Adam, Not Apes | Dr. Brian Thomas, Ph.D.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 фев 2022
- Dr. Thomas discusses several fossil finds that have been promoted as proof of human evolution.
Excerpt from the Made in His Image Seminar. Full video found here: • Made in His Image Semi...
Featured resource: Contested Bones | Get the book here:
store.icr.org/dr-john-sanford...
Featured resource: Made in His Image | Get the book here:
store.icr.org/dr-randy-guliuz...
Featured resource: Made in His Image DVD Series | Get the DVDs here:
store.icr.org/made-in-his-ima...
Featured resource: Creation Basics and Beyond | Get the book here:
store.icr.org/creation-basics...
#Anthropology #Evolution #Creationism
---
Don't forget to subscribe to our channel to get notified about all of our upcoming videos!
---
Learn more about the Institute for Creation Research: www.icr.org/
Shop our store: www.icr.org/
Support our ministry: www.icr.org/donate
Plan your visit to our Dallas creation museum and planetarium: discoverycenter.icr.org/ 
Наука
This is an interesting presentation. I was always presented false evidence as a child, and led to believe that evolution is truth. It wasn’t until I started researching things more than video games that I discovered that there are holes and blatant untruths within this doctrine. Even when I became a Christian at 18, I still believed in evolution because I was told that God used it to get us here and that Adam wasn’t the first man, but rather the first man after the Gap theory. 🤦🏾♂️
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@n1ghtmar3mach1n3
It's interesting that NOBODY can present "evidence" against Evolution and "evidence" for their Creation Myth!
@@Peekaboo-Kitty The human DNA code is actually getting weaker, not stronger, over time. The more mitosis happens, the weaker the copies get. You expect to evolve into Superman. That is fine, but the evidence does not suggest building up, but breaking down.
Hmmm... Why can't I find any peer reviewed works by him? Has he ever run this info by an evolutionary biologist?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha
You wont find any!
why would that matter? peer reviewed works are often fallible
@@HS-zk5nn It would be a start, though.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu sorry, I dont find that convincing.
There is, unfortunately, no doubt that Human Beings are animals that share a common ancestor with other great apes - just look at the enodgenous retroviral scarring on our DNA and match this to the same scars on Chimpanzees and Gorillas. It proves our common ancestry conclusively.
Research indicating that endogenous retroviruses (ERVs), often considered 'junk DNA,' actually serve important functions, acting as promoters for transcription in over one-fifth of the human genome. This challenges the idea that a large portion of our DNA is non-functional. The scientific research goes beyond evolutionary assumptions and imagination, focusing on the sophisticated functional significance of genomic elements rather than mere remnants of evolution. ERVs between humans and apes should be attributed to our common creator designing them. The differences in DNA, greater than expected by evolutionists, pose one of many problems to the evolutionary narrative.
@@mlankfoNope. You have conflated the inter-chromosomal DNA with Endogenous Viral Scarring but they are NOT the same thing at all. These are sequences of DNA inserted into the genome that we share with Apes. They are clear and easy to spot and the chances of them occurring in two people the same, let alone two different species are billions to one. They are proof of common ancestry.
That does not prove anything The difference is not in the evidence that we have but in how we interpret it. bottom line is you have no observable evidence for any of your claims You are claiming that similarities in DNA prove that we must have evolved from that organism and yet we also share similarities in DNA to carrots..... Did we evolve from them as well? How about bananas? There are two things wrong with your analysis number one we can't compare full and complete genomes between man and ape between man and banana doesn't matter number two even if we could nor would this prove definitively that we must have evolved from these organisms this could equally be used as evidence of a common creator who solve it to use designs across the vast array of his creations either way to assert this is definitive evidence of evolution is foolish.
@@kingyoung5228 You clearly don't know how detectives solve a murder or anything about the evidence for evolution:
"bottom line is you have no observable evidence for any of your claims" - actually we have mountains of observable evidence for evolution, your statement is bafflingly ignorant. You have just never bothered to look at it.
"You are claiming that similarities in DNA prove that we must have evolved from that organism" - Nope. If you are going to critique evidence you should at least try to understand it. Similarities in DNA show our RELATIONSHIP to other living things, not that we 'evolved from them'. We did not 'evolve from apes' or Bananas. You make a second bizarre claim:
"we can't compare full and complete genomes between man and ape" - We absolutely can and have done. Why do you think this is not possible?
The EVIDENCE shows that as organisms that are more like each other share more of their DNA: Hence, Bonobos look like smallish chimpanzees, with whom they share 99.6% of their DNA. And both of these great apes share 96% of their functioning DNA with humans, making them our closest living relatives.
Humans also share 66% of their DNA with chickens and about 55% with bananas. This is because all living things are related in a great tree of life and have many functions in common: Cells, how cells divide and reproduce etc. We do a lot of chemistry in our cells in the same that a banana (or a carrot) does. It has even been suggested that the chemistry that makes skin go brown in sunlight is an adaptation of the chemistry that makes plants turn sunlight into food.
These ideas are supported by evidence from many other sources such as the fossil record.
Someone said the longer we live, the thicker the bones structure. Therefore what they categorise as Néandertal and like are just the remains of perfect humans who lived for centuries, just as scriptures says it.
Great job you guys are doing.
No, no they are not. *sigh*
It's interesting that NOBODY can present "evidence" against Evolution and "evidence" for their Creation Myth!
You are incredibly gullible. Study long; study wrong!
@@Peekaboo-Kittyevidence is presented all the time you choose to ignore it for your evolutionary myth there's a difference. There's evidence in this comment parts of your skull and pelvis never stop growing how do scientists determine Neanderthal fossils by the width of their pelvis and the length of their skull these two parts of Neanderthals skeletons tend to be bigger or more exaggerated than what you would find on a modern human You would also expect these areas to become exaggerated should a human live to be centuries upon centuries old these skeletal deformations make perfect sense using a biblical explanation. You use these fossils to prove that men evolved from ape The difference is not the evidence but how it's interpreted.
Hominids, not Adam.
You are so goofy! I can't wait to be able to see you speak in person! I have followed your work since you came to ICR and your articles and work have really enriched my understanding of creation science. Thanks!
Wonderful presentation!
“It’s just a dead lemur!” 😂
I enjoy the challenge to ensconced scientific dogma... and there's no reason to think God isn't a possible being, and couldn't create the world as the bible describes... I have no problem with that. The big problem for me is, I think the biologist who said this is right: "Nothing in biology makes sense outside of evolution." You could add "geology" to that statement, and "astronomy," as it is the nexus among all the sciences that seems to require jettisoning the special creation and young earth theories. Of course, we could be living in a computer simulation, and God is the programmer, and the evolution evidence is just there to create an intellectual alternative to faith... that's entirely possible, too. The bible does say God will send a strong delusion in the end times, if I recall... and while that involves God acting as a deceiver, which isn't perhaps a safe opinion to endorse (the bible isn't necessarily free of scribal add-ons... as the verse promising punishment for add-ons indicates), and so perhaps the evolution evidence is misleading. In any case, I like talk. Thanks for posting it, ICR!
I don't see how this assertion, "Nothing in biology makes sense outside of evolution", can survive even a simple set of facts such as Dr. Thomas goes through in this layman-style video.
If there were so much "sense" to evolution, why have true believers in evolution been forced to manufacture (lie) supposed missing links in the fossil record, which are *always* found to be suppositions and hoaxes later? Darwin himself saw the *lack* of transitional fossils (between the Biblical kinds) as the weakest point of his speculations. Now that 150 years of research has happened since his time, where are these transitional forms? They still have to be made up--by supposed scientists, no less--and simply *asserted" to this day.
It amazes me how good the secular indoctrination is.
I was an evolutionist, despite knowing it was religious in nature, but since I was an atheist, I accepted it.
When I came to Christ, I began arguing with these same arguments, based on the same evidence (that I had learned while majoring in biology in college and self-study), and for YEARS I avoided creationist content, despite being a creationist.
Because I was indoctrinated into believing creationists are absurd liars and biased.
When I found out they were, in fact, honest scientists, I realized how good secularism is at projecting their own weaknesses on others.
Christians, if you send your children to a Christian university, be sure to check out their biology and philosophy departments and textbooks to make sure they aren’t teaching evolution like my Christian university did. I’m glad I knew better.
Because suppressing the truth of science is what Christians should be all about.
It's interesting that NOBODY can present "evidence" against Evolution and "evidence" for their Creation Myth!
@@Peekaboo-Kitty no transitional life forms have ever been presented. There should be millions living today.
Chemistry alone proves evolution is a farce.
Apologies but I might have missed something in the presentation :are you suggesting that Adam could have been a Neanderthal or a fully modern human - as we would define it today? If both are considered as human in terms of both physiology and genetic traits presumably the evidence suggests that Neanderthal's became 'extinct' as a result of interbreeding between the two 'variants' of the human kind.
What evidence? 🤔
It’s hard to say but one explanation is that the Neanderthal were a small group of people that migrated after Babel and became isolated. When a small group becomes isolated then certain mutations can become fixed in that population faster than others which would explain the genetic dissimilarity. Even the secular‘s would acknowledge at this point that Neanderthals were human. They had ceremonies, made and played musical instruments, had jewelry, they sailed, so there is little doubt left amongst the secular camp. Neanderthal would be unrecognizable on the streets of New York walking amongst the people of today.
Great presentation. Thank you. :)
You're very welcome!
My assumption would be that Neanderthals, Homo erectus, and many other species of humans went extinct in the flood. One of Noah’s sons probably married a part-Neanderthal woman. I would guess Japheth because we know Shem fathered the Han Chinese, and it probably wasn’t Ham.
There's the problem 'my assumption". This is a word-salad of utter nonsense as is this presentation - "my assumption is that the Bible is literally true . . .now lets force these facts to fit the narrative".
And then the kangaroos all hoped over to Australia because they like the warmth! LMAO
Revelation 4:11
Genesis is a bit short on details. According to Genesis, God created the heavens and the Earth while he was in the dark. Would have been easier if he could have seen what he was doing by turning on the light first.
Wouldn't that be putting human limits on an all powerful creator who is capable of living in and having knowledge of all time and space.
“Would have been easier FOR YOU if you could have seen what He was doing by turning on the light first” you mean.
Think about it
@Gordon Cavanaugh Wow, you really hit one out of the park! Nice to see people really using their brains to defeat the Word of God.
Psalm 139:12 Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.
Apparently, according to Creationists, God can do ALL things except create via Evolution! 😂
Wonderful, praise God!
🙄
People are still debating creationists? I thought the scientific consensus was that the creationist species is incapable of understanding even the basic principles of evolution. I distinctly remember hearing "...how come monkeys still exist?" for at least a decade.
Scientific consensus is bs. Its just agreeing what they think and believe and burying it there.
For it to be real science it has to be constantly questioned and researched
Besides if you're so smart that you know how monkeys still exist if we come from the same monkeys, then do explain.
You do know that it happens nowhere that a race suddenly just splits up and one part stops evolving, and the other part keeps evolving for no reason at all.
At least they're obviously not the same anymore
You thought wrong.
😂 ad hominem babbling. You asked no real questions, just empty rhetoric.🤣😆😂🤭
No the evolutionists gave debating up after getting whooped so many times by creationists.
Where are the highly moral and righteous atheists refuting this with their fabricated science? =)
Back that up…..
Creation Science is an Oxymoron
No
Not at all, Creation is a science far superior to man's understanding that's all
An oxymoron is when you put two contradictory words together, and yet make sense due to the phrase being a figure of speech. “Living dead” is an impossibility because they are two different states of being. However, when one says “the living dead” it is referring to a supernatural being such as a vampire, zombie, or other entity in fiction. So even though the term “living dead” should be idiotic to use, it applies to something and makes perfect sense.
Given that, you say that “Creation Science” is an oxymoron. Creation is defined as the universe and everything in it. Science is defined as the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
So…where is the contraction? The phenomena in the definition of science here, would be “the universe and everything in it.” We can’t observe, identify, describe, experiment on, investigate, or explain our universe or the things in it? According to you, doing so would be putting opposites together.
@@YophiSmith or a truthful politician lol