size and long legs, which resemble those of a spider. It is the largest known species of crab in the world. This remarkable creature can have a leg span of up to 12 feet (3.7 meters) from claw to claw, and its body can measure up to 15 inches (38 centimeters) in width. With its otherworldly appearance, one might think the Japanese spider crab looks like something from a science fiction or horror movie. Indeed, it stands as a testament to the extraordinary creatures that evolution has brought forth over millions of years.
That's because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers. All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12 - and this wonderful specimen is certainly a testament to the amazing creativity of God when He created all of these creatures including programming them with a capacity to diversify and adapt within their reproductive kinds. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica admits the earliest fossils were already specialized and that: “the fossil record, although fairly rich, has not solved any of the questions about the early evolution of the Crustacea.” (New Encyclopedia Brittanica) *"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."* (Romans 1:20) Evolutionists compare the anatomy among living species and study the fossil record, but neither approach offers any evidence as to how crustaceans evolved. They are still asking themselves if the crustaceans’ shell is a “primitive” structure (because the so-called “living fossils” all have it), or if the structure evolved independently. Great related source: "Creation’s Crustaceans" (Answers in Genesis)
According to ChatGPT: *"Based on these factors, the text exhibits many characteristics of AI-generated content. It is likely that this passage was created by an AI, like ChatGPT"* How disappointing, I actually thought that tobias4411 knew a little bit about what he was talking about, albeit from a biased evolutionary perspective... turns out it's just a bot using the internet to think for him... Quillbot: *"100% of text is likely AI-generated"*
@@nathancook2852 My friend, now it's your atheist activist friends who got caught copy pasta trolling lol... and I'm not just saying that, they are literally blindly using AI which just regurgitates information on the internet, which shows just how empty your position is... I guess if it's on the internet it's true, right? Come on now Nathan. In the meantime - A century ago we taught evolution as "the truth." Since then it has undergone numerous radical ad-hoc readjustments as it's run into more and more problems, and today we still teach it as "the truth." In another 30-40 years when we revise it again, it will still be "the truth." *Which version was "true," and which ones are the lies?*
This is cherry-picking of examples. None of the described mutants have been claimed as proof of evolution "in action". So we see the creation of a straw-man that is then set ablaze. But evolution-biologists would have set it ablaze just as easily as a false example. It's nothing more than fabricating excuses to then resort to name-calling (case in point: calling biologists "Liars"). And that is a little pathetic.
@@itsamystery5279No kidding! Calvin is a bad Christian, because he regularly breaks the 9th commandment by bearing false witness. Which is lying, to you and me.
@@itsamystery5279Science actually proves the existence of God. But you have to be able to think, not just repeat information from textbooks. I have a degree in biology and have never seen one thing that proved evolution or disproved God. Just sayin’
@@calvinsmith7575 They are not "proofs" of evolution. They are simply a few more of the millions of facts that are consistent with evolution. Nobody has ever suggested ANY one thing can "prove" evolution by itself.
@@nathancook2852 "Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded... *The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time... Some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record... have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."* (D. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50, no 1 (1979), 25)
What did he get wrong in this video specifically? This guy made claims and then put forth evidence to support it. You also made a claim.. where is your evidence?
@@ElectricBluJay He's making the same dumb creationist claim "no new books can ever be written because they're just existing words in the dictionary being rearranged." Stupidity that overt should be illegal.
@@itsamystery5279 Then cite a single intermittent species, bruh. If you're so sure about evolution and that Creation is a lie, provide us the proof we keep asking for. Just ONE species that shows macro-evolution in action. We've been waiting....and you folks continue to hurl insults over evidence.
@itsamystery5279 It is quite clear that you have not studied natural selection and mutations. Of course you can write whatever you want, it's a pity that you only quote and don't understand anything yourself.
( ´△｀) 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.
It's really embarrassing to keep desperately trying to poke holes in established scientific theories as if it'll lend any credibility at all to the myths you believe in.
Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just wait a really long *time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people by chance? Science is a methodology, what you're referring to is an Ideology about the unobservable past - not "science." *Scientific Theories are supposed to be Falsifiable, Religions are Not: Given its extensive history of radically ad-hoc readjusting itself every time it runs into problematic evidence, what would it take to "Falsify" the Theory of Evolution today?* In 1982 a federal court ruled that Creation can't be taught in schools because "it is not falsifiable." Evolution has a long history of radically rewriting itself as it runs into more and more problems - what would it take to "falsify" Naturalistic Evolution? Over 500 Living Fossils? Debunked "Junk" DNA? Finding a 70M year extinct *evolutionary 'transitional form' still alive, unevolved, with no evidence of it ever evolving?* Discovering that many "vestigial" (leftover) organs actually have a normal function, like the appendix? Finding "millions of years" old creatures with no signs of evolution? Fully developed vertebrate creatures in the Cambrian explosion? An Ankylosaurus fossil found where it's not supposed to be buried among sea creatures? Whale fossils deep inland in the United States? Trilobites found appearing suddenly and fully developed with complex eyes in the Cambrian - and in every fossil layer indicating they were buried rapidly? Maybe measurably young tissues in dinosaur fossils that look similar to 4000 year old mummies or the Tyrolean Ice Man? Early jawed placoderm fossils showing fully developed complex jaws - causing evolutionists to claim that they must have evolved, de-evolved, and then re-evolved those jaws to maintain their story of shark evolution? What if scientists admitted that Human-Ape DNA is down from 99% "similar" to only 84% "similar" and admitted their bias in "humanizing" the ape genome? ...or should we just reinterpret all of these problematic evidences to keep the belief in Atheistic/Naturalistic evolution alive, and why? We are all *uncritically indoctrinated* into this Atheistic-Naturalist religion of evolution in our public education system today... Should evolution be held to the same religious standard as Creationism? All of the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, and if you understand "science" then you understand the implications of a competing explanation. *"The evidence of God... has been clearly seen since the beginning in all that has been created, so they will have no excuse"* (Romans 1:20)
@@therick363 When a man lies, he lies to himself. Be honest with yourself my friend. The "liar liar" tactic will only get you so far - Consider your own contradictions: "LIE. *I never said our universe has always existed. So you are LYING."* (therick363, 18 June 2024) "The beginning of the our universe *well first off we don't know scientifically if this universe had a beginning.."* (therick363, 18 June 2024) "I said NATURE could have existed in some form. I didn't say the universe." (therick363, 18 June 2024) "Why does nature need to be created? *It could have always existed in some form."* (therick363, 18 June 2024) So "nature... could have always existed," but not the universe, but the universe may not have "had a beginning," but you "never said our universe has always existed." ...too many word games. "I NEVER said energy can come from nothing in my world view and in fact said I don't hold that view. *I said it could be eternal."* (therick363, 18 June 2024) And thus you contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics which observably operates in both open and closed systems, and simultaneously declare "energy" to be self-existent - it "just is," "from [Atheistic] everlasting to everlasting," like God. The only way for nature to create itself is if nature is pre-existent/self-existent, like God. *therick363's test to falsify evolution: *"Finding a modern animal in the past would be a good place to start,* say a human with a dinosaur....that would really help. Or present a model that does a better job....." [Evidence of hundreds of living fossils shown] *therick363 now:* "Just because we find "living fossils" doesn't debunk evolution. *I said find a MODERN animal in the past...not a past animal now."* What's the difference? We've found over 500 living fossils - modern animals in the past, past animals in the present - it's the same thing my friend. *Living Fossils.* Coelacanth, horseshoe crabs, wasps, dragonflies... hundreds. The Coelacanth in particular was an alleged evolutionary transitional species. *therick363 now again:* "Have you found a cat? A dog? MODERN ones? no you haven't." ...unfortunately, the only one lying here is you my friend - to yourself. *"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"* (Romans 3:23)
@@sciencerules2825 Same to you my friend. Blessings to you and yours. *"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."* (Matthew 5:28) *"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"* (Romans 3:23) *"But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken."* (Matthew 12:36) "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, *who suppress the truth by their wickedness,* 19 since what may be known about God *is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them."* (Romans 1:18-19)
"Best dog"? That's not how evolution works. Dogs were among the first animals to be domesticated, and they have been domesticated for around 30,000 years. It's a selective breeding, and humans selected for desirable traits. Genetic studies suggest that all ancient and modern dogs share a common ancestry and descended from an ancient, now-extinct wolf population. (Wikipedia). Animal domestication is a coevolutionary process in which a population responds to selective pressure while adapting to a novel niche that included another species with evolving behaviours. (Larson, G.; Bradley, D.G. 2014. "How Much Is That in Dog Years? The Advent of Canine Population Genomics").
You're referring to the evolutionist philosophy of Advancement Thinking - the general *Assumption* that things grow and go from simple to complex over time. The problem is that while this "simple to complex" philosophy is the essence of their belief system, they can easily abandon it when the evidence doesn't suit them. Atheistic-Evolution actually has nothing to do with evidence... it's a constantly radically ad-hoc rewritten atheistic origins mythology about the unobservable past designed to explain our creation without a Creator - no Creator means no moral accountability, and no judgement for their lies, theft, lust, adultery, fornication, hatred, greed, selfishness, blasphemy, idolatry, dishonoring their parents, or otherwise. *"It is appointed for a man to die once, then comes judgment"* (Hebrews 9:27) Two worldviews, same evidence, two very different interpretations. A) Evolutionists preach a modern constantly changing mythology that everything grew from *simple* chemicals in a puddle into a highly *complex* single cell organism into all *complex* life on earth (ie. Advancement Thinking - Simple>Complex). B) Biblical creation proponents believe that God created each creature with a capacity for diversification and adaptation in accordance with their kind with perfect health and no degradation, and through years of inbreeding and the other effects of sin and corruption in the world they have degraded over time showing an increase in health problems, decrease in lifespan, resulting in genetic flaws and end of the line species not always able to reproduce like the mule, etc. (ie. Genetic degradation over time - Complex>Simple). You have to evaluate the worldviews to determine which one more rationally handles the evidence. Food for thought that come to mind are the law of biogenesis which atheists need to circumvent, the 2nd law of thermodynamics which suggests entropy (disorder) is always increasing, and *how do you get from meaningless goo to meaningful and valuable you just by adding time + chemicals + chance in a meaningless universe?* By using tests like internal consistency, existential viability (ie. can you live a "we're just chemicals" worldview out in reality), and whether it has a history of radical ad-hoc readjustment - you can test which worldview is more rational in its handling of the evidence. All of these are problems for Atheism, not for a biblical worldview. But again - atheistic-evolution actually has nothing to do with evidence, it's about moral suppression of the God who is going to hold them accountable. Therein lies the problem.
@annieoaktree6774 Not trolling my friend - I'm asking you about the existential viability of your worldview as a chemical accident in a meaningless universe. *How do you get from meaningless goo to meaningful and valuable you just by adding time + chemicals + chance in a meaningless universe?* *"They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them"* (Romans 2:15)
I will never describe evolution as “change” like evolutionist do. Evolution needs to be defined as the addition on new information to DNA by a natural process.
That definition doesn't work. Evolution works by modifying existing genomes. That can mean either adding new functional genetic information, modifying existing genetic information, *or by deleting unused genetic information.* It's all still evolution.
@@apoliticalobserver2741 nope. My definition is the only way new body plans are made. Because you cannot delete information without having made it first.
They keep their definition deliberately ambiguous, it's a bait and switch. By saying it is something overly generic like "change over time" or "changes in allele frequency" or "descent with modification" - they can lay claim to all changes as alleged "evolution." The problem is that we ONLY observe biblical speciation within each creatures' kind (finch>finch, dog>dog, bacteria>bacteria, etc.) without "evolution," never even ONCE a change between kinds as the atheistic origins mythology of evolution requires (fish>philosopher, dinosaur>chicken, placoderm>shark). The former is observable science, the latter is a constantly radically ad-hoc rewritten atheistic origins mythology about the unobservable past - not science. In other words, they keep it deliberately ambiguous so they can claim all the actual *observable* evidence, and then do a bait and switch to conflate the observable evidence with their *unobservable and constantly radically ad-hoc rewritten origins mythology of particles to man evolution.* If they were honest, they should absolutely insert their assumptions like "common ancestry," "creation of new information/instructions," etc. which their definition suspiciously lacks. All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12 - no radical rewrite required. And if you understand 'science,' then you understand the implications of a competing explanation. You see it all right here: "Evolution works by modifying existing genomes. *That can mean either adding new functional genetic information,* modifying existing genetic information, or by deleting unused genetic information. *It's all still evolution."* "Fail again. *Evolution can and does proceed* without the addition of new body plans."
@@apoliticalobserver2741 that is the point I’m making. Losing information is not evolution. Only gaining information. Plain and simple. Entropy cannot be the mechanism for evolution
Can you get some creativity with the title? "Atheists/Evoluiotionsts don't want you to see this,' is first off, always a lie, we are usually very happy to discuss the point that you bring up and mischaracterize, misrepresent, and lie about. Also, it get's old. Freshen it up a bit. But why would I think you could come up with a creative title? You never get the science correct...
I appreciate your willingness to discuss difficult topics. Let me ask you this... when all the right chemicals fizzed into all the necessary proteins required for life by chance (already an Atheist miracle), and then into all the necessary cell components inside of a cell enclosure by chance chemical reactions, *how did they overcome the scientific problem of hydrolysis which inhibits protein formation in water?* Here are a few examples of what scientists say on this topic: *"we've not made the RNA in a prebiotically relevant manner. It hydrolyzes too rapidly."* (Professor Jack Szostak, Chicago, 2021) [Regarding Abiogenesis] *"Chemistry is actually hard to get to work. The molecules precipitate. The molecules hydrolyze. The molecules decompose. And so it's very much a constraint that you have to deal with.. it's one g-d problem after another."* (Steve Benner, former Harvard Professor, Director of Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution, 2019) "Even a single protein could not arrive at its native structure in biological real time because conformational space is far too vast": ~10^95 possible conformations for a chain of 100 residues, so that *"even a small protein that initiated folding by random search at the time of the big bang would still be thrashing about today."* (Peter Tompa and George D. Rose, "The Levinthal Paradox of the Interactome," Protein Science 20 (2011): 2074.) "An interactome is the whole set of non-covalent molecular interactions in a particular cell. If one merely considers all *protein-protein interactome combinations in just a single yeast cell, the result is an estimated 10^79,000,000,000 combinations."* (Peter Tompa and George D. Rose, Protein Science 2011, 20, 2074-2079. Department of Structural Biology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium, and the Department of Biophysics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.) For reference, 10^90 is the estimated number of elemental particles in the universe. Minimum requirements of a "simple" cell: *"The minimal gene set* included genes for: DNA replication, repair, restriction, and modification; a basic transcription machinery; aminoacyl-tRNA synthesis; tRNA maturation and modification; ribosomal proteins; ribosome function, maturation, and modification; translation factors; RNA degradation; protein processing, folding, and secretion; cellular division; transport; energetic and intermediary metabolism (glycosis, proton motive force generation, pentose phosphate pathway, lipid metabolism, and biosynthesis of nucleotides and cofactors)." (Joana C. Xavier, Kiran Raosaheb Pahl, Isabel Rocha, *"Systems Biology Perspectives on Minimal and Simpler Cells,"* Microbiol Mol Biol Rev, 2014 Sep 76(3): 487-509). *"The evidence of God... has been clearly seen since the beginning in all that has been created, so they will have no excuse"* (Romans 1:20)
You don't discuss, you just copy paste. I am not "discussing" anything with you. I have tried multiple times and you are not here to learn. You are on AIG's payroll here to troll those who can prove them wrong.
@@jockyoung4491 Michael G doesn't have two brain cells to rub together. He has a list of a half dozen creationist paragraphs Calvin gave him which Mr. Pinocchio Nose reposts at every chance. That's his job.
The Argument for god might seem convincing until you realise he used to be a volcano. Exodus 13:21 And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night.
But volcanoes don't "go" anywhere (Exodus 13:21), neither they move or change directions in front and behind a mass of people, and to my knowledge there are no volcanos in the Red Sea/Sinai Peninsula region. Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just wait a really long *time* puddles of chemicals can turn into people? Tell me something... as a Christian I believe that you are a meaningful, moral, purposeful, dignified, valuable human being made in God's image, and I observe that you have these values. In your worldview, *how do you get from meaningless goo to meaningful and valuable you just by adding time + chemicals + chance in a meaningless universe?* God said you are a meaningful and valuable human being made in His image and likeness (Genesis 1:27), with a purpose and a unique capacity for "dominion" over creation as you sit here typing this (Genesis 1:26), morality and a sense of justice (Genesis 9:6), a sense of dignity and respect towards others (James 3:10), a capacity for free will rational thinking and decision making (Genesis 2:16), and a conscience which reflects the principles of His law (Romans 2:15), among other things. These are observable qualities that we all observe in you, and being made in God's image and likeness makes perfect sense of that. I love that He programmed that into you so that even you can see clear evidence in yourself that He exists, and that you're not just "meaningless evolved protoplasm." How do you explain these qualities of the image and likeness of God in you from your own worldview? For example, *is "rape" always wrong in your worldview, or is it sometimes morally permissible - and why?* Where does that come from in your worldview? Animals do it all the time, it's "normal" - it's "natural" - and we're just "evolved animals," right? Chemical reactions destroy each other all the time, it's "normal" - it's "natural" - and who cares - we're "just chemicals," right? What's the difference...? *"They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them."* (Romans 2:15)
It would be easier to take this video more seriously if the host wasn’t placed at a desk with a microscope as a prop and a book, likely a Bible, that he almost certainly was not in the middle of reading when the camera crew “suddenly showed up” to interview him. He also happens to be sitting conveniently in front of a green screen to make it appear as if he in in the laboratory while speaking, which is basically claiming he is an active researcher without saying it directly. If your presentation is this obviously pretentious, how can I assume the content of your words aren’t equally pretend?
They are not reductive mutations by his description. What has actually occurred is an adaptation to a change in the food supply, which triggered a programmed survival response allowing the organism to survive. This is likely programmed into the epigenetics as a failsafe mechanism enabling the bacteria to overcome a change in its environment. The creation of super bugs is the same thing. In contrast to what proponents of life from non living materials espouse, the survivability of living organisms in a changing environment is proof of design by an all knowing engineer outside of linear time. This engineer designed in advance of need the upgrades which may/ will be necessary for survival. Adaptation is the word not microevolution. More word games to confuse people who are seeking answers. The enemy of our soul is a liar seeking to separate us from truth, our Creator
So, you’re saying that what’s happening isn’t “reductive mutations” but rather an epic survival response coded into the epigenetics-like some cosmic fail-safe built in by an all-knowing designer. Fascinating! Because clearly, evolution is just a clever disguise for what’s really a grand design by a timeless engineer. Superbugs? Oh, they’re just like those nifty upgrades you get on your smartphone, but pre-programmed by an omnipotent coder who knew exactly what bacteria would need to survive a bacterial apocalypse. It’s like, “Oh, you need a resistance to antibiotics? No problem, I’ll just add that to the design!” And adaptation? Totally not the same as microevolution. It’s a completely different game of semantics! Evolution is just a “word game” meant to baffle those who are apparently searching for truth, while adaptation is the real deal-because who needs a scientific explanation when you’ve got divine engineering? So, in this grand cosmic drama, evolution and adaptation are just ways to confuse us mere mortals. Because obviously, the real story is that everything was meticulously designed by an all-knowing engineer who’s way ahead of the game. Science and evolution are just fancy smokescreens, right? And let’s not forget, any hint of a naturalistic explanation is just the work of a nefarious “enemy” trying to lead us astray. Classic!
@@Visualindexpro Sorry I missed it. Poe's Law* claims another victim. ☹ *Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article.
Science is a methodology, what you're talking about is an Ideology - not 'science.' Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just wait a really long *Time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people by chance?
(/_;)/~~ 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.
Frankly, the information in this video certainly invalidates the idea that bacterial resistance is macro-evolution in action, but this information is all but useless unless you happen to be a microbiologist or geneticists communicating with another microbiologists or geneticists. Because, in reality, these are the only people who would have any clue about how to make any sense out of what was just explained. You (Mr. Calvin) may as well have been using a foreign language. On the one hand, yes, while the science you explained clearly invalidates what atheistic minded scientists are trying to present as conclusive, in the real world, let me ask you, what average believer has any real use for this information???? We are not microbiologists/geneticists and we certainly don't interact with others who are or would even have a clue about how to even begin to understand what you just explained. Do you even live in the real world? Try to imagine coming up to the average unbeliever and saying "Hey man, let me tell you about some of the inherent equivocation fallacies related to the research being done by atheistic scientists on the "common" helicobacter pylori bacteria." Better yet, "Hey man, let me explain to you how point mutations in bacteria don't really show any "new" traits and abilities coming into existence by natural selection and genetic mutations like atheistic minded scientists have concluded." I'm not sure what kind of reaction that you'd get from the average unbeliever in your world, but in my world you'd be met with nothing but a blank stare. This would only get worse if you attempted to regurgitate what you just said in this video. I believe that I speak for the average believer watching this video when I say that its content is very discouraging more than anything else. By this I mean the idea that we have to understand and be able to explain such complex molecular processes at such a deep level accompanied by PhD level jargon like you just did in this video to effectively defend our faith, is discouraging to say the least. Not only this, the fact of the matter is that it's really unnecessary. The reality in the world you seem to have left long ago is that anyone who understands what you just explained well enough to mount an intelligible and articulate defense against it (even though their defense would be wrong) , is most certainly too far gone to be convinced of the Truth, anyway. As correct as your explanations are in this video, to the average believer, and even the unbeliever alike, only hear gibberish coming from your mouth. Your analogies don't help at all. More power to you for knowing all these things and being able to articulate them so well, but in the real world where probably 99.9% of us average believers live and minister, the content of this video is almost entirely useless to us. Just sayin. But keep up the good work. Most all of your other videos are so helpful and are much needed in this world of godless relativism.
AIG can't seem to win either way. Many times they will simplify their videos to make it easy to understand for regular people. Then they will get criticized for it, saying that they aren't real scientists. Then they make videos that are more complex so people who have knowledge of science can understand and they get complaints from other people. I think we should just take it for what it is and for us laymen, we wait for the next more simpler video. Try to cut them a little slack, man. They're trying.
Hebrews 4:12
“For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.”
The Bible tells us that the word of God is alive. It is powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword. This verse from Hebrews shows how deeply God’s word can cut through our thoughts and intentions. It divides soul and spirit, joints and marrow.
It judges our heart’s thoughts and attitudes. When we read or listen to these words, they change us. They work on our minds like a surgeon’s scalpel, revealing what we really think and feel.
That awful version is worded so poorly...
Hebrews 4:12 is about the Holy Spirit of God, Spoken forth by God into action. This is why John reveals to us in John 1:1-3,14 and Revelation 19:13 that *JESUS* is The Word of God. He is the visual manifestation of the invisible Word (Spirit) of God. Hebrews 4:12 is not about the bible though, since the bible is simply ink text on paper. It is not alive, nor does it have a mind to discern the thoughts or intents of human hearts. Only the Holy Spirit of God could be the One Paul is writing about here. This is where most Christians make the mistake in quoting that verse, because they've been raised to constantly call the bible "the word of God" but not even Paul wrote that the scriptures are "the word of God". Jesus Himself said the scriptures BEAR WITNESS of Him (read John 5:37-41), yes, but the scriptures are not the Living Word of God. Jesus is. :)
@@Harpazo_to_Yeshua The Bible is the written word of God. Jesus is the living word of God. That is the difference.
@@gdblackthorn4137 then don't read it. Leave it for others to read. I'm sure others will appreciate it.
@@Tiger1-ir7yy don't worry about that guy. He is likely a KJV only person. Sometimes those guys get a bit overzealous.
I can only repeat: the devolution is fact. There are many examples of devolution. There is no single example of evolution. Why don't they teach the Theory of Devolution in place of the Theory of Evolution? Theory of Devolution is fact, knowledge, science. Theory of Evolution is a fairy tale or rather grand mystification :)
There is no such thing as "devolution". Evolution can remove unused features, modify them, or add new features but it's all still *evolution.*
You’re conflating semantics to obscure the entropic principles at work in both cosmology and biology. You know full well what evolution conveys to people in the public sphere and thus the necessary distinction to justify the term Devolution
@@martinmoffat5417 It's not semantics. There is no scientifically recognized process as "devolution".
@@itsamystery5279Gee, I wonder why? Time for a pioneer
@@martinmoffat5417 Go ahead and write up your evidence, submit it for publication in a peer-reviewed professional science journal. Let us know how that turns out. 🙂
AiG Canada is the best part of AiG's entire ministry, the content is just on another level of excellence. Thank you!
_AiG Canada is the best part of AiG's entire ministry_ Talk about damning with faint praise... 😄
I agree. AIG Canada is really good.
indeed
I agree. I like it better than the main AIG channel.
I agree, I really like this pastor
Awesome video. Jesus is Lord!
Just re-watched part 1 and was thinking where's part 2, I'm ready for part 2!
And here it is!!! Thanks AIG Canada!
You are welcome : )
What is termed as microevolution _never_ entail the gaining of information but the _loss_ of information. This is _not_ evolution but the opposite. Further, _every_ cellular division causes a loss of DNA at the ends of the strands. There is _always_ a loss of information from generation to generation and follow the laws of entropy.
Oh shut it, will you? Define information in this context please. More words games from stupid creationists who don’t know what they’re talking about.
If you claim was true, how do you explain the sodium pump gene mutations of the monarch butterflies?
_never entail the gaining of information but the loss of information._
The "mutations only lose information" is one of the stupidest creationist claims of all time for the simple fact whatever one mutation can do, another later mutation can *undo.*
If AAC --> AAG is a loss of information then AAG --> AAC must be a gain of information *by definition.*
These mutations are seen in the real world. They're called reverse mutations or back mutations.
"Nonetheless, *most studies of recent evolution involve the loss of traits,* and we still understand little of the genetic changes needed in the origin of novel traits" (Nadeau, Jiggins, "A Golden Age for Evolutionary Genetics? Genomic Studies of Adaptation in Natural Populations," 2010)
*"Many of the well-studied examples of adaptive evolution have involved trait loss,* such as the loss of bony structures in freshwater stickleback populations and the reduction of pigmentation and eyes in cavefish. However, over the broad sweep of evolutionary time *what we would really like to explain is the gain of complexity and the origins of novel adaptations."* (Nadeau, Jiggins, "Golden Age" 2010).
"Of course, to some extent the difference between loss and gain could be a question of semantics, so for example the loss of trichomes [hairlike appendages on flies] could be called gain of naked cuticle." (Nadeau, Jiggins, "Golden Age," 2010).
@@michaelg377 Michael G the serial liar back with his daily dump of C&Ped stupidity.
It's a miracle that more species don't go extinct from reductive mutations.
Entire species don't mutate. Individuals do. And if that mutation is deleterious, then it does not spread well to the rest of the species
@@jockyoung4491 Aren't most negative mutations so small that they cannot be selected for? If so, these mutations accumulate and spread into the gene pool, causing a population's overall health to decline.
@@williambillycraig1057 No. If a batch of very slightly deleterious mutations (VSDMs) accumulate enough to be visible to selection then all of the accumulated ones in that individual will be selected out _en masse._ There is no problem for evolution.
that would be dependent on mutation rates and generation times excluding the extent of environmental variability
That's because the world hasn't been around long enough for the reductive mutations to affect the entire group yet.
Proverbs 30:5
“Every word of God is flawless; He is a shield to those who take refuge in him.”
Proverbs tells us, “Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.” We learn two key things here:
1. Trustworthiness.
2. Protection through knowledge and salvation.
When doubts arise or when life throws challenges at us, these words remind everyone about finding safety in His promises.
How do you know that this is true?
@@georg7120 because we have a relationship with God
But he said that he lied to the scribes so I wouldn't say that his word was flawless or true.
@@IAMhassentyou You may have seen, touched and talked to him but while I was a Roman Catholic nothing like that ever happened, I have more belief in the tooth fairy, I put my baby teeth under my pillow at night and in the morning I got a quarter in return, god never appeared to me, spoke to me or answered to me, so far he is batting 0%
For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
Hebrews 4:12
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path.
Psalm 119:105
In Christianity, the Bible is considered the "Word of God," and there is much to find about this topic in scripture. The Bible is called the Word of God, meaning it can be considered a direct line of communication from the Lord, divinely inspired by the authors of the respective books.
If the Bible is truly God’s Word, then we should cherish it, study it, obey it, and fully trust it. If the Bible is truly the Word of God, then it is the final authority for all matters of faith, practice, and morality. If the Bible is the Word of God, then to dismiss it is to dismiss God Himself.
IF
@@jockyoung4491 and we as believers know the answer to that one.
In actual Christianity, the bible is not considered "The Word of God." In Christianity, *Jesus is The Word of God,* and the bible bears witness to this fact: John 1:1-3, 14 and Revelation 19:13. Jesus did not even call the scriptures "the word of God." Read John 5:37-41 to see Jesus differentiating between "scripture" and "word". Scripture is written information and it bears witness to certain things, but WORD is *spoken* by the mouth, not written. We must be careful to differentiate between the two. The English language is at fault for this though, as it claims "word" can be written, which is not true. Text is written, WORD is SPOKEN. 🙂
Most Christians today do erroneously call the bible "the word of God" when it's not. The bible *BEARS WITNESS OF* The Word of God. There's a monumental difference. 🙂
@@Harpazo_to_Yeshua actually the Bible is the written word of God. Jesus is the living word of God. That's the difference. No wrong in calling the bible the written word of God.
@@Tiger1-ir7yy Tiger, God bless you as you point people to the written and living Word of God.
Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
Matthew 4:4
But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
Psalm 119:105
Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
06:00 complexity and design requires a Designer! These types of things could not gave formed naturally. To think it is anything other than a design trait is absurd.
Evolution is a mindless process, it doesn't progress towards a goal or final destination. It doesn't have intent or foresight. It's a process of trial and error, of experimentation and adaptation. It's like a blind watchmaker. It's blind...to failure. It does not need help from a higher being, a deity. The design in our living world is an illusion. There are no deliberate designs in nature. When an organism’s circumstances change and demand a completely different body, evolution cannot go back to the drawing board. Instead, it works with what it has.
You're wrong! According to atheists, we came from Kingkong and Planet of the Apes is our origin planet.
@@justcrap3703 lol 😂😂😂
If all complexity requires a designer that creates an infinite regress problem which can only be solved by admitting that not all complexity requires a designer.
@@peopleofearth6250 by things that don't seem to be complex?
Why would you think that would apply to an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent Creator?
Where are the bones of one animal turning into another ?
Huh? Nobody has ever suggested somethign so silly. What are you talking about?
@@jockyoung4491 LMAO! You found one that still believes in Kirk Cameron's "crocoduck!"
I actually like when plants turned into animals! 😁
@@jockyoung4491give me one example of a transitional fossil of a human then I'll believe in evolution
@@sifundogumede8883 _Homo erectus._ Start believing.
further more bacteria remain bacteria
Why did you lie and claim to have a PhD in Evolution from an Ivy League school?
Except for the ones that became mitochondria.
@@jockyoung4491 only if you could prove that through common descent which is hypothetical.
@kattykitters5310 red herring fallacy and strawman. this video is talking about one species of bacteria which I am referring to. even speciation didnt occur
@kattykitters5310 congratulations on an other red herring. the process of evolution (which you say "occurs") is different than the theory which was developed in the 1800s. if you are unaware of this difference between the two, please learn about Charles Darwin and his theory which he wrote a book on.
You don't seem to understand evolutionary biology at all.
Thank you AIG. Good stuff! We know what is true.
No you don't.
@@jodyjohnston2899 Yes he/she does.
🤚🏻👌🏻🙏🏻
So the bacteria turned into bacteria but they just believe somehow that disproves Jesus and the Bible 🤷♂️?
Your fundamental lack of science knowledge is something AIG counts on. Unfortunately a youtube channel and a message board cannot fix that lack of knowledge.
@@nathancook2852 okay why don't you show us your BEST evidence? Can you enlighten us all?
@newsgetsold - Wikipedia "Evidence of common descent"
@@newsgetsold Who used evolution to try and disprove Jesus? You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how evidence and logic as a whole works. All of science could be completely wrong and that doesn’t make belief in a genie true. You still have to show that genies exist.
@@dross4207 LOL you know what he meant... these semantics games lol
Design demands a Designer. Complexity shows intelligence.
Everything in creation points to our Creator. Amen AIG 🙏🙏🙏✝️ keep leading people to God's truth.
False
@@therick363 nothing false about it, my friend. God's word is truth. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. He offers salvation to any who call on his name and will not deny anyone who comes with a sincere heart. 🙏🙏🙏 God bless you
@@newcreationinchrist1423 It's 100% false. You know it's false because you've had it explained to you dozens of times.
@@newcreationinchrist1423 actually it is. But I’ll help you.
Define creation.
@@sciencerules2825 so because a bunch of atheists have talked to me I'm supposed to "know?"
I know what you think is true.
I don't agree with it but I know.
And what happens if you are wrong? What if you are wrong and you wake up one day finding yourself standing in front of your eternal Judge?
God’s word demands what is right. (Psalm 119)
The psalmist gladly acknowledges God’s right to issue commands and humbly accepts that all these commands are right. “I know, O Lord, that your rules are righteous,” he says (Ps. 119:75). All God’s commandments are sure (v. 86). All his precepts are right (v. 128). I sometimes hear Christians admit that they don’t like what the Bible says, but since it’s the Bible they have to obey it. On one level, this is an admirable example of submitting oneself to the word of God. And yet, we should go one step further and learn to see the goodness and rightness in all that God commands. We should love what God loves and delight in whatever he says. God does not lay down arbitrary rules. He does not give orders so that we might be restricted and miserable. He never requires what is impure, unloving, or unwise. His demands are always noble, always just, and always righteous.
Amen 🙏
Good job as always AIG 😎👊
LOL
Thank you for your excellent work, we need more people like you to spread the base of God's creation ❤
Great explanation. At the rate bacteria reproduce, we should have seen a bacteria "evolve" into something that isn't bacteria. Just like fruit flies which reproduce a much slower rate then bacteria, but still very fast, even forced mutations just end up leading to the flies demise once straying to far from the original DNA coding plan created by God.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution that AIG is counting on. Unfortunately, a discussion board will not remedy your misunderstandings.
curious you do not have that problem to justify the same after the noa flood
@buckjones4901 - there are only three domains of all life forms: 1. Bacteria 2. Archaea 3. Eukaryotes. They will never change into the other
@@globalcoupledances No life form changes into another period, this only happens in someone's imagination.
@@buckjones4901 I wrote "domains", not "periods"
Followers of Christ rely upon documented historical facts. Darwin relied on equivocation.
Baloney. The Bible is historically, archaeologically, and scientifically inaccurate. Deal with it.
@@tobias4411 That's because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and that if you just add enough time puddles of chemicals can fizz into people... Science is a methodology. What you're talking about is an Atheistic Ideology, and that's about as Unscientific as it gets... In any case, the whole idea that it is somehow unscientific to believe in God and therefore in the possibility of miracles, is both historically and philosophically mistaken. Modern science owes its very origin to monotheistic religion. To quote C.S. Lewis: "Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver." Where do you believe our mathematically precise metaphysical laws of nature came from, as an Atheist?
I believe that a Super-Natural God created the laws of nature, and thus He exists beyond those laws of nature - He said "This is what the LORD says: 'If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth," (Jeremiah 33:25). Do you believe there was a "Big Bang" and all of immaterial math and science happened?
Mathematical precision looks like the product of an engineering mind, not the result of a "Big Bang." "Science" wouldn't be possible without these standard, constant, invisible laws that exist "for some reason" to give mathematically precise order to our universe in the first place.
"The evidence of God... has been clearly seen since the beginning in all that has been created, so they will have no excuse" (Romans 1:20)
@@michaelg377 All you can ever do is mischaracterize evolution and disparage people who disagree with you. I have asked you multiple times can you explain why all humans have a tail that reabsorbs and is repurposed in utero? At least, it absorbs for all but the very few humans who are still born with a tail. No? I wonder why?
@@nathancook2852 What do you mean "mischaracterize," do you not believe that humans have fish ancestry? That's a staple doctrine of evolution...?
*"Human Ears Evolved from Ancient Fish Gills"* (Bjorn Carey, Live Science, 2006)
*"We are fish"* (P.Z. Myers, PhD, Associate Professor of Biology, University of Minnesota Morris)
*"That’s because we, and in fact all tetrapods (four-limbed vertebrates, many of which live on land), share a more recent common ancestor with the coelacanth and lungfish than we do with ray-finned fishes."* (evolution berkeley edu)
Now you didn't answer my question: *Where do you believe our mathematically precise metaphysical laws of nature came from, as an Atheist?* I believe that a Super-Natural God created the laws of nature, and thus He exists beyond those laws of nature - He said "This is what the LORD says: 'If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth," (Jeremiah 33:25) - and this makes sense of the mathematical precision and specified complexity we see in everything. But since you reject that, *do you believe there was a "Big Bang" and all of immaterial math and science happened?*
As for your tail mythology, reposted for your reconsideration (TLDR: it's not a tail, never was, never will be - you're just forcing your mythology onto the evidence):
It's not a tail, it's a coccyx - and it's an important connection point for tendons and ligaments and plays a particularly important role in elimination as a result - not a tail by a longshot. What you're doing is committing a logical fallacy that *begs the question* of your fish to philosopher belief system while looking at two things that look similar (human coccyx during embryonic development vs. "tail" in other species) and concluding (presupposing) that this means we have a common ancestor. In reality, it never was, never will be, and is not programmed to be a tail in your DNA at all.
@@michaelg377 You said "fish evolve into philosophers", which implies a direct evolution of a fish into a philosopher, hence a gross mischaracterization, as. I said.
As the definition of biological evolution is *_"the change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations,"_* *_ALL_* the examples Mr. Smith gives demonstrate that evolution happens in accordance with its definition.
Most of his videos actually prove the alternate point he is trying to make.
@@nathancook2852 Now if we could only make him understand that...
@annieoaktree6774 I don't think he is insincere in his beliefs, but the facts are that he does misrepresent things that he disagrees with even though he has been told where and how he is mistaken. Whether that would amount to "lying" in a court of law, I am unable to assess. It would be interesting to know if he would swear on his God that he was not lying according to his own definition of lying.
we know that "scientists'" and scholars know everything there is to know about everything that there is to know anything about and yet they still don't really know anything at all. I imagine what our world would be like if they all got real jobs?
Why is it everything or nothing? That makes no sense. Scientists know what science has been able to demonstrate.
@@jockyoung4491 Reverse Enginering the universe is blasphemous and has brought us nothing but more pollution and chaos than we can sustain for much longer.
@@pamelarose1834 _Reverse Enginering the universe is blasphemous_ Why?
A lot would change if their funding was cut or tenure wasn't a thing.
@@intentionally-blank .
👌👌🌷🌷❤❤🌹🌹👍👍
I think I learn something new every time I watch one of these videos. So much more intellectually stimulating than the evolutionist arguments in the comments section. Also, it's interesting how omitting some important information, can make people believe that a bacteria has "evolved a new ability and metabolic pathway to live off of xylitol", when in fact it already had that ability, and lab-induced mutations simply broke a built-in preference for ribitol over xylitol. Instead of telling all these details, evolutionists will simply present it in a way that would make an ordinary person, who isn't privy to the details, believe that the bacteria has evolved some brand new enzyme and metabolic pathway. Very sneaky.
When creationist say “evolutionists”….they are being sneaky and automatically lose any points they make
So what do these alcohols do, Oleg? Please show us all how much these idiots have stimulated you intellectually.
You’ve clearly never read the scientific literature pertaining to this, because every detail is there. You only go by what dishonest creationists(sorry about the redundancy) tell you. Why don’t you actually read the literature? Is it because you have to be dishonest like all creationists do?
First, when scientists talk about bacteria evolving new abilities, they're often referring to changes in how the bacteria operate based on mutations and natural selection. It's not always about creating something completely new but sometimes about modifying existing capabilities.
In your example, if bacteria had the ability to metabolize xylitol but preferred ribitol, and a mutation caused them to use xylitol more efficiently, that’s still evolution. Evolution includes both gaining new abilities and changing existing ones.
It's important to note that scientific communication can be complex. Simplifying findings for a general audience can sometimes leave out details, but that doesn’t mean it’s meant to be sneaky. The goal is often to make the science understandable to people without specialized knowledge.
However, you do have a point that clarity is crucial. Misunderstanding can happen if key details are omitted. But in reputable scientific discussions, all the details are available for those who dig deeper into the research. So, while summaries might seem oversimplified, the full information is there for those who seek it.
@@FirstnameLastname-cx6go This channel is a prime example of why oversimplification of science terms is necessary. Unfortunately, the need for oversimplification of scientific terms and ideas leaves many open as vulnerable prey for these channels.
Notice how people who believe in evolution never say, "We know evolution is a fact because I have documents showing my great, great, great... grandpa had a tail, lived in trees, and ate dung."
Humans are a subset of apes, and the apes and Old world monkeys
are separate branches within Catarrhini. Monkeys include both Old World monkeys (Cercopithecoidea) and New World monkeys (Platyrrhini). While apes and monkeys share a common ancestor, they are distinct groups within the broader primate order. We are genetically nested deep within the taxanomic suborder Anthropoidea (or Simiiformes) the "monkey clade.", which includes both monkeys and apes.
If we didn't come from monkeys, then why are we still monkeys?
Because cladistically, morhphologically, genetically we are a subset of monkeys, and birds are a subset of dinosaurs, in the same way as ducks are a subset of birds, and the lions are a subset of cats. Do you understand this?
@refuse2bdcvd
@@tobias4411 "If we didn't come from monkeys, then why are we still monkeys?" - *That is a classic case of circular reasoning my friend, and it's because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers.* This monkey origins mythology has scientifically been debunked - you know this, we've talked about this.
*“the percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 84.38%” and “4.06% had no alignment to the chimp assembly.”* (Richard Buggs, PhD, University of London's specialist in evolutionary genomics).
"The higher-quality human genome assemblies have often been used to guide the final stages of nonhuman genome projects, including the order and orientation of sequence contigs and, perhaps more importantly, the annotation of genes. *This bias has effectively “humanized” other ape genome assemblies."* (Kronenberg, Z. N. et al. 2018. High-resolution comparative analysis of great ape genomes. Science. 360 (6393).
[Regarding Human-Chimp DNA similarity]: "There is a 13.3% difference in sections of our immune systems when insertions and deletions are considered." (Anzai, et. a., "Comparative Sequencing of Human and Chimpanzee MHC Class 1 Regions Unveils Insertions/Deletions as the Major Path to Genomic Divergence," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100, no. 13 (2003).
"The chimpanzee genome was 12% larger than the human genome... gene copy numbers revealed a 6.4% difference" (Jeffery Demuth, et al., "the Evolution of Mammalian Gene Families," 2006).
[Regarding Human-Chimp DNA similarity]: "There is a 17.4% difference in gene expression in the cerebral cortex" (Jon Cohen, "Relative Differences: the Myth of 1%" Science 316, no. 5833, 2007).
What point are you trying to prove? What does it matter that they don't say that?
Well, you have, or at least, had a tail as well. Were you born with yours or did it reabsorb in utero like most peoples do? Are few are still born with them.
Adaptation is not evolution.
What do you think adaptation is?
And cruising isn’t driving 😂😂😂
Amen 🙏🏿❤️✝️ we can trust God and what his word tells us. Our God is awesome and mighty in power and our God doesn't lie!
There are approximately 45,000 denominations of Christianity. Which of them has the correct interpretation of 'God's word,' and which of them do not? How can one tell?
@@tobias4411 That's because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers. Actually all legitimate denominations are overwhelmingly united by the same common core beliefs, it's only on minor secondary issues like manner of dress, style of music, which day to go to church, what kinds of food to eat, interpretations of end times prophecy details, etc. where they differ. And God said those kinds of superficial differences are okay: *"One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind."* (Romans 14:1-5). *This is actually powerful evidence of a united faith across sociocultural boundaries.* Yet this common atheistic obfuscation persists...
@@michaelg377still copy paste spamming
@@michaelg377No, more than 2 billion Christians is separated into thousands of denominations. Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Baptist, Apostolic, Methodist - the list goes on.
It's not minor difference.
The Episcopal Church affirms evolution and rejects rigid creationist views. The United Methodist Church embraces evolution and finds it compatible with Christian faith. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) affirms that evolution and the Bible do not contradict each other. The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America is accepting of evolution.
There are also huge variations in beliefs about the nature of God, salvation, the afterlife, and other core doctrines. (Live science, article "Why does Christianity have so many denominations?".
"Since the very beginning, according to Diarmaid MacCulloch, professor emeritus of church history at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom. "There's never been a united Christianity," he told Live Science... Michelle Sanchez, an associate professor of theology at Harvard Divinity School, told Live Science via email. Protestants had used scripture to critique the Roman Catholic Church, claiming that any believer could read scripture and have a personal relationship with God. But then, "the obvious problem emerged: Whose interpretation of scripture was the right one?" Sanchez said in an interview. As believers debated the scriptures and sacraments, churches formed and split based on myriad biblical interpretations, ways of worship and organizational structures. From these debates, denominations such as the Presbyterians, Mennonites, Baptists and Quakers, among others, took root."
Also, practices and rituals can vary significantly between denominations. Splits have occurred due to disagreements over doctrine, power struggles, and corruption throughout history.
@@tobias4411 And all of those "denominations" share the exact same core beliefs my friend - it's actually a testament to the incredible unity despite sociocultural boundaries. Your narrative really falls apart when you honestly look at the details - the kinds of things that separate "denominations" are church organization structure, food, which day to go to church on, etc. Now "evolution" creeping into the church is an entirely different issue, that's because we are all Uncritically Indoctrinated into the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers as young children today - it's no wonder there's so much confusion.
As for the Roman Catholic vs. Protestant issue, you are sharing a half-truth there - to put it simply, Protestants basically said "you Catholics are doing it wrong" as their church institution was growing in corrupt and anti-biblical practices, so "Protestants" (from "Protest") split off and followed the "Sola Scriptura" (Only Scripture) philosophy in an effort to return to the original roots of the original church. In response to the Protestant Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church made a number of shady changes in addition to its other unbiblical practices and doctrines like addition of the apocryphal books to its canon, like 2 Maccabees in which the author expressly declared his writings are not Scripture.
Then you have the many international "denominations" within Protestantism which all share the same core beliefs. Minor differences are okay, God said that (Romans 14:1-5), but on the core doctrines of Christianity we are overwhelmingly in agreement. I've been to Baptist, Southern Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Pentecostal (some unbiblical practices there but same core doctrines), and other "denominations" services, and honestly if I didn't know the minor differences them already, their differences were mostly superficial and negligible my friend.
This half-truth you're sharing is just overemphasizing a common lie, you've been lied to, and now promulgating the same lie. And it's because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, evil people are not held accountable for their sin, and people like Hitler get away with their evil deeds for free.
Great source "What about different denominations?" from CARM, I highly recommend.
@Haggis in response to your erroneous comment regarding finches......
#1 nice when you can define a new species any way you desire when the evidence seems to fit what you want it to say, isn't it?
Funny how one of your requirements for classification is that they cannot breed and yet they find different species of finches breeding.
People who believe in evolution are like a small child who knows what he's eating but don't realise that, it costs his father's salary for buying those chocolates made by some big company ( lack of understanding and knowledge) ....😄🤗
That fits exactly to people who believe in creation.
What does that analogy even mean?
People who accept the science of evolution are educated.
@@jockyoung4491 Not a very educated comment though.
well it is based on a hypothetical organism so yes it is not scientific based on facts or lack thereof.
Even if bacteria demonstrated "gain of information" through "beneficial mutations" in a much more obvious sense, it would still be a non sequitur fallacy to suggest that it demonstrates macro evolution is a fact, or even possible.
It's kind of like saying if you drove your car to the top of the mountain, then you could also drive it to the moon.
(..) This is an artistic proof of a created universe. When you paint a shadow it's the opposite color of the object that made the shadow. Nobody knew what the opposite color of white was so the artists avoided painting white on white. The opposite color of white is baby blue and baby pink. The first artist to figure it out was Norman Rockwell. I was the second artist to figure it out. I saw it in the corner of a white room. The lighting was perfect to see it.
I recently discovered that they've also redefined (like they have so many words) "macro" evolution. It now just means "speciation"... Which it seems, they also equivocate on. [sigh]
The irony and hypocrisy
Macroevolution is the genetic changes in a population at or above the species level. Thus, speciation qualifies as macro-. No equivocation there.
@@therick363 How so?
@@burnttoast2790 The redefinition the term notwithstanding... Nothing we observe generates or even shows potential for generating what your faith requires, that being, new body plans, organs, and functions. Your faith is blind and flies in the face of what we actually observe. Variation within and net LOSS ≠ fundamental change into and novel GAINS. It's as simple as 1-1=0.
@@jessebryant9233 theists want to redefine and create words like evolutionist, theory, atheist, science, to name a few.
Evolution is a scientific theory. Learn what that means.
Also learn that science updates with new information and ideas. That seems something you don’t understand either.
But I’m sure it will fall on deaf ears
The theory of Evolution is a logically fallacious explanation. One of the fallacies are circular reasoning.
They require that people take their position without an argument.
Examples of this would be: "Obviously evolution is true."
"Clearly scientists know what they are doing."
The other fallacy is stacking the deck. This is a logical fallacy that omits, rejects, or ignores the opposing sides argument.
For example:
"What if theres a possibility that the theory of evolution is flawed?'
-"It's a fact 100%."
"We have never seen bacteria evolve into a bug or tiny fish even though they rapidly and massively reproduce."
-"Evolution takes billions of years so of course we aren't gonna see it."
You are as bad at logic as you are at science.
False, the theory of evolution is not logically fallacious. It is the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth, supported by a large body of evidence from multiple disciplines, including genetics, paleontology, comparative anatomy, and embryology. Empirical evidence includes fossil records showing transitional forms, genetic evidence demonstrating common ancestry, and observable instances of evolutionary processes in nature and laboratory settings.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of evidence and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Evolution meets these criteria. It also makes testable predictions that can be and have been examined through scientific methods. This characteristic of being falsifiable (i.e., capable of being proven wrong if contrary evidence is found) is a hallmark of a scientific theory, not a logical fallacy.
You are 100% correct, and even here we see perfect examples of your claims with evolutionists already preaching things like "It is the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth" - "Best" in particular being an opinion-based qualifer. *All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12,* which A) says something about the "evidence" evolutionists think they have, and B) as atheistic evolution constantly has to radically ad-hoc rewrite itself every time it runs into a new problem (because it simply doesn't match reality), a biblical worldview can explain all the same evidence - no rewrite required. Radical ad-hoc readjustment (evolutionists ironically call it "progress") is a sign of a faulty worldview - its' an Atheist problem, not a problem for a biblical worldview
Fish don't evolve into philosophers, and puddles of chemicals don't fizz into people by chance, no matter how much *Time* you add to the pot. That's just not how science (a methodology) works, that is an atheistic origins mythology (an ideology).
The Atlantic Salmon has 46,598 genes and out-in-the-wild bacteria has about 4000, olus or minus 3000. How do you expect a singular bacterium to completely change its cell formation, organelle composition, and gain about 11 times the amount of DNA in your lifetime, including the amount of times where the bacteria or transitional species don't have a mutation that propels them towards fish status?
@@eleeuroandoro3041 Well anything is possible with evolution right? The time it takes to evolve is not fixed and it can be lenient with many timescale interpretations.
Also how about let's talk about bacteria. How fast do these bacteria reproduce?
Also no one is saying it has to completely change it's cell formation.
Please keep on making marvelous videos like this
Xylitol exists naturally in berries like raspberries in trace amounts. It is a sugar alcohol compound.
Anything they can do or say to deny their Creator.
I am a Christian that believes in evolution. No scientist does any science that would/could deny or dispute the existence of any higher being at all
@@eleeuroandoro3041 Jesus said: *"“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’"* (Matthew 19:4). As a Christian Evolutionist, do you agree with Jesus that male and female were created "at the beginning," or do you believe it happened after billions of years of chemical reactions?
*How did male and female evolve?*
@@eleeuroandoro3041 "I am a Christian that believes in evolution...." full stop. End of conversation. Not interested in your point of view.
@@samuelrodriguez9199 Wow, so you do not want to learn at all. Got it.
@@samuelrodriguez9199 What a great amount of ignorance and arrogance. Of course you are not interested in any fact of evolution, and you pretend to avoid reality. Several major Christian denominations accept evolution as compatible with their faith:
1. The Roman Catholic Church generally accepts evolutionary theory as the scientific explanation for the development of life.
2. The Episcopal Church affirms evolution and rejects rigid creationist views.
3.The United Methodist Church embraces evolution and finds it compatible with Christian faith.
4.The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) affirms that evolution and the Bible do not contradict each other.
5.The United Church of Christ accepts evolutionary theory and sees it as a way to understand faith in a new light.
6.The Evangelical Lutheran Church of America is accepting of evolution.
7.The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America also accepts evolution as compatible with their faith.
8.Many mainline Protestant denominations have long accepted evolution, with acceptance growing even among some evangelical Christians.
As a yec, you are getting very lonely. For instance, in the 18-34 age group, belief in Young Earth Creationism dropped from 34% in 2019 to 25% in 2022.This trend indicates that more people, especially younger generations, are moving away from strict Young Earth Creationism and towards acceptance of evolution, either guided by God or through purely natural processes.
Evolution seems more reasonable than a genie wished it in to existence and you better not ask any questions.
Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just wait a really long *Time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people by chance? Check out GotQuestions sometime, we are all about asking questions.
Let me ask you this... Our planet earth meets 122 precise conditions required for life, which is estimated to be about 1 in 10^138 chance (that's a number with 138 zeros) from something like a "Big Bang." For example, it's just the right distance from the sun - just a little closer and we'd incinerate, a little further out and we'd freeze. The tilt of our axis is just right to allow seasons and agriculture without causing the polar ice caps to melt or extreme temperatures. The rotation speed is just right so we don't have violent tidal waves running over the continents, etc. The oxygen content of our atmosphere is 21% - just a few percent higher and we'd have random fires and/or gas explosions, just a few less and life as we know it would suffocate. *Do you believe there was a "Big Bang" and earth randomly clumped together meeting all these conditions required for life?*
The odds that a planet could randomly meet all of these conditions is estimated to be 1 in 10^138.
To give you an idea, the number of particles in our entire observable universe is about 10^90.
In other words, the idea that earth could form so perfectly to be able to support life is 40 orders of magnitude less likely than if I were to draw an X on a Particle somewhere in our universe and I sent you out blindfolded to randomly pick that one. It's a miracle. *How do you believe this happened?*
*"The evidence of God... has been clearly seen since the beginning in all that has been created, so they will have no excuse"* (Romans 1:20)
"For this is what the LORD says- he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; *he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited* - he says: “I am the LORD, and there is no other." (Isaiah 45:18)
@@michaelg377 Man, working overtime. Does Calvin pay you by the copy pasta?
@@michaelg377still copy paste lying spam
@@michaelg377 Paid by the lie liar hard at work again.
@michaelg377 - there is no species philosophers
Where is the halfway evolution - an odd feature that is neutral for survival, which can evolve into something beneficial?
Why don't all animals evolve cognitive brain features like humans? The brains of animals can do amazing things, why not math?
Who says humans have the best brains? We kill the planet we need to survive.
I think they can do math, but without abstract language to communicate it. I think it takes some instinctive calculations for a bird or squirrel to figure out how to land precisely on a tiny branch from a great distance. However, that doesn't serve to prove evolution, but demonstrates the glory of the Creator.
Why don’t we evolve wings
Why didn’t god give us the ability to shit Ice cream
It just didn’t happen doesn’t mean god isn’t real tho same thing to evolution 😊
Example of evolution: 1st human and 1st chimp look the same. But can you explain why current humans and chimps differ? What is the first step of evolution?
So, you’re wondering where the "halfway evolution" is-those neutral odd features. Well, surprise, they do exist! Look at the wings of flightless birds. Penguins use them to swim, and ostriches use them for balance. Not just sitting around waiting for a better use. Who knew?
And about animals not evolving human-like brains? Let’s imagine if every animal could do math. Wouldn’t it be great if your dog could help with your taxes? But evolution isn’t about what’s cool or helpful to us; it’s about what helps the species survive in its environment. Dolphins are smart in their watery world, but they’re not solving algebra problems because it’s not necessary for catching fish.
So, evolution has a way of working out what’s needed, not just what would be impressive to us.
Amen
I watch friends build a resistance to pain killers….. they all devolved in to a lower life form 😮
Why was this video hidden?
this would be an example of micro evolution. not macro evolution.
There is neither micro no macro, as Evolution doesn't actually exist. Evolution is a made-up fairy tale for adults who want to wish God wasn't their Creator.
The irony of a guy who blathers on and on about animal "kinds" complaining about equivocation.
Kids, don't learn your science from religious apologists. Learn science from scientists.
That's what I said about bill nye "the science" guy
@xavier5505
Bill Nye educates about mainstream science. He doesn't make up lies, as Christian apologists do.
Do you say that because you prefer to listen to Atheistic-Naturalist apologists, and believe instead in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just wait a long enough time puddles of chemicals can fizz into people?
@@cygnusustus learn science from scientists.... # bill nye doesn't qualify.
@@cygnusustus more over though all science is :hypothesize, test, observe, confirm/adjust. If we shot down every idea that was contrary to our own, we would still be worried about miasma, wearing mask filled with herbs and germ theory wouldn't exist either. Don't be a hypocrite! " Learn science from scientists!" while defending bill nye... An actor...
"To muddy the waters surrounding the very meaning of evolution itself...
...which are really the reshuffling or damaging of pre-existing genetic information."
Micro-evolution does not refer to to reshuffling or damaging of pre-existing genetic information. This assertion is ironic, as it misrepresents what micro-evolution describes. So, let's start with what we do understand: Through generations of any organism, we can observe some genetic mutations that occur (regardless of the cause). That is to say, successive generations will have incidents of DNA that is distinctly not an exact copy of DNA sequences from any genetic ancestor. The link between micro and macro-evolution is simply that the culmination of those mutations over millions of years are readily observed in morphological differences from the ancestral species (though, that may not be so easy, if the ancestor species has not survived alongside the divergent species).
What isn't appreciated about evolutions is that species divergence (aka macro-evolution) doesn't necessarily happen in the same geographic location. Our common ancestor to chimps didn't evolve into chimps in the same place as it involved into pre-modern humans. To clarify, common ancestor (A) could have lived in places Y & Z. Due to the differences in the environment in Y & Z, the divergent ancestor to chimps micro-evolved in area Y, while the ancestor to humans micro-evolved in area Z. While they could have interbred then (technically), they didn't because they literally didn't live in the same areas. The divergence last long enough (millions of years), and by the time A-Y reconnects with A-Z, they have changed sufficiently that they are not only not able to interbreed, but also are markedly, morphologically different (A-Y is starting to look more like a chimp and A-Z is starting to look more like a human).
To be very clear, the muddying of the waters here is even bothering to talk about "reshuffling or damaging of pre-existing genetic information". It doesn't matter how or why the mutation occurred. The critical factor that generally leads to macro-evolution is often geographic isolation (as in, the common ancestor lives apart for enough generations that the mutations diverge their species; interbreeding would prevent this). The critical elements are that there are genetic mutations that show up over time and that isolated populations of the same species will diverge over time. To say it is is "reshuffling" or "damaging" shows either limited knowledge on the topic or a deliberate attempt to frame it in a way that misleads what evolution describes.
As suspected, Young Earth Creationism is decreasing while Old Earth Creationism is increasing. Numerous Gallup polls support this trend. The decline is particularly pronounced among younger generations. For instance, in the 18-34 age group, belief in Young Earth Creationism dropped from 34% in 2019 to 25% in 2022. This trend indicates that more people, especially younger generations, are moving away from strict Young Earth Creationism and towards acceptance of evolution, either guided by God or through purely natural processes.
It would be easier in a way to believe in evolution than in creation. Believing in God implies an afterlife and judgement. Of course that's not the only reason for the argument. For me it was a desire to know the truth. The theories of evolution and creation were both hard for me to accept. The more I search however the more creation makes sense. The code of life, DNA appears to be like computer programs. Just far more complex than we can imagine. Computer programs don't and can not write themselves. I've been asked the question if God created everything who created God. I have no answer for that. Same question can be asked about the big bang. Who, or what caused it? No answer for that either. The beginning goes beyond our limited box of knowledge and understanding. We can't just go with what we can observe since none of us were around at the beginning therefore it's not observable. Both theories of creation and evolution require a pretty big leap of faith. Maybe a huge leap.
The complexity of DNA and biological systems can be explained through evolutionary processes over long time periods, without requiring intelligent design.
As an atheist, I handle the idea were matter came from according the scientific consensus. Matter in our universe originated from energy in the earliest moments after the Big Bang. In the first fractions of a second after the Big Bang, the universe was filled with an extremely hot, dense soup of energy and particles. As the universe rapidly expanded and cooled, this energy was converted into the first matter particles like quarks and electrons. Around one ten-thousandth of a second after the Big Bang, quarks combined to form protons and neutrons - the building blocks of atomic nuclei. It took about 380,000 years for the universe to cool enough for electrons to be captured by nuclei, forming the first atoms (mainly hydrogen and helium). The leading theory for the origin of all this matter and energy is cosmic inflation. This model proposes that the universe began with an unstable energy field that rapidly expanded, then decayed into particles. Remarkably, all the matter in the observable universe could have arisen from an incredibly tiny seed of this primordial energy, perhaps as small as a pea. So matter came from space. But where did the energy came from? Quantum fluctuations in singularity. They allow energy to emerge literally from nowhere (complex concept simplified). There are places in the universe where our laws of physics simply break down. A quantum fluctuation (vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary random change in the amount of energy in a point in space, as prescribed by Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. To understand what a singularity is, imagine the force of gravity compressing you down into an infinitely tiny point, so that you occupy literally no volume. These "singularities" are found in the centers of black holes and at the beginning of the Big Bang.
However, the application of this concept to the origin of the universe remains speculative. In essence, the energy didn't "come from" anywhere in the conventional sense - it was the starting state of the universe itself. The Big Bang theory describes how this energy evolved into the matter and structures we see today, but there are still open questions and areas of ongoing research, particularly regarding the ultimate origin of the initial energy that led to the Big Bang. It's important to emphasize that while this explanation is based on our best current scientific understanding, it's still an area of ongoing research. As new evidence emerges and theories are refined, our understanding of the universe's origins may evolve.
@@tobias4411 "In essence, the energy didn't "come from" anywhere in the conventional sense "
Does it concern you that as an Atheistic-Naturalist you have to break the 1st law of thermodynamics (a law of nature) to sustain your "natural" worldview?
*The only way for nature to create itself is if nature is pre-existent, like God.* The Atheist ironically has to attribute qualities of God to 'Nature' in order to sustain their story.
"The evidence of God... has been clearly seen since the beginning in all that has been created, so they will have no excuse" (Romans 1:20)
@VFA666 Analogies are simply comparisons to make a point for an idea or belief. Something to help lead to a conclusion. The conclusion might need a leap of faith whichever conclusion one draws. Do you not think the simple mouse trap would require some level and process of thought? Do you not think thought requires a mind?
@@michaelg377 Michael G the serial liar back in the saddle again!
@VFA666 Well, to begin with, I didn't say I believe they were scientific proof of anything. Where did you get the idea I said that?
I love all the expert non scientists whose arguments from ignorance against evolution have yet to win their nobel peace prize for debunking the scientific theory of evolution.
Keep the faith I guess.
Exactly!!
Do you say that because you believe in the constantly radically ad-hoc rewritten origins mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and that if you just wait a really long *Time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people by chance?
@@michaelg377 No I say that because the scientific theory of evolution is the best scientific explanation for the diversity of life on this planet, regardless of the fact that you don't understand what evolution is based on your assertions about fish and philosophers or some other such nonsense.
You sound as dense as Kirk Cameron and ray comfort when they start talking about not believing evolution happens because they've never seen a Creature that is part kangaroo-duck-dinosaur.
@@RobertSmith-gx3mi All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, which A) says something about the "evidence" that evolutionists think they have, and B) as atheistic evolutionists are constantly radically ad-hoc rewriting their modern mythology every time it runs into a problem, all the same evidences can be explained by Genesis 1-12, no rewrite required. That's not "the best scientific explanation" for anything, that's a constantly radically ad-hoc changing atheistic origins mythology my friend.
*Scientific Theories are supposed to be Falsifiable, Religions are Not: Given its extensive history of radically ad-hoc readjusting itself every time it runs into problematic evidence, what would it take to "Falsify" the Theory of Evolution today?*
In 1982 a federal court ruled that Creation can't be taught in schools because "it is not falsifiable." Evolution has a long history of radically rewriting itself as it runs into more and more problems - what would it take to "falsify" Naturalistic Evolution? Over 500 Living Fossils? Debunked "Junk" DNA? Finding a 70M year extinct *evolutionary ancestor to tetrapods still alive, unevolved, with no evidence of it ever evolving?* Discovering that many "vestigial" (leftover) organs actually have a normal function, like the appendix? Finding "millions of years" old creatures with no signs of evolution? Fully developed vertebrate creatures in the Cambrian explosion? An Ankylosaurus fossil found where it's not supposed to be buried among sea creatures? Whale fossils deep inland in the United States? Trilobites found appearing suddenly and fully developed with complex eyes in the Cambrian - and in every fossil layer indicating they were buried rapidly? Maybe measurably young tissues in dinosaur fossils that look similar to 4000 year old mummies or the Tyrolean Ice Man? Early jawed placoderm fossils showing fully developed complex jaws - causing evolutionists to claim that they must have evolved, de-evolved, and then re-evolved those jaws to maintain their story of shark evolution? What if scientists admitted that Human-Ape DNA is down from 99% "similar" to only 84% "similar" and admitted their bias in "humanizing" the ape genome?
...or should we just reinterpret all of these problematic evidences to keep the belief in Atheistic/Naturalistic evolution alive, and why? We are all *uncritically indoctrinated* into this Atheistic-Naturalist religion of evolution in our public education system today... Should evolution be held to the same religious standard as Creationism?
All of the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, and if you understand "science" then you understand the implications of a competing explanation.
*"The evidence of God... has been clearly seen since the beginning in all that has been created, so they will have no excuse"* (Romans 1:20)
@@michaelg377 Still waiting on actual evidence for god rather than you copy pasta.
I have blue eyes. Supposedly this is a mutation. Different color from the "norm," but still eyes.
Why would they be something else
That’s still evolution your describing evolution
@@BlackHat-v4j black, you do not know that blue eyes is the result of Evolution.
But it is interesting that you refer to something that is a genetic loss of information as Evolution.
Evolution is a false religion, like many others Satan has come up with.
@@statutesofthelordThe claim "evolution is a religion" is a false equivalence. What definition of religion are you using?
@@tobias4411 tobias, Evolution is a religion, because it purports to explain how we humans got here, and thus, how we should live our lives, and where we are headed.
If Evolution is true, people who believe in it will go to dust, and people who don't believe in it will go to dust.
If Christianity is true, people who believe in it will go to heaven forever, and Evolutionists will go to dust.
How do you know that blue eyes are a result of a mutation and are not part of the genetic variation within the human population that has been there ever since humans were created?
Excellent points, excellent video. Further more, some critiques! I personally feel that the artificial back grounds are tacky and take away from the perceived validity of anyone who is already suspecting these videos to be a hocked loogie. Second, I'd love to have your sources and references if possible. They would make an incredible difference in my life to be able to study them, and believability to my atheist friends when the topic comes up
See, that is the problem. Calvin doesn't have sources or references. And if he quote mines something, when you go investigate, it actually supports the opposite of what he claims.
@@nathancook2852 Actually his video is full of sources and references, some of them quite embarrassing for evolution because they expose its embarrassing history of radical ad-hoc readjustment and tendency to sweep problematic evidence under the rug. I think you misunderstand the value of a "quote mine" - quoting a Creationist would have no effect, you wouldn't listen, but quoting an evolutionist corroborating a Creationist position (!!!) - that's worth a lot, which is why it makes Atheist Activists so angry.
"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded... *The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time... Some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record... have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."* (D. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50, no 1 (1979), 25)
Yes, this is an evolutionist - and he admitted that time is not proving to be very nice to 'evolution' in terms of having to throw out "some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record...". Meanwhile, All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, except as evolution is constantly radically ad-hoc rewriting itself, a biblical worldview can explain all the same evidence - no rewrite required.
@annieoaktree6774 Case in point above, as I said. Here are a couple examples of recent "Evolutionary Curve Balls" and truly implausible rewrites evolutionists have had to invoke: *Discovering lignin in algae that wasn't supposed to be there, and consequently that the SAME material had to evolve TWICE in two entirely separate evolutionary trees by chance...:*
"Because monolignol [lignin chemical] synthesis is exceptionally complex, it seems unlikely that Calliarthron and terrestrial plants evolved monolignol biosynthesis and polymerization completely independently." (ie. Scientists discovered that the algae Calliarthron contained lignin - something that wasn't supposed to exist, and this necessitates that it evolved twice, separately, in completely different creatures according to evolutionary thinking). (Martone, "Discovery of lignin in seaweed reveals convergent evolution of cell-wall architecture," Current Biology, 2009)
Related to this:
"The pathways, enzymes and genes that go into making this stuff are pretty complicated, so *to come up with all those separately would be really, really amazing. Anything is possible, but that would be one h_ll of a coincidence."* (Professor Mark Denny) ("Discovery of *Land Plant Characteristic in Seaweed May be Evolutionary Curve Ball,"* UBC science news, 2009).
And an embarrassingly implausible story change:
*Discovering fossilized soft tissues in early armored fish, the predecessors to modern jawed creatures like sharks, showing that they actually had fully developed and complex jaws from the beginning - so evolutionists claim they evolved those jaws, must have de-evolved them, and then evolved them back to maintain their story?*
Evolutionists *Believe* that jawless creatures evolved into jawed creatures, and believe that certain ancient armored fish were the evolutionary predecessors to modern jawed fish, sharks, etc. However, they discovered placoderm fossils with preserved soft tissues showing that they had fully developed and complex jaws - not the soft early less developed jaws they expected which "present an anatomy that differs radically from the shark model" of evolution. *Now they theorize that these placoderms evolved fully developed complex jaws with more advanced modern muscle connection points, the muscles then disappeared in later descendents, and then they "re-evolved" later.* Meanwhile, while evolution is rewriting itself and adding side stories to sustain itself, it seems those fish had everything they needed from the very beginning of their existence, almost like they were deliberately created and engineered from the start.
Radical ad-hoc readjustment is a sign of a faulty worldview - the reason evolution keeps having to be radically ad-hoc rewritten so often is because it simply does not match reality, clearly showing there is another motive there. Science is a methodology - evolution is part of a constantly radically rewritten ideology, which is why we readjust it rather than falsifying it. Meanwhile, All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12... no rewrite required.
@@michaelg377Calvin’s pleasurebot ignored
@@michaelg377
_"Meanwhile, All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-1"_
🤦♂
We know that genesis is riddled with errors.
You might want to get a better source....
The bit about the bacteria/ enzyme changes allowing digestion of different sugar was quite interesting. The fact that a mutation adds or removes information is quite frankly neither here nor there. The outcome is adaptation to a changing environment. A reasonable try nonetheless and no one would suggest that this was a model for natural evolution.
Loss of feature is just as much a sign of evolution as gain. Humans have lost a hairy body but retain the vestigial ability to have goose bumps when cold. A characteristic only useful with hair, as it increases insulation.
‘We see incredible design degenerated by sin’. This is where my exasperation knows no bounds. How can otherwise intelligent people believe this. Really!
This is a very excellent recitation pf the facts.
No it’s not
@@therick363By all means point out the lies or errors. Tell us what is really going on. Tell us the truth. Simply stating “no it’s not” simply won’t do.
@@m0x910 ….are you going to tell the OP the same thing? That they can’t just state something? Or only i have to support what i said?
@@therick363 I agree with the OP. I can see how the facts are well presented and laid out. Thus I am not arguing against the OP. I am addressing you.
@@m0x910 you missed or ignored the point. Either we both have to support what we said or no one does. Which is it? I’m just looking for some fairness from creationists
The 1st law of thermodynamics doesn't allow energy to "naturally" come from nothing. The 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy) says that energy is always being converted into a less usable form, and it doesn't allow energy to remain usable forever, because in the infinite past it would have been infinitely used up by now (Heat Death). *So if our universe can't "naturally" have a beginning from nothing, and it can't have just always been here (otherwise all of our energy would be infinitely used up), how do you naturally explain the beginning of our universe?*
The only way for nature to create itself is if nature is pre-existent/self-existent, like God. The atheist has to attribute qualities of God to "nature" in order to "naturally" (atheistically) explain our origins, it's the ultimate irony.
Have you ever wondered why the "reasonable" Atheistic-Naturalists have to appeal to such wild and sci-fi sounding theories to sustain their "natural" (atheistic) beliefs on our origins? *Infinite* alternate universes, an *eternal self-existent* singularity, alternate unobservable metaphysical laws of nature, *pre-existent* phenomena... they have to attribute supernatural qualities of God to "nature" in order to "naturally" explain our origins. This is the Atheist's Natural-Supernatural (!) worldview. It's an internally inconsistent and self-refuting belief system... the only way for nature to create itself is if nature is *pre-existent - like God.*
*"The evidence of God... has been clearly seen since the beginning in all that has been created, so they will have no excuse"* (Romans 1:20)
Isn't a bit early for your daily creationist spamfest?
_"The 1st law of thermodynamics doesn't allow energy to "naturally" come from nothing."_
So you're refuting the bible....
_" 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy) says that energy is always being converted into a less usable form,"_
No that's not what it says. It says that there is a tendency for entropy to increase over time in a closed system.
_", because in the infinite past it would have been infinitely used up by now (Heat Death)."_
Which refutes the bibles claims of an infinite being.
_" So if our universe can't "naturally" have a beginning from nothing"_
Only theists claim this.
You're again refuting theists...
So many arguments here refute the christian account and I'm only a few lines in....
_"how do you naturally explain the beginning of our universe?"_
We don't know.
_"The only way for nature to create itself is if nature is pre-existent/self-existent, like God. "_
huh? wait what?
That's simply an argument from ignorance. 'We don't know ...therefore my favourite god did it. '
It's actually a little sad that people still make this argument today.
_"This is the Atheist's Natural-Supernatural (!) worldview. "_
Everything you've said is confused up to this point including that statement. 🤦♂
The second law of thermodynamics does not directly contradict the idea that energy came from nothing. Our universe may not be a truly isolated system. The expansion of the universe may affect entropy calculations. Quantum fluctuations and theories like inflation may provide mechanisms for energy to arise within the laws of physics.
It's important to note that our understanding of physics breaks down at the extreme conditions of the early universe. The laws of thermodynamics as we know them may not apply in the same way at that scale or in those conditions.
Michael G the serial liar back in the saddle again!
God’s word provides what is good.
According to Psalm 119, the word of God is the way of happiness (vv. 1-2), the way to avoid shame (v. 6), the way of safety (v. 9), and the way of good counsel (v. 24). The word gives us strength (v. 28) and hope (v. 43). It provides wisdom (vv. 98-100, 130) and shows us the way we should go (v. 105). God’s verbal revelation, whether in spoken form in redemptive history or in the covenantal documents of redemptive history (i.e., the Bible), is unfailingly perfect. As the people of God, we believe the word of God can be trusted in every way to speak what is true, command what is right, and provide us with what is good.
Prove its gods word…..
"God's verbal revelation?" Using the Bible as evidence is circle reasoning. It's just an ancient book, of superstitious goat herders. Myth and folklore.
@@tobias4411 That's because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just wait a long enough *Time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people by chance - Modern atheistic myth and folklore. The "Bible" is a compilation of 66 separate historical texts of various genres from 40+ authors which all claim primary/secondary knowledge and interaction with God in various ways throughout history, corroborated by over 25,000 pieces of archaeological evidence. The original author of the Torah was traditionally an educated Egyptian Prince, not a 'goat herder' as scoffers tend to proclaim. Fish don't evolve into philosophers, no matter how much *time* you add to the mix.
Let me ask you this... what are your thoughts on the stele Sinai 115 which corroborates portions of Genesis and places the ancient Hebrews in Egypt exactly when Scripture says they were there, in contrast to the secular narrative of human origins?
*"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths."* (2 Timothy 4:3-4)
@@michaelg377copy paste spamming
@@michaelg377For the Mother of Nature, I have already answered you about Stele Sinai. Why do you repost the same questions to me over and over? 👀
The archaeological artifact, Stele Sinai 115 is primarily written in Egyptian hieroglyphs, and the disputed signs are more likely to be Egyptian characters rather than early alphabetic script.
Thank you A.I.G
Wonderful article/video. So well presented. Like all your stuff. Thank you.
Calvin is good at lying.
@@nathancook2852 And Hobbes?
I find it hard to believe for someone to talk about a subject for so long and don't grasp it's basic concepts, so I have to assume this is blatant deception and lies.
No Christian responds.....
@@FirstnameLastname-cx6go what? Are you saying I'm not Christian?
@@jofsky9066 You didn't respond... to.. yourself.
@@FirstnameLastname-cx6go dayum you got some of that criptic English I have no clue what are you talking about
@@jofsky9066 :)
Only the Bible gives us the source of truth and the true history of all things.
If you don't start with that, you will forever be lost trying to figure everything out.
Back that up…..
@@therick363 read a book. Visit a website or two. There are literally thousands (perhaps tens of thousands of more) Christian sites and channels on the internet. Why bother to explain it to someone who hasn't even bothered to do that?
@annieoaktree6774 I doubt you've read one. Two tops.
@annieoaktree6774 many of them have evidence for God. Name one? You're on one. AIG. Then go to got questions, Apologetics press .....take your pick. There are plenty.
@@samuelrodriguez9199I have read many books. Why don’t you read some?
AiG has shown they lack integrity
Nobody can demonstrate the simplest cell could form from the elements without the influence of intelligence.
Nobody can demonstrate a supernatural being POOFING a cell into existence.
@@sciencerules2825 Much more evidence of an eternal, transcendent God "poofing" DNA into existence. 1 gram having the equivalent information storage capacity of 88 million grams of 1 terabyte hard disk drives, a 4 letter code compared to the whimpy, primitive zero's and one's, using 100 million times less energy than the computers scientists are using to examine DNA with
@@Vernon-Chitlen Vernon posts his usual personal incredulity blithering, forgets to provide his evidence of supernatural creation.
@@sciencerules2825 There's much more evidence for a eternal transcendent Creator poofing life into existence and all the specific instructions for replicating all organisms that have ever existed on DNA, including itself than not. 1 gram of DNA has the equivalent information storage capacity of 88 million grams of 1 terabyte hard disk drives, using 100 million times less energy, a 4 letter code compared to the "primitive" zero's and one's the computers scientists are using to examine DNA with
@@Vernon-Chitlen Repeating your personal ignorance won't make it magically become true.
The study has shown that a specific genetic mutation that occured in bacteria exposed to a new environment led to an increase of given bacterias' ability to reproduce in that environment in comparison to the bacteria without the mutation.
In other words, new strain of bacteria has *evolved* due to outside pressure.
The feature lost was one that was limiting their reproductive capabilities. Do humans have more or less features than apes? Feature count doesn't matter, in fact it is very hard to find a concenzus on what a feature is.
I heard that human muscles are weaker, but endurance higher
The study you mention shows that bacteria with a specific genetic mutation had a reproductive advantage in a new environment. This is a classic example of natural selection in action, where a beneficial mutation helps an organism thrive in its environment. The bacteria didn’t “evolve” into something entirely new but adapted to their surroundings.
Regarding features in humans versus apes: It's not just about counting features. Humans and apes share many features due to common ancestry, but we have differences in traits related to our unique evolutionary paths. The exact number of features isn’t as important as understanding how and why those features evolved.
So, the key takeaway is that evolution isn’t about having more or fewer features but about how traits change and adapt over time in response to environmental pressures.
@@FirstnameLastname-cx6go yes, I'd agree
@@FirstnameLastname-cx6go With respect, that's because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers - All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12 without evolution. *Did you know that the mythology that we are "99% similar to apes" has been debunked?* We were all Uncritically Indoctrinated into this lie. *“the percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 84.38%” and “4.06% had no alignment to the chimp assembly.”* (Richard Buggs, PhD, University of London's specialist in evolutionary genomics).
"The higher-quality human genome assemblies have often been used to guide the final stages of nonhuman genome projects, including the order and orientation of sequence contigs and, perhaps more importantly, the annotation of genes. *This bias has effectively “humanized” other ape genome assemblies."* (Kronenberg, Z. N. et al. 2018. High-resolution comparative analysis of great ape genomes. Science. 360 (6393).
[Regarding Human-Chimp DNA similarity]: *"There is a 13.3% difference in sections of our immune systems when insertions and deletions are considered."* (Anzai, et. a., "Comparative Sequencing of Human and Chimpanzee MHC Class 1 Regions Unveils Insertions/Deletions as the Major Path to Genomic Divergence," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100, no. 13 (2003).
*"The chimpanzee genome was 12% larger than the human genome... gene copy numbers revealed a 6.4% difference"* (Jeffery Demuth, et al., "the Evolution of Mammalian Gene Families," 2006).
[Regarding Human-Chimp DNA similarity]: *"There is a 17.4% difference* in gene expression in the cerebral cortex" (Jon Cohen, "Relative Differences: *the Myth of 1%"* Science 316, no. 5833, 2007).
We ONLY observe biblical speciation within each creature's kind (finch>finch, dog>dog, bacteria>bacteria) never even ONCE a change between kinds as atheistic evolution requires (fish>philosopher, dinosaur>chicken, placoderm>shark, scales>feathers, gills>ears, etc.). The former is observable scientific evidence, the latter is a constantly radically ad-hoc readjusted atheistic origins mythology about the unobservable past with which we are all Uncritically Indoctrinated as young children today. It's no wonder there's so much confusion.
@@michaelg377you really are a paid troll for aig, aren’t you?
Evolutionists are professionals at manipulating and avoiding the point. For years, me n my wife have consistently challenged them to provide the evidence which proves non living matter has the ability to create living matter which then went on to evolving into all of the animals for which they claim are a product of darwinian evolution. All that we ever get is them refusing to answer the question whereby they change the point by asking us questions, or they claim that before Darwinian evolution, there is macro-evolution and they are not to be held accountable to that area of evolution.
Evilution is all but dead. Say good riddance
Microevolution refers to evolutionary changes within a species, typically involving small-scale changes in gene frequencies over time. Macroevolution, on the other hand, encompasses larger-scale evolutionary changes at or above the species level, including the emergence of new species. Speciation, a key process in macroevolution, occurs when one species diverges into two or more distinct species. This process typically involves the accumulation of genetic mutations and adaptations over time, leading to the formation of genetically isolated populations. These populations may become reproductively isolated through various mechanisms such as; the populations no longer recognize each other as potential mates or are not inclined to interbreed, prevent the populations from interbreeding, differences in breeding seasons or times prevent gene flow between populations, physical incompatibilities prevent successful mating, sperm and eggs from different populations are incompatible, if mating does occur, the resulting offspring are either non-viable or infertile. When these reproductive barriers become sufficiently strong, the populations are considered separate species. In some cases, closely related species may still be able to produce hybrid offspring, but these hybrids are often infertile or have reduced fitness.
Example of hybrids are mules, ligers, tigons etc. Summary: There is no barrier between microevolution and macroevolution. They are just two sides of the same coin. They are both evolution. A lot of small scale things are going to make a big scale thing. A lot of bricks make a house. You accept 2+2=4 but not 2+2+2+2+2=10?
I can show you evidence of speciation, macroevolution and transitional fossils.
@@tobias4411 tobias, there is no micro, nor macro Evolution anything, as nothing ever has evolved.
"Evolution hasn't been observed while it's happening."
@@statutesofthelordAre you drunk? Even AIG admits microevolution 😅.
@@tobias4411 micro, yes. That would be called adaptation. The rest of your nonsense? No. You're barking up the wrong tree with me. I guarantee you.
What’s a scientific theory?
HAd the internet been around in Galileo's time, Calvin would have been there posting videos about how the argument that the earth orbits the sun might seem convincing, but had to be wrong because the bible said earth is at the centre around which everything moves. And no doubt he'd have been an ethusiastic suporter of the inquisition. It took centuries for the bible thumpers to finally give up on that one, but they're still int he proces sof beign dragged kickign and screaming into accepting evolution as equally true.
"...the bible said earth is at the centre around which everything moves.."
@@michaelg377 That was official Church dogma for centuries. It was the basis of Galileo's trial by the Inquisition.
@@richardgregory3684 So when you said "...the bible said earth is at the centre..." you lied - the Bible doesn't say that then?
"The bible" is not the same as man's interpretation or "dogma" in any cultural context.
@@michaelg377 No. It was Church dogma - and widely accepted by almost everyone at the time - that that is what the bible said. It's not my fault the bible is a mass of confused nonsense that can be interpreted to mean almost anything you want. At the tiem of Galileo, peopel sincerely believed Earth was at the centre of everything because they bellieved the bible said it was.
@@richardgregory3684 You're changing your story my friend - you lied above. It is your fault for making false claims - your entire scoffing comment hinges on that lie.
"and widely accepted by almost everyone at the time - that that is what the bible said."
There is no convincing argument for evolution. In fact, it's on its last leg.
Creationists have been claiming evolution is on its last leg for over 160 years now. The 🤡🤡🤡 just never learn.
It's true - but the fact that it's still around despite its embarrassing history of radical ad-hoc readjustment demonstrates just how little "evidence" "logic" and "science" actually matters to the evolutionist - what matters is that we have a sustained excuse to attempt to explain our creation without God and suppress Him and His judgment against our sin.
*"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."* (Matthew 5:28)
That's why they're okay with things like "ape-human 99% similarity" being debunked, or ankylosaur fossils found buried among marine creatures where they're not supposed to be, making up preservative theories for observably young tissues inside of dinosaur fossils with no evidence of the side effects of such preservation mechanisms occurring, making up entire unobservable celestial objects to explain away young comets... the list goes on and on.
"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded... *The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time... Some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record... have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."* (D. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50, no 1 (1979), 25)
@kattykitters5310 What do you mean - do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and you're still holding on to the debunked modern mythology of "99% similarity" and ape-human evolution as well?
*“the percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 84.38%” and “4.06% had no alignment to the chimp assembly.”* (Richard Buggs, PhD, University of London's specialist in evolutionary genomics).
"The higher-quality human genome assemblies have often been used to guide the final stages of nonhuman genome projects, including the order and orientation of sequence contigs and, perhaps more importantly, the annotation of genes. *This bias has effectively “humanized” other ape genome assemblies."* (Kronenberg, Z. N. et al. 2018. High-resolution comparative analysis of great ape genomes. Science. 360 (6393).
[Regarding Human-Chimp DNA similarity]: *"There is a 13.3% difference in sections of our immune systems* when insertions and deletions are considered." (Anzai, et. a., "Comparative Sequencing of Human and Chimpanzee MHC Class 1 Regions Unveils Insertions/Deletions as the Major Path to Genomic Divergence," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100, no. 13 (2003).
*"The chimpanzee genome was 12% larger than the human genome... gene copy numbers revealed a 6.4% difference"* (Jeffery Demuth, et al., "the Evolution of Mammalian Gene Families," 2006).
[Regarding Human-Chimp DNA similarity]: *"There is a 17.4% difference in gene expression* in the cerebral cortex" (Jon Cohen, "Relative Differences: the Myth of 1%" Science 316, no. 5833, 2007).
Follow the evidence my friend. We were all Uncritically Indoctrinated into this atheistic origins mythology that fish evolve into philosophers as young children, they just never talk about its scientific problems or its embarrassing history of radical ad-hoc readjustment (it has to keep getting rewritten because it simply doesn't match reality). That's why most people don't even know how to question it...
@@michaelg377tell me how apes being similar to humans is debunked
@@eleeuroandoro3041 Reposted for your reconsideration: Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and you're still holding on to the debunked modern mythology of "99% similarity" and ape-human evolution as well?
*“the percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 84.38%” and “4.06% had no alignment to the chimp assembly.”* (Richard Buggs, PhD, University of London's specialist in evolutionary genomics).
"The higher-quality human genome assemblies have often been used to guide the final stages of nonhuman genome projects, including the order and orientation of sequence contigs and, perhaps more importantly, the annotation of genes. *This bias has effectively “humanized” other ape genome assemblies."* (Kronenberg, Z. N. et al. 2018. High-resolution comparative analysis of great ape genomes. Science. 360 (6393).
[Regarding Human-Chimp DNA similarity]: *"There is a 13.3% difference in sections of our immune systems* when insertions and deletions are considered." (Anzai, et. a., "Comparative Sequencing of Human and Chimpanzee MHC Class 1 Regions Unveils Insertions/Deletions as the Major Path to Genomic Divergence," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100, no. 13 (2003).
*"The chimpanzee genome was 12% larger than the human genome... gene copy numbers revealed a 6.4% difference"* (Jeffery Demuth, et al., "the Evolution of Mammalian Gene Families," 2006).
[Regarding Human-Chimp DNA similarity]: *"There is a 17.4% difference in gene expression* in the cerebral cortex" (Jon Cohen, "Relative Differences: the Myth of 1%" Science 316, no. 5833, 2007).
Follow the evidence my friend. We were all Uncritically Indoctrinated into this atheistic origins mythology that fish evolve into philosophers as young children, they just never talk about its scientific problems or its embarrassing history of radical ad-hoc readjustment (it has to keep getting rewritten because it simply doesn't match reality). That's why most people don't even know how to question it...
I believe everything said BUT it’s about as clear as mud to most of us out here!
10:00 One problem we run into is somebody can make a claim. It will only require 30 words to demonstrate their plane. The Roberto showing that they’re wrong will take a 13 minute RUclips video. Jess, how many people are going to hear the claim and not listen to the remodel. This is because most evolutionist are also progressive. They are good at marketing, not understanding the truth.
The problem is creationists are largely scientifically illiterate and don't have evidence for their claims nor do they have evidence to falsify evolution. They rely on lies, misrepresentation, and quote mines to deceive their audience
@@nathancook2852 That's because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers - but this is a matter of competing worldviews over the exact same evidence. Science is a methodology, what you're talking about is an Ideology - that's something else, not 'science.' The ONLY thing we observe is biblical speciation within each creature's kind (finch>finch, dog>dog, bacteria>bacteria) never even ONCE a change between kinds as atheistic evolution requires (fish>philosopher, dinosaur>chicken, placoderm>tetrapod). The former is observational science, the latter is a constantly radically ad-hoc rewritten atheistic origins mythology about the unobservable past, not 'science.'
The problem is evolutionists are largely Uncritically Indoctrinated into their atheistic-naturalist religious beliefs, and they just keep insisting that they have all the evidence, when *in reality all the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12.* They rely on lies, misrepresentation, and quote mines to deceive their audience about Creation.
@@michaelg377I was uncritically indoctrinated into Christianity before I grew up and ultimately left it. So you’re plain wrong.
Please describe the process by which you think a fish becomes a philosopher.
@@Bomtombadi1 I don't think fish become philosophers lol, that is part of your atheistic origins mythology, not mine my friend.
*Did you know that the common evolutionist mythology that we are "99% similar to apes" has likewise been debunked by recent discoveries?*
"The higher-quality human genome assemblies have often been used to guide the final stages of nonhuman genome projects, including the order and orientation of sequence contigs and, perhaps more importantly, the annotation of genes. *This bias has effectively “humanized” other ape genome assemblies."* (Kronenberg, Z. N. et al. 2018. High-resolution comparative analysis of great ape genomes. Science. 360 (6393).
*“the percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 84.38%” and “4.06% had no alignment to the chimp assembly.”* (Richard Buggs, PhD, University of London's specialist in evolutionary genomics).
[Regarding Human-Chimp DNA similarity]: "There is a 13.3% difference in sections of our immune systems when insertions and deletions are considered." (Anzai, et. a., "Comparative Sequencing of Human and Chimpanzee MHC Class 1 Regions Unveils Insertions/Deletions as the Major Path to Genomic Divergence," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100, no. 13 (2003).
"The chimpanzee genome was 12% larger than the human genome... gene copy numbers revealed a 6.4% difference" (Jeffery Demuth, et al., "the Evolution of Mammalian Gene Families," 2006).
[Regarding Human-Chimp DNA similarity]: "There is a 17.4% difference in gene expression in the cerebral cortex" (Jon Cohen, "Relative Differences: the Myth of 1%" Science 316, no. 5833, 2007).
*""Relative Differences: the Myth of 1%"*
Religion:
We don't know so therefore God.
Science:
We don't know so let's find out.
Atheism:
We don't know so therefore Atheism. Ignore the fact that even Atheists live in line with the image and likeness of God rather than their own "we're just chemical accidents" belief system.
Science (a methodology):
Conflate with the worldview (an Ideology) of Atheistic-Naturalism - Fish evolve into philosophers, puddles of chemicals can fizz into people if you just wait a really long *Time,* etc. etc.
@@michaelg377 Michael spouting his nonsense that makes no sense again. How much does Calvin pay you?
@@michaelg377 Delusional nonsense
@@michaelg377Michael with the LYING!!! Classic.
Seriously how much do you get paid?
Seriously tell us
-what is a scientific theory?
-what is theism?
-what is atheism?
@@michaelg377
_"Ignore the fact that even Atheists live in line with the image and likeness of God rather than their own "we're just chemical accidents" belief system."_
What does this even mean? live in line with an image and likeness?
Do you even think about the words you blurt out... 🤭
So now you are a scientist lol.
AIG has plenty of scientists 😉🙏✝️
False argumentum ad verecundiam argument. Do better.
@@newcreationinchrist1423failed scientists
@@Bomtombadi1 Probably still too charitable..
@@newcreationinchrist1423 "Creation" scientists. 😅😅🤣🤣😂😂
The logic in this video is very flawed. Evolution isn't about gaining stuff, .... its about modifications.
Even if the changes shown here happens in reverse order, Creationists will still say its not Evolution.
There has to be some gaining... some creatures have wings, antennae, shells, scales and horns.
@@colinpierre3441 But Calvin just lies. New info is added to the genome all the time.
@@colinpierre3441 Gaining wings comes at the cost of arms. Shells come at the cost of mobility. Scales come at a cost of mobility too. Any modifications comes at some underlying cost to the organisms concerned. That's how evolution works.
@@Call_Me_Emo1 But why would hands change into wings if it's based on adapting to the environment? and why would only some creatures get them?
@@colinpierre3441 because not all creatures live in the same environments. Not all all creatures in the same environments encounter the same survival challenges. Not all creatures in the same environment face the same struggles throughout different points in time.
The human genome is 3.2b base pairs
The _Paris japonica_ plant genome is 150b base pairs.
Why does the _Paris japonica_ plant have a genome over 45X larger than the human genome?
For that matter, why is the Chimp genome larger than the human genome? *"The chimpanzee genome was 12% larger than the human genome* ... gene copy numbers revealed a 6.4% difference" (Jeffery Demuth, et al., "the Evolution of Mammalian Gene Families," 2006).
"The higher-quality human genome assemblies have often been used to guide the final stages of nonhuman genome projects, including the order and orientation of sequence contigs and, perhaps more importantly, the annotation of genes. *This bias has effectively “humanized” other ape genome assemblies."* (Kronenberg, Z. N. et al. 2018. High-resolution comparative analysis of great ape genomes. Science. 360 (6393).
*“the percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 84.38%” and “4.06% had no alignment to the chimp assembly.”* (Richard Buggs, PhD, University of London's specialist in evolutionary genomics).
[Regarding Human-Chimp DNA similarity]: "There is a 13.3% difference in sections of our immune systems when insertions and deletions are considered." (Anzai, et. a., "Comparative Sequencing of Human and Chimpanzee MHC Class 1 Regions Unveils Insertions/Deletions as the Major Path to Genomic Divergence," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100, no. 13 (2003).
[Regarding Human-Chimp DNA similarity]: "There is a 17.4% difference in gene expression in the cerebral cortex" (Jon Cohen, *"Relative Differences: the Myth of 1%"* Science 316, no. 5833, 2007).
That last title is particularly revealing: *"Relative Differences: the Myth of 1%"* How many evolutionists today do you suppose still believe in this modern debunked mythology that "apes and humans are 99% similar"? We were all Uncritically Indoctrinated into this atheistic origins story as young children - but our textbooks haven't caught up to this debunked reality yet, instead these problematic findings for evolution are just swept under the rug and no one ever talks about evolution's rather embarrassing history of constantly radically ad-hoc rewriting itself... why?
Explain why all humans have a tail that reabsorbs and is repurposed in utero? At least, it absorbs for all but the very few humans who are still born with a tail.
@@nathancook2852 It's not a tail - never was, never will be, and is not currently programmed to be a tail in your DNA. There are deformities like spina bifida, but human beings are simply not programmed to have a "tail.' What you're calling a "tail" (an unfortunate consequence of calling it a "tail-bone") is actually just a coccyx - it's an important connection point for tendons and ligaments, and actually serves an important role in elimination. What you're doing is a common evolutionist logical fallacy where you say "A looks like B therefore they are related" - you look at human spinal cord development, then look at "tails" in other creatures, and conclude humans have tails - in reality, it's just a coccyx as programmed in your DNA from the moment of conception, nothing more.
I hope this helps.
@@michaelg377 I want intelligent replies, not the same copy/paste lies from a paid troll.
No creationists want to give the "Design" explanation? 😉
People making some pretty mean comments. Is that a sign of unhappiness?
Evolution is change in the structure of living organisms. What is there to realize?
To summarize what I saw in the video, he realized that the changes didn't add anything new to any organism, and in order for evolution to work there would be new developments.
@@colinpierre3441 Genetic mutation form the new information..
@@Jewonastick In the video example he showed, nothing new formed... he explained it so well I can't even remember everything he said, but check it for yourself.
@@colinpierre3441 yes, the video deliberately doesn't explain how genetic mutations form new genetic information...
@colinpierre3441 - 1/64 of mutations creates new information. Irrelevant if the information is useful or not. It is information
The macro/micro evolution distinction comes from creationists in denial. It's the same thing. So no, not equivocation - you just don't understand what you're talking about.
Organisms, including us humans, have a system that governs DNA expression. It is called Epigenetics, it switches on or off and strengthens or weakens genetic impulses without changing the DNA blueprint. It can be quite rapid and is reversible. Today it is known that even the changes in the size and form of the beaks of the famous Galapagos finches can happen as rapidly as within a couple of years thanks to epigenetic functions. The system reacts to environmental changes, so it is temporary natural selection. A big part of what is interpreted as evolution is in fact epigenetic adaptation, not random DNA mutations. When researchers speak of micro evolution, they talk in reality of epigenetics.
False. You are making an unprovable claim, that lots of steps of micro evolution lead to
Macro. But that's what you haven't proved.
@@sliglusamelius8578
_"You are making an unprovable claim, that lots of steps of micro evolution lead to"_
1. Evidence supports this - the fossil record for example.
2. It's logically the same thing. Basically your 'argument' is that more of something doesn't mean more of something and you're just thumping the desk and saying 'not proven not proven' ..hoping that seems convincing.
@@MarkH-cu9zi
The fossil record shows huge discontinuities, it does not show what Darwin or anybody else expected, which is the slow change from one form to another.
It's not logically the same thing. We have all kinds of breeding experiments with drosophila melanogaster, every possible mutation has been imposed, every gene assortment etc, and we never yield anything but weird and bad mutations or color changes, but no new organisms or body plan changes. Higher organisms, same thing. Recently it was even shown that gray wolves are not ancestral to dogs, but scientists claim that some other unknown wolf species is ancestral. Well maybe. But that level of change is not even close to the claim that land mammals are ancestral to whales, a preposterous idea that should show thousands of slow progressive changes in the fossil record. Pakicetus and a couple other claimed and unprovable transitionals are not good evidence at all, there is not even agreement about what it represents..
@@MarkH-cu9zi
The fossil record does not show that, sorry, it's an assumption based on interpolating gaps, or evolution of the gaps argument..
This is mindbogglingly stupid.
It's creationism. What else would you expect?
Organisms, including us humans, have a system that governs DNA expression. It is called Epigenetics, it switches on or off and strengthens or weakens genetic impulses without changing the DNA blueprint. It can be quite rapid and is reversible. Today it is known that even the changes in the size and form of the beaks of the famous Galapagos finches can happen as rapidly as within a couple of years thanks to epigenetic functions. The system reacts to environmental changes, so it is temporary natural selection. A big part of what is interpreted as evolution is in fact epigenetic adaptation, not random DNA mutations. When researchers speak of micro evolution, they talk in reality of epigenetics.
@@s.unosson Epigenetics is just one more naturally evolved mechanism for improving reproductive success. Why you creationists think it is magic is the only baffling part.
The Japanese spider crab (Macrocheira kaempferi) is a species of marine crab renowned for its impressive size and long legs, which resemble those of a spider. It is the largest known species of crab in the world. This remarkable creature can have a leg span of up to 12 feet (3.7 meters) from claw to claw, and its body can measure up to 15 inches (38 centimeters) in width. With its otherworldly appearance, one might think the Japanese spider crab looks like something from a science fiction or horror movie. Indeed, it stands as a testament to the extraordinary creatures that evolution has brought forth over millions of years.
That's because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers. All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12 - and this wonderful specimen is certainly a testament to the amazing creativity of God when He created all of these creatures including programming them with a capacity to diversify and adapt within their reproductive kinds. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica admits the earliest fossils were already specialized and that: “the fossil record, although fairly rich, has not solved any of the questions about the early evolution of the Crustacea.” (New Encyclopedia Brittanica) *"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."* (Romans 1:20)
Evolutionists compare the anatomy among living species and study the fossil record, but neither approach offers any evidence as to how crustaceans evolved. They are still asking themselves if the crustaceans’ shell is a “primitive” structure (because the so-called “living fossils” all have it), or if the structure evolved independently.
Great related source: "Creation’s Crustaceans" (Answers in Genesis)
@@michaelg377 Calvin's paid liar is back with his same copy paste.
According to ChatGPT: *"Based on these factors, the text exhibits many characteristics of AI-generated content. It is likely that this passage was created by an AI, like ChatGPT"*
How disappointing, I actually thought that tobias4411 knew a little bit about what he was talking about, albeit from a biased evolutionary perspective... turns out it's just a bot using the internet to think for him...
Quillbot: *"100% of text is likely AI-generated"*
@@michaelg377 All you got is copy pasta, stop trolling.
@@nathancook2852 My friend, now it's your atheist activist friends who got caught copy pasta trolling lol... and I'm not just saying that, they are literally blindly using AI which just regurgitates information on the internet, which shows just how empty your position is... I guess if it's on the internet it's true, right? Come on now Nathan.
In the meantime - A century ago we taught evolution as "the truth." Since then it has undergone numerous radical ad-hoc readjustments as it's run into more and more problems, and today we still teach it as "the truth." In another 30-40 years when we revise it again, it will still be "the truth." *Which version was "true," and which ones are the lies?*
Great video!
This is cherry-picking of examples. None of the described mutants have been claimed as proof of evolution "in action". So we see the creation of a straw-man that is then set ablaze. But evolution-biologists would have set it ablaze just as easily as a false example. It's nothing more than fabricating excuses to then resort to name-calling (case in point: calling biologists "Liars"). And that is a little pathetic.
(Shrug) Lying about science is what creationists *do.* It's all they do.
@@itsamystery5279No kidding! Calvin is a bad Christian, because he regularly breaks the 9th commandment by bearing false witness. Which is lying, to you and me.
Wrong. All of these examples have been used as proofs of evolution. That's why I used them...
@@itsamystery5279Science actually proves the existence of God. But you have to be able to think, not just repeat information from textbooks. I have a degree in biology and have never seen one thing that proved evolution or disproved God. Just sayin’
@@calvinsmith7575
They are not "proofs" of evolution. They are simply a few more of the millions of facts that are consistent with evolution. Nobody has ever suggested ANY one thing can "prove" evolution by itself.
Funny how he gave an example of evolution then went to explain how it couldn’t be evolution
Creationists aren't the sharpest crayons in the box. 🙂
@@sciencerules2825so are evolutionists who can’t show ONE proof of macro evolution on the fossil record 😂😂
Cope
@@andriesbritz6061 The entire fossil record? Thousands of transitional fossils? Oh, but those don't count. Sure....
@@nathancook2852 "Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded... *The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time... Some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record... have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."* (D. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50, no 1 (1979), 25)
@kattykitters5310 No, sadly he doesn't. He's a troll paid to disrupt conversations. Never had an original thought in his life.
No one gets the science wrong or lies about actual evolution quite like Calvin Smith. Of course he's had many years of practice.
What did he get wrong in this video specifically? This guy made claims and then put forth evidence to support it.
You also made a claim.. where is your evidence?
YOU , of course give no examples, not ONE. Scares you to think what he says is correct, doesn't it?
@@ElectricBluJay He's making the same dumb creationist claim "no new books can ever be written because they're just existing words in the dictionary being rearranged." Stupidity that overt should be illegal.
@@itsamystery5279 Then cite a single intermittent species, bruh.
If you're so sure about evolution and that Creation is a lie, provide us the proof we keep asking for.
Just ONE species that shows macro-evolution in action.
We've been waiting....and you folks continue to hurl insults over evidence.
@itsamystery5279
It is quite clear that you have not studied natural selection and mutations.
Of course you can write whatever you want, it's a pity that you only quote and don't understand anything yourself.
This guys suits are always on point.
Too bad he never has evidence for his claims. That would seem to be the more important thing in this case.
( ´△｀) 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.
It's really embarrassing to keep desperately trying to poke holes in established scientific theories as if it'll lend any credibility at all to the myths you believe in.
Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just wait a really long *time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people by chance? Science is a methodology, what you're referring to is an Ideology about the unobservable past - not "science."
*Scientific Theories are supposed to be Falsifiable, Religions are Not: Given its extensive history of radically ad-hoc readjusting itself every time it runs into problematic evidence, what would it take to "Falsify" the Theory of Evolution today?*
In 1982 a federal court ruled that Creation can't be taught in schools because "it is not falsifiable." Evolution has a long history of radically rewriting itself as it runs into more and more problems - what would it take to "falsify" Naturalistic Evolution? Over 500 Living Fossils? Debunked "Junk" DNA? Finding a 70M year extinct *evolutionary 'transitional form' still alive, unevolved, with no evidence of it ever evolving?* Discovering that many "vestigial" (leftover) organs actually have a normal function, like the appendix? Finding "millions of years" old creatures with no signs of evolution? Fully developed vertebrate creatures in the Cambrian explosion? An Ankylosaurus fossil found where it's not supposed to be buried among sea creatures? Whale fossils deep inland in the United States? Trilobites found appearing suddenly and fully developed with complex eyes in the Cambrian - and in every fossil layer indicating they were buried rapidly? Maybe measurably young tissues in dinosaur fossils that look similar to 4000 year old mummies or the Tyrolean Ice Man? Early jawed placoderm fossils showing fully developed complex jaws - causing evolutionists to claim that they must have evolved, de-evolved, and then re-evolved those jaws to maintain their story of shark evolution? What if scientists admitted that Human-Ape DNA is down from 99% "similar" to only 84% "similar" and admitted their bias in "humanizing" the ape genome?
...or should we just reinterpret all of these problematic evidences to keep the belief in Atheistic/Naturalistic evolution alive, and why? We are all *uncritically indoctrinated* into this Atheistic-Naturalist religion of evolution in our public education system today... Should evolution be held to the same religious standard as Creationism?
All of the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, and if you understand "science" then you understand the implications of a competing explanation.
*"The evidence of God... has been clearly seen since the beginning in all that has been created, so they will have no excuse"* (Romans 1:20)
@@michaelg377there’s the copy paste dodging lying spam!!
@@therick363 When a man lies, he lies to himself. Be honest with yourself my friend. The "liar liar" tactic will only get you so far - Consider your own contradictions:
"LIE. *I never said our universe has always existed. So you are LYING."* (therick363, 18 June 2024)
"The beginning of the our universe *well first off we don't know scientifically if this universe had a beginning.."* (therick363, 18 June 2024)
"I said NATURE could have existed in some form. I didn't say the universe." (therick363, 18 June 2024)
"Why does nature need to be created? *It could have always existed in some form."* (therick363, 18 June 2024)
So "nature... could have always existed," but not the universe, but the universe may not have "had a beginning," but you "never said our universe has always existed."
...too many word games.
"I NEVER said energy can come from nothing in my world view and in fact said I don't hold that view. *I said it could be eternal."* (therick363, 18 June 2024)
And thus you contradict the 2nd law of thermodynamics which observably operates in both open and closed systems, and simultaneously declare "energy" to be self-existent - it "just is," "from [Atheistic] everlasting to everlasting," like God. The only way for nature to create itself is if nature is pre-existent/self-existent, like God.
*therick363's test to falsify evolution:
*"Finding a modern animal in the past would be a good place to start,* say a human with a dinosaur....that would really help. Or present a model that does a better job....."
[Evidence of hundreds of living fossils shown]
*therick363 now:* "Just because we find "living fossils" doesn't debunk evolution. *I said find a MODERN animal in the past...not a past animal now."*
What's the difference? We've found over 500 living fossils - modern animals in the past, past animals in the present - it's the same thing my friend. *Living Fossils.* Coelacanth, horseshoe crabs, wasps, dragonflies... hundreds. The Coelacanth in particular was an alleged evolutionary transitional species.
*therick363 now again:* "Have you found a cat? A dog? MODERN ones? no you haven't."
...unfortunately, the only one lying here is you my friend - to yourself.
*"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"* (Romans 3:23)
@@michaelg377 You lie to yourself and to everyone else reading your copypasta spam posts.
@@sciencerules2825 Same to you my friend. Blessings to you and yours.
*"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."* (Matthew 5:28)
*"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"* (Romans 3:23)
*"But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken."* (Matthew 12:36)
"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, *who suppress the truth by their wickedness,* 19 since what may be known about God *is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them."* (Romans 1:18-19)
type of animals arent evolution its just the fact that there are other pieces if it were evolution wouldnt all the dogs just became the 'best' dog
Humans select which dog. They don't select the same dog breed. That is evolution
"Best dog"? That's not how evolution works. Dogs were among the first animals to be domesticated, and they have been domesticated for around 30,000 years. It's a selective breeding, and humans selected for desirable traits. Genetic studies suggest that all ancient and modern dogs share a common ancestry and descended from an ancient, now-extinct wolf population. (Wikipedia). Animal domestication is a coevolutionary process in which a population responds to selective pressure while adapting to a novel niche that included another species with evolving behaviours.
(Larson, G.; Bradley, D.G. 2014. "How Much Is That in Dog Years? The Advent of Canine Population Genomics").
You're referring to the evolutionist philosophy of Advancement Thinking - the general *Assumption* that things grow and go from simple to complex over time. The problem is that while this "simple to complex" philosophy is the essence of their belief system, they can easily abandon it when the evidence doesn't suit them. Atheistic-Evolution actually has nothing to do with evidence... it's a constantly radically ad-hoc rewritten atheistic origins mythology about the unobservable past designed to explain our creation without a Creator - no Creator means no moral accountability, and no judgement for their lies, theft, lust, adultery, fornication, hatred, greed, selfishness, blasphemy, idolatry, dishonoring their parents, or otherwise.
*"It is appointed for a man to die once, then comes judgment"* (Hebrews 9:27)
Two worldviews, same evidence, two very different interpretations.
A) Evolutionists preach a modern constantly changing mythology that everything grew from *simple* chemicals in a puddle into a highly *complex* single cell organism into all *complex* life on earth (ie. Advancement Thinking - Simple>Complex).
B) Biblical creation proponents believe that God created each creature with a capacity for diversification and adaptation in accordance with their kind with perfect health and no degradation, and through years of inbreeding and the other effects of sin and corruption in the world they have degraded over time showing an increase in health problems, decrease in lifespan, resulting in genetic flaws and end of the line species not always able to reproduce like the mule, etc. (ie. Genetic degradation over time - Complex>Simple).
You have to evaluate the worldviews to determine which one more rationally handles the evidence. Food for thought that come to mind are the law of biogenesis which atheists need to circumvent, the 2nd law of thermodynamics which suggests entropy (disorder) is always increasing, and *how do you get from meaningless goo to meaningful and valuable you just by adding time + chemicals + chance in a meaningless universe?* By using tests like internal consistency, existential viability (ie. can you live a "we're just chemicals" worldview out in reality), and whether it has a history of radical ad-hoc readjustment - you can test which worldview is more rational in its handling of the evidence. All of these are problems for Atheism, not for a biblical worldview.
But again - atheistic-evolution actually has nothing to do with evidence, it's about moral suppression of the God who is going to hold them accountable. Therein lies the problem.
@annieoaktree6774 Not trolling my friend - I'm asking you about the existential viability of your worldview as a chemical accident in a meaningless universe.
*How do you get from meaningless goo to meaningful and valuable you just by adding time + chemicals + chance in a meaningless universe?*
*"They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them"* (Romans 2:15)
I will never describe evolution as “change” like evolutionist do.
Evolution needs to be defined as the addition on new information to DNA by a natural process.
That definition doesn't work. Evolution works by modifying existing genomes. That can mean either adding new functional genetic information, modifying existing genetic information, *or by deleting unused genetic information.* It's all still evolution.
@@apoliticalobserver2741 nope. My definition is the only way new body plans are made. Because you cannot delete information without having made it first.
@@beefsupreme4671 Fail again. Evolution can and does proceed without the addition of new body plans.
They keep their definition deliberately ambiguous, it's a bait and switch. By saying it is something overly generic like "change over time" or "changes in allele frequency" or "descent with modification" - they can lay claim to all changes as alleged "evolution." The problem is that we ONLY observe biblical speciation within each creatures' kind (finch>finch, dog>dog, bacteria>bacteria, etc.) without "evolution," never even ONCE a change between kinds as the atheistic origins mythology of evolution requires (fish>philosopher, dinosaur>chicken, placoderm>shark). The former is observable science, the latter is a constantly radically ad-hoc rewritten atheistic origins mythology about the unobservable past - not science.
In other words, they keep it deliberately ambiguous so they can claim all the actual *observable* evidence, and then do a bait and switch to conflate the observable evidence with their *unobservable and constantly radically ad-hoc rewritten origins mythology of particles to man evolution.* If they were honest, they should absolutely insert their assumptions like "common ancestry," "creation of new information/instructions," etc. which their definition suspiciously lacks.
All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12 - no radical rewrite required. And if you understand 'science,' then you understand the implications of a competing explanation.
You see it all right here:
"Evolution works by modifying existing genomes. *That can mean either adding new functional genetic information,* modifying existing genetic information, or by deleting unused genetic information. *It's all still evolution."*
"Fail again. *Evolution can and does proceed* without the addition of new body plans."
@@apoliticalobserver2741 that is the point I’m making. Losing information is not evolution. Only gaining information.
Plain and simple.
Entropy cannot be the mechanism for evolution
Can you get some creativity with the title? "Atheists/Evoluiotionsts don't want you to see this,' is first off, always a lie, we are usually very happy to discuss the point that you bring up and mischaracterize, misrepresent, and lie about. Also, it get's old. Freshen it up a bit. But why would I think you could come up with a creative title? You never get the science correct...
I appreciate your willingness to discuss difficult topics.
Let me ask you this... when all the right chemicals fizzed into all the necessary proteins required for life by chance (already an Atheist miracle), and then into all the necessary cell components inside of a cell enclosure by chance chemical reactions, *how did they overcome the scientific problem of hydrolysis which inhibits protein formation in water?*
Here are a few examples of what scientists say on this topic:
*"we've not made the RNA in a prebiotically relevant manner. It hydrolyzes too rapidly."* (Professor Jack Szostak, Chicago, 2021)
[Regarding Abiogenesis] *"Chemistry is actually hard to get to work. The molecules precipitate. The molecules hydrolyze. The molecules decompose. And so it's very much a constraint that you have to deal with.. it's one g-d problem after another."* (Steve Benner, former Harvard Professor, Director of Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution, 2019)
"Even a single protein could not arrive at its native structure in biological real time because conformational space is far too vast": ~10^95 possible conformations for a chain of 100 residues, so that *"even a small protein that initiated folding by random search at the time of the big bang would still be thrashing about today."* (Peter Tompa and George D. Rose, "The Levinthal Paradox of the Interactome," Protein Science 20 (2011): 2074.)
"An interactome is the whole set of non-covalent molecular interactions in a particular cell. If one merely considers all *protein-protein interactome combinations in just a single yeast cell, the result is an estimated 10^79,000,000,000 combinations."* (Peter Tompa and George D. Rose, Protein Science 2011, 20, 2074-2079. Department of Structural Biology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium, and the Department of Biophysics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.)
For reference, 10^90 is the estimated number of elemental particles in the universe.
Minimum requirements of a "simple" cell:
*"The minimal gene set* included genes for: DNA replication, repair, restriction, and modification; a basic transcription machinery; aminoacyl-tRNA synthesis; tRNA maturation and modification; ribosomal proteins; ribosome function, maturation, and modification; translation factors; RNA degradation; protein processing, folding, and secretion; cellular division; transport; energetic and intermediary metabolism (glycosis, proton motive force generation, pentose phosphate pathway, lipid metabolism, and biosynthesis of nucleotides and cofactors)." (Joana C. Xavier, Kiran Raosaheb Pahl, Isabel Rocha, *"Systems Biology Perspectives on Minimal and Simpler Cells,"* Microbiol Mol Biol Rev, 2014 Sep 76(3): 487-509).
*"The evidence of God... has been clearly seen since the beginning in all that has been created, so they will have no excuse"* (Romans 1:20)
@@michaelg377 More repeated lies from Michael G, Calvin's paid troll.
You don't discuss, you just copy paste. I am not "discussing" anything with you. I have tried multiple times and you are not here to learn. You are on AIG's payroll here to troll those who can prove them wrong.
@@michaelg377
Do you actually want an explanation or are you just parroting talking points?
@@jockyoung4491 Michael G doesn't have two brain cells to rub together. He has a list of a half dozen creationist paragraphs Calvin gave him which Mr. Pinocchio Nose reposts at every chance. That's his job.
The Argument for god might seem convincing until you realise he used to be a volcano.
Exodus 13:21 And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night.
But volcanoes don't "go" anywhere (Exodus 13:21), neither they move or change directions in front and behind a mass of people, and to my knowledge there are no volcanos in the Red Sea/Sinai Peninsula region. Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just wait a really long *time* puddles of chemicals can turn into people? Tell me something... as a Christian I believe that you are a meaningful, moral, purposeful, dignified, valuable human being made in God's image, and I observe that you have these values. In your worldview, *how do you get from meaningless goo to meaningful and valuable you just by adding time + chemicals + chance in a meaningless universe?*
God said you are a meaningful and valuable human being made in His image and likeness (Genesis 1:27), with a purpose and a unique capacity for "dominion" over creation as you sit here typing this (Genesis 1:26), morality and a sense of justice (Genesis 9:6), a sense of dignity and respect towards others (James 3:10), a capacity for free will rational thinking and decision making (Genesis 2:16), and a conscience which reflects the principles of His law (Romans 2:15), among other things. These are observable qualities that we all observe in you, and being made in God's image and likeness makes perfect sense of that. I love that He programmed that into you so that even you can see clear evidence in yourself that He exists, and that you're not just "meaningless evolved protoplasm."
How do you explain these qualities of the image and likeness of God in you from your own worldview? For example, *is "rape" always wrong in your worldview, or is it sometimes morally permissible - and why?* Where does that come from in your worldview? Animals do it all the time, it's "normal" - it's "natural" - and we're just "evolved animals," right? Chemical reactions destroy each other all the time, it's "normal" - it's "natural" - and who cares - we're "just chemicals," right? What's the difference...?
*"They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them."* (Romans 2:15)
It would be easier to take this video more seriously if the host wasn’t placed at a desk with a microscope as a prop and a book, likely a Bible, that he almost certainly was not in the middle of reading when the camera crew “suddenly showed up” to interview him. He also happens to be sitting conveniently in front of a green screen to make it appear as if he in in the laboratory while speaking, which is basically claiming he is an active researcher without saying it directly. If your presentation is this obviously pretentious, how can I assume the content of your words aren’t equally pretend?
keep up the good work.
They are not reductive mutations by his description. What has actually occurred is an adaptation to a change in the food supply, which triggered a programmed survival response allowing the organism to survive. This is likely programmed into the epigenetics as a failsafe mechanism enabling the bacteria to overcome a change in its environment. The creation of super bugs is the same thing. In contrast to what proponents of life from non living materials espouse, the survivability of living organisms in a changing environment is proof of design by an all knowing engineer outside of linear time. This engineer designed in advance of need the upgrades which may/ will be necessary for survival. Adaptation is the word not microevolution. More word games to confuse people who are seeking answers. The enemy of our soul is a liar seeking to separate us from truth, our Creator
You have no idea what you're blithering about.
So, you’re saying that what’s happening isn’t “reductive mutations” but rather an epic survival response coded into the epigenetics-like some cosmic fail-safe built in by an all-knowing designer. Fascinating! Because clearly, evolution is just a clever disguise for what’s really a grand design by a timeless engineer.
Superbugs? Oh, they’re just like those nifty upgrades you get on your smartphone, but pre-programmed by an omnipotent coder who knew exactly what bacteria would need to survive a bacterial apocalypse. It’s like, “Oh, you need a resistance to antibiotics? No problem, I’ll just add that to the design!”
And adaptation? Totally not the same as microevolution. It’s a completely different game of semantics! Evolution is just a “word game” meant to baffle those who are apparently searching for truth, while adaptation is the real deal-because who needs a scientific explanation when you’ve got divine engineering?
So, in this grand cosmic drama, evolution and adaptation are just ways to confuse us mere mortals. Because obviously, the real story is that everything was meticulously designed by an all-knowing engineer who’s way ahead of the game. Science and evolution are just fancy smokescreens, right? And let’s not forget, any hint of a naturalistic explanation is just the work of a nefarious “enemy” trying to lead us astray. Classic!
Boom got em again! Now this super significant information will go on to do nothing to change scientific fact. Isn’t confirmation bias just the best.
What super significant information?
@@sciencerules2825 are you trying to be funny or do you not understand sarcasm? I just may have missed your context.
@@Visualindexpro Sorry I missed it. Poe's Law* claims another victim. ☹
*Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article.
@@sciencerules2825 haha no I feel you completely on that one.
Science is a methodology, what you're talking about is an Ideology - not 'science.' Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just wait a really long *Time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people by chance?
Right on point.
(/_;)/~~ 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.
The first cause.
Frankly, the information in this video certainly invalidates the idea that bacterial resistance is macro-evolution in action, but this information is all but useless unless you happen to be a microbiologist or geneticists communicating with another microbiologists or geneticists. Because, in reality, these are the only people who would have any clue about how to make any sense out of what was just explained. You (Mr. Calvin) may as well have been using a foreign language. On the one hand, yes, while the science you explained clearly invalidates what atheistic minded scientists are trying to present as conclusive, in the real world, let me ask you, what average believer has any real use for this information???? We are not microbiologists/geneticists and we certainly don't interact with others who are or would even have a clue about how to even begin to understand what you just explained. Do you even live in the real world? Try to imagine coming up to the average unbeliever and saying "Hey man, let me tell you about some of the inherent equivocation fallacies related to the research being done by atheistic scientists on the "common" helicobacter pylori bacteria." Better yet, "Hey man, let me explain to you how point mutations in bacteria don't really show any "new" traits and abilities coming into existence by natural selection and genetic mutations like atheistic minded scientists have concluded." I'm not sure what kind of reaction that you'd get from the average unbeliever in your world, but in my world you'd be met with nothing but a blank stare. This would only get worse if you attempted to regurgitate what you just said in this video. I believe that I speak for the average believer watching this video when I say that its content is very discouraging more than anything else. By this I mean the idea that we have to understand and be able to explain such complex molecular processes at such a deep level accompanied by PhD level jargon like you just did in this video to effectively defend our faith, is discouraging to say the least. Not only this, the fact of the matter is that it's really unnecessary. The reality in the world you seem to have left long ago is that anyone who understands what you just explained well enough to mount an intelligible and articulate defense against it (even though their defense would be wrong) , is most certainly too far gone to be convinced of the Truth, anyway. As correct as your explanations are in this video, to the average believer, and even the unbeliever alike, only hear gibberish coming from your mouth. Your analogies don't help at all. More power to you for knowing all these things and being able to articulate them so well, but in the real world where probably 99.9% of us average believers live and minister, the content of this video is almost entirely useless to us. Just sayin. But keep up the good work. Most all of your other videos are so helpful and are much needed in this world of godless relativism.
AIG can't seem to win either way.
Many times they will simplify their videos to make it easy to understand for regular people. Then they will get criticized for it, saying that they aren't real scientists.
Then they make videos that are more complex so people who have knowledge of science can understand and they get complaints from other people.
I think we should just take it for what it is and for us laymen, we wait for the next more simpler video. Try to cut them a little slack, man. They're trying.
@@newcreationinchrist1423 _They're trying._ Trying to pull the wool over the eyes of gullible True Believers like you.
@@newcreationinchrist1423when they say “evolutionists”….they are NOT trying.
Not honestly at least. Trying to be dishonest yes.
@kattykitters5310
False. He understands all of that, it's not that hard.
@@therick363
You can't refute anything he said.
Absolutely, God made these evil bacteria, just snapped fingers at the back there
Is it that the bacteria are evil? Or is that they are in a place they're not supposed to be because of mankind's irresponsibility...
@@colinpierre3441 youre correct, mankind evolved irrisponsible
👍