Exposing the Absurd LACK of Scientific Evidence for Evolution
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 май 2023
- From its inception, the scientific “proofs” offered to support evolution have been riddled with holes. For example, many of the so-called “ape-man” fossils have been proven to be completely fake. In this video, Calvin Smith exposes the lack of scientific evidence for evolution.
This video is part of a series titled Freakshow. You can watch the rest of the series here: www.Answers.TV/freakshow
This video was originally published on the Answers in Genesis-Canada channel:
/ @answerscanada
========
Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (Christianity-defending) ministry dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ effectively.
On our RUclips channel, you’ll find answers to your most pressing questions about key issues like creation, evolution, science, the age of the earth, and social issues. We desire to train believers to develop a worldview based on the Bible and expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas and their implications.
You’ll hear from top teachers such as Ken Ham, Bryan Osborne, Dr. Georgia Purdom, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, Tim Chaffey, Bodie Hodge, Dr. Gabriela Haynes, Dr. Terry Mortenson, and more.
Please help us continue to share the gospel around the world: AnswersinGenesis.org/give
Even before becoming a Christian and learning the Bible, I knew we didn't come from apes.
We are apes
@@celestialsatheist1535
No. We're not.
Dr. Charles Oxnard completed the most sophisticated computer analysis of australopithecine fossils ever undertaken, and concluded that the australopithecines have nothing to do with the ancestry of man whatsoever, and are simply an extinct form of ape (Fossils, Teeth and Sex: New Perspectives on Human Evolution, University of Washington Press, 1987).
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930
Nice fairytale.
Dr. Charles Oxnard completed the most sophisticated computer analysis of australopithecine fossils ever undertaken, and concluded that the australopithecines have nothing to do with the ancestry of man whatsoever, and are simply an extinct form of ape (Fossils, Teeth and Sex: New Perspectives on Human Evolution, University of Washington Press, 1987).
@@celestialsatheist1535 That's racist
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 That's racist.
No Creationist has ever shown any inaccuracies in the Theory of Evolution. It was scientists that ferreted out errors and refined the theory.
yes they have, just look at a bunny skeleton, it's so easy to confuse it with an opossum skeleton
The entire theory is inaccurate. It’s not observable or replicable in a lab that’s science. You can’t show one species of animals producing a new speices of animals. It’s religion.
@@macias7125that’s because they probably have a common ancestor down the line somewhere
@@spinylogo3750 they don’t
@@macias7125they do, and it’s the mammal
The moment a video arguing against evolution chooses to mention the Piltdown man we know it’s not trying to contribute with useful data and knowledge
Bringing up a fraud that happened over a century ago seems like a desperate attempt to disprove something...
False 😅
@@skeletorlikespotatoes7846 I have yet to see a serious discussion about evolution, when involving the Piltdown man, maybe you know something that I don’t know, or maybe you are trolling.
People(mostly americans💀) still don't understand that darwin said that apes and humans have a common ancestor, not that humans descended from apes
(Christian here) Evolution isn't a lie 💀
@@typhoonmichael7742What do you mean?
Do you believe in the old earth theory?
"humans have a common ancestor" still implies Evolution. (U.S. Citizen)
@@typhoonmichael7742 Yet you are living a lie. How can you prover yourself a Christian?
Yay one of us correct evolutionists! I have a religious friend who does believes evolution.
Only having 13% of "Lucy's" actual skull means they had to 'imagine' the remaining 87%!!!! Just how is that much 'Imagination' scientific, logical or even reasonably believable!!!???
Blind leading the blind!
@@electricspark5271 what are you talking about? Lets's think about who's making up a story for money
Is it the man who lives in a giant gilded palace in the Vatican surrounded by sycophantic devotees and armies of servants and pedophilic priests, a man who tells you to literally give him money to get into heaven and demands obedience and devotion for your entire life?
Or is it scientists who don't stand to make much money unless they sell out to a corporation or win a Nobel prize? Scientists who stand to gain nothing from lying about the reality of evolution.
The error in reconstructing a few particular specimen from parts of their fossils is mathematically inadequate to disprove the theory of evolution as it does not explain the DNA evidence or the existence of other fossils. I am not saying that evolution is true, but that this video does not do anything to disprove it logically
They had a sufficient amount of data to work on, and were able to prove that Lucy was a hominind.
@@electricspark5271 Do you really think they fabricated the evidence for money? Do you think that's what science is about?
what evidence of christ do you have?
A person does Not need to have a Phd (or even an undergraduate degree) to question the validity of the Abiogenesis Hypothesis, or any hypothesis. As long as people have an understanding of basic scientific principles, common sense, and open mindedness to seek the truth, they can come to a more accurate conclusion for themselves.
Basic Science 101:
Wikipedia 2021, *_“A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the Scientific Method requires that one can Test It … Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is Not the same as a scientific theory.”_* Hypothesis is also referred to as a Hypothetical or Educated Guess.
Wikipedia 2021, *_"In evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life (OoL),is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process Are Still Unknown, the prevailing scientific Hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event [i.e. spontaneous generation]... There are several principles and Hypothesis for how abiogenesis Could Have occurred."_*
One of the reasons that abiogensis is merely a "hypothesis" and has not advanced to the status of being a "scientific theory", is that abiogenesis hypotheses still lack the experimental data required by the scientific method. Abiogenesis Hypothesis has passed the scientific method process zero (0) times.
Clueless, as usual.
Abiogenesis isn't discussed here.
THAT is the Dunning Kruger effect perfectly stated. You were doing great, no you don't need a Phd to question anything; however, stating that an understanding of basic scientific principles can get you to "more accurate conclusion" is just absurd. That sounds like the guy who takes his car to the mechanic and says they know what's wrong, despite having no training or experience, only a basic understanding of how cars work! Sure, that basic understanding can be helpful, especially in preventing being ripped off; however, it does not mean you can more accurately diagnose a car problem than the ASC certified mechanic with years of experience.
@@lizadowning4389In evolution there's a thing called primordial soup
@@gilmarjunior7700 The 'primordial soup' is an idiom that refers to the conditions on early Earth out of which life arose. As such, it has nothing to do with evolution which is a biological concept that posits that populations of living organisms change (evolve).
Even in high school, the concept of the primordial soup is discussed in abiogenesis, not in biological evolution.
@@andycole5957 yeah but let's be real, scientists don't treat it like it's a theory, but like it's fact when they and everyone else know it's not
scientists exposed themselves during covid - and you won't live down that stigma for a long long time - hate all you want - and say that no one has a right to question you because they didn't go to the schools you did - scientists and hte gov't actively suppressed the truth and pushed lies - such as 'wearing a mask thta doesn't have any effect on micro ogranisms is effective against a micro organism' - science is guesswork and funding - saying it's the truth or the search for the truth is a blatant lie
When Einstein's theories are proven wrong he won't turn in his grave he will smile.
That's the cool thing about science. It's true whether or not you believe in it.
Lol
I think Einstein will do a Jesus move and return once someone finds a way to connect the theory of relativity with quantum mechanics
@@little_lord_tam Einstein plagorized the majority of his work.
For uh - religion- there is only really trust- with science there's physical proof- knowing it exists with proof would hold more then "just trust me on this" right?
Source?
@cosmicskeptic, your thoughts on this?
he would reply: Cool story, but when did you last see your dad per chance?
As a creationist I’m astounded at how much faith atheists have in evolution.
Its a basically a fact
Why stop here why not go after gravity theres are tons of holes in the theory of gravity
As someone who lives in the 21st century I'm saddened that people choose bronze age mythology over the most well substantiated scientific theory there is.
@@chrisrendon461 That's why it's still called a theory right turdburger?
@@Jewonastick "unproven for 175 years"
It is interesting that scientists so often find exactly what they are looking for!
Scientism in full effect, and the scam hasn’t changed. Modern day equivalent is the PCR test and viruses.
it is interesting that the religious often find exactly what they're looking for in a book!
an argument that can be used against both sides of an issue is not a good argument
@@LordMathious unfortunately there is no direct observational evidence for macroevolution. those who think they do are the true anti-sciencers
Almost like they know what they are doing and the theories make accurate predictions
@@katamas832 except that they are wrong more than 90% of the time
The scientific illiteracy is strong on this one
Like why can't they just adapt? There were less creationists in the 1960's than now. People are so gullible now.
Evolution: fossils, genetics, imprints, embryology, homologues features, DNA/RNA, biogeography, microevolution....
God; the bible
Search for biogenesis
nothing of the things u listed proves the evolution theory..
@@SoCoolScience How could living beings reproduce without complexity? See the living beings as machines by the complexity. Now u realize zero chances of abiogenesis??
Again wrong. Stupid dumbass with buzzwords who hasnt studied actual evolution 😅
Even with all this facts accurately explained, there are those who will cling on to denial because living in a lie is easier than living in the truth.
This video states the mistake in interpreting a few fossils how does it explain the misinterpretation of other fossils/ transitory species that still exist today/ the possibility of genome variation, etc?
If you can disprove them I will willingly listen.
@@notnotiron Please provide an example that you believe has NOT been discredited.
)
It’s Bigfoot’s evolution not ours lol
One need only look at current US politics to see that truth is of no interest to many.
I would love to see an evolutionary biologist react to this video.
Me too! It will demonstrate how retarded the video is
Mathematically speaking, this video does not prove or disprove anything.
@@notnotiron Mathematically speaking, no Evolutionist has proven evolution.
@@kamixakadio2441 Realistically speaking, evolution has been proven thousands of times over.
@@notnotiron "Mathematically" proven though, is that life could not have come about by chance, simply an impossible task. Also evolution, the hypothesis, has zero evidence whatsoever, just assertions, speculations, pipedreams and downright lies.
While this video correctly points out cases where scientific understanding has evolved or where errors have been made, it fails to acknowledge that these are not evidence against evolution, but rather examples of how science improves and refines its theories over time.
The script also appears to conflate science with belief systems, implying that acceptance of evolution equates to disbelief in a god or higher power. However, science doesn’t claim to disprove the existence of God. Many people find ways to reconcile their religious beliefs with the scientific understanding of the world, including the theory of evolution.
Lastly, the video could be more explicit in communicating that the study of human evolution involves ongoing research and discoveries, and it’s normal for understanding to change as new data becomes available. Missteps, while they do occur, do not invalidate the substantial body of evidence supporting human evolution.
Alex I appreciate your post is at least a rational one, however you use the word, "substantial" evidence for human evolution. But really the evidence they put forward is scant, really the bones wouldn't add up to a very small population of a town of people. Recently there was a study showing that pithecines are their own distinct group away from both modern apes and humans. when you consider that both apes, monkeys and humans as well as extinct apes like pithecines, all have a primate body plan with collar bone, arms, forward vision, then is it really unlikely since these are the organisms with a body plan most similar to ours, that we would find coarse similarity that might portray a circumstantial and misleading case for human evolution? But the scientists would never consider then null hypothesis, they simply never consider the possibility that evolution did not happen. So even if we do not even talk about creation or God, that doesn't change the fact that scientists never consider even the possibility they could be wrong, which seems much more dogmatic than scientific considering the fact there are no repeatable experimental data to test the claims of macro evolution. In fact it is all inferred from circumstantial evidence. The problem is that to believe every design on the planet designed itself by evolution is to believe in an extraordinary claim without extraordinary proof. Phantasticus axioma. For example, imagine if I claimed a ferrari designed itself, don't you think my evidence would have to be extraordinary? So then why isn't evolution held to the same standard given the design in life is so much greater of that of a ferrari? Think about it.
Any honest biologist will tell you there were other hominids besides homo sapien and modern man is a hybrid of these hominids it doesn't mean there isn't a God
Because there's no extraordinary evidence for creationism either. There's no scientific evidence for it whatsoever. In science, we accept the theory that has the most evidence. Not the one that's absolutely perfect.
Now we know that Newtonian physics were wrong. We know the break down at extreme scales and don't describe correctly our observations. But until we had better scientific theories, this was the best one. It worked for our everyday lives. Just because it wasn't completely right, doesn't mean it was useless and that we should've said "It's the God that creates gravity and makes the sun rise!". Because that's nonsense that has zero evidence. Some evidence is always better than zero evidence. Some logical explanation is always better than a completely illogical one.
@michael baba "ferrari has made itself" sounds ridiculous because you KNOW FOR A FACT that it was made in a factory. You can go to the factory and see with your own eyes engineers designing it, and workers and machines creating it. But you CAN'T see the God creating living beings. You have zero evidence for that.
So a better comparison would be a ferrari that a caveman sees for the first time. And this ferrari can somehow change its colors, the size and shape of its wheels, etc. in order to adapt to its environment. So a logical conclusion for the caveman would be that the ferrari assembled itself. It's not logical for the caveman to throw his hands in the air and say "I don't know exactly how this works! Therefore it must've been God who created it!". Or maybe not God, but fairies. Or demons. Or pagan spirits. Or ascended Buddha who can control the reality. Would you accept these other spiritual or religious explanations? Nope. Because now they have no evidence for you. But if it's an explanation without evidence that agrees with your religion, then it's suddenly the most logical one for you.
@@med2904 Med2904, that's incorrect. The ferrari is just an example of an extraordinary claim, the point I was making was that evolution and it's ancestor of all life, which has no cause and therefore is science-fiction, is a fantastic claim. It wasn't meant to be a comparison between life's design and a ferrari. The evidence God designed life is staggering because like the ferrari all of life's forms has specified complexity, information code, correct materials, contingency planning, integrated systems and astounding inventiveness. But don't believe me, instead believe a non-theist science-field called, "biomimetics". so Med, no offence but I was looking for rational discourse with that other poster, not the usual sophistry you get thrown at you by the standard average IQ atheist that uses the LAME and vague, "religous comparison" game. So you question-beg Buddha and pagan spirits because what you have done there is called the fallacy of false equivalence, where instead of showing these claims equal to God, you just lump God in with them because you haven't the intellectual ability to see that each claim is judged on it's own merit. Anyone can play that game. For example you believe in natural magic, where cells assemble themselves for no reason whatsoever that just happen to be more intelligent by design than anything we can come up with. LOL. So keep burying your head in the sand by pretending there is only evidence of evolution and none for God for that lame and false binary propaganda is all the feeble minds of atheism can come up with.In fact evidence for God is qualified by logical rules such as using the consequent in a modus ponen (aka Popper), so we can intellectually qualify evidence using logical rules, not using aggressive atheist opinions. LOL
takes a lot more faith to believe in evolution than creation.
I think we agree then that the less faith used the better
Ok, show me a photo of God.
@@asunder6797 You can experience God and see Him in every life He changes.
Oh no it doesn’t!!!
@@maranatha9924 Let's see a photo of him then.
G.K. Chesterton had fun mocking darwinians in a early chapter of his book, The Everlasting Man. He pointed out that skillful artists drew finely detailed portraits of the Piltdown man, with wistful, thoughtful expressions. Talented writers created whole biographies for him, describing his habits and preferences. The public never realized that they were viewing the portrait and reading the biography of a piece of a cranium, part of a jaw bone, and a tooth!
Piltdown man was exposed as a hoax BY scientists.
ah yes. because some people drew and wrote some stuff 2000 odd years ago, the universe was created by an all-powerful being and we have to worship him or something
@@vanguard1103_pS Much of that written stuff is happening now! Read it and find out.
@@vanguard1103_pS Which disproves OP how?
@Nexus corporation, you're swimming in denial bud.
The thing is, neanderthals are very close to homo sapiens in evolution. But we have a lot of older skeletons from other more distant species.
Did Neanderthals really exist. Did science make up stories with bones from different dead people like have done so many times. And you believe that propaganda. Ok if that works for you. Hahaha 🤣
@@roberttrough6439 Its not propaganda. Its science. Neanderthals did exist. You should not laugh at peoples beliefs. You should instead come up with reasonably structured arguments against them. You are probably evolving into a less intelligent grass eating creature as we speak. I would not even expect you to reply back due to the rate of evolution you are experiencing.
Is there a video like this talknf about the various dsting methods and or about the various ages contained in the earths crust
A video of religiously motivated lies about radiometric dating? Probably lots of them.
At least since the 1960s, Evolutionists have always maintained their stranglehold on education not through evidence or fact-based defense of their theory, but solely by arguing "separation of church and state" . . . even though there has long been a large amount of credible scientific evidence and research in support of creation theory.
All the key people behind naturalist philosophy and its propagation were occultists and Freemasons. Naturalism is the set up for deceiving the masses into practising the satanic ideology of do what thou wilt and love under will.
There is no evidence of the creation theory, if there is than please state it.
@@notnotiron that is the topic that this channel/organization specializes in. If you want some answers or more info, browse their videos or website articles
@NotNotIronBoy lol, ShOw Me DuH eViDenCe. While on a channel replete with it.
@@notnotiron Spoken like an atheist! Funny how atheists don't need any real science to 'prove' evolution! If you have any evidence to contradict this video please share it!
Every generation thinks that it is better than the previous generation. As is the case were the pharisees in the time of Christ thought they were much better than the people in the time of Moses.
There is nothing new under the sun.
no, the generation is not better, but thery are more cientific advances so it isn't the generation thats better, its the time.
Yep, it's called "presentism". The erroneous belief that your generation is far more civilized and circumscribed than your forebears. Looking at society nowadays, we can see quite clearly that isn't the case.
@@tup4443 Except that we do not have the technology to replicate the Shroud of Turin. Linen cloth with stable, superficial photo negative image. Or the Pyramid of Giza for that matter
I like to consider this. It's not man that evolves, but merely his methods of preserving information/knowledge/science. This has left the future generations with greater tools to improve upon, but with these better tools comes greater arrogance as greater accomplishments are achieved. Without history, we would forget the men who got us here in the first place. Evolution presents a strong disdain for ancient men, touting them as primitive bronze age peoples or barbarians only capable of violence. But comparing to the current generation, there can be found people of lower reasoning and more diabolical imaginations of tormenting their peers. We have hardly changed in anything but efficiency and appearance.
@@DARamosYT Michael Knowles from the Daily Wire put it succinctly in a debate with a leftist college student. "You're standing on the shoulders of giants and you think you're flying."
What Bible Version did you use?
Does it matter?
@@PortmanRd Yes because there is difference between the translations of the bible when it comes to doctrinal teaching if you will pay attention to the words that are used.
This is probably why there are around 45,000 different denominations of Christianity worldwide, with each claiming to preach the true gospels and some even denouncing other sects as heretical.
@@PortmanRd I probably think so.
Just came here for the comments.
Was not disappointed.
Hahahahahahaha
We came from algae then? In a prehistoric soup? That makes sense 😬
@@MatthewJ.Francis we don't clam something like creationists , we have theories.
@@elhombredevitruvian you have rescuing devices.
@@MatthewJ.Francis small changes over time. Over billions of years. We did not come from algae, we came from a single cell.
@@Tyrant_Boi billions of years is a lie, go ahead n fall in line and believe what you want.
This channel is on fire.
🔥 🔥 fire 🔥 🔥! Yes 👍 speaking about 🔥 fire amazing how 🔥 fire burns in a vacuum of space the third heaven 🔥 fire 🔥 the astronauts said space itself smells like a burnt odor. 🔥 heat it up Lord God in Heaven 🔥 their now science touches the very throne of GOD. Thanks for the reminder!
Pants on fire, maybe
Like a flaming dumpster.
@@TurinTuramber another hard time Charlie. I’m done with you!
@@roberttrough6439 ....ok
When you hear people talk about "The missing link" it gives the impression that there is just one piece of the puzzle missing, and when they find that "one piece" evolution will go from theory to fact.
Evolution though is not a theory but an hypothesis, since a theory requires some factual evidence.
In scripture's it clearly says God created us in his image!
And there a probably millions of missing links for all the kinds that supposedly evolved. Where are the fossil records showing fish to reptiles? Reptiles to birds? Mice to bats? NOWHERE. God created the platypus to confound the wise!!!
yeah that's why biologists don't talk about "the missing link", but pretty much only about intermediary species.
Evolution is a continuous change so there are an infinite number of “missing links”. We have thousands of fossils and they are all transitional species, but no matter how many we line up the creationists will ask where are the infinite number of others.
Scientists keep improving on science (knowledge). Shocking!
And it aligns more and more with the Bible. Awesome!
@@HS-zk5nn no
@@Fabifabiguden nose
@@HS-zk5nndogs are proof of evolution
@@Fabifabiguden not really
I'm amazed how many people get this stuff confused, especially religious types.
'Evolution' is the thing that is occurring all the time and from generation to generation, it's passed through the mother.
'Creation' is what you were at the the beginning, before Evolution occurred or what you were before merging with the egg in your mother... a 'sperm' or 'perfectly balanced being' sort of...
It is not evidence of evolution that different ethnicities have different skin color, or eye color or eye shape or abundant skin hair?. Bible tells the story of Noah's son Ham which was cursed for having black skin and this story was used to justify slavery of black people. I had an acquaintance that stated that black people did not belong to the human race, and I said to him that it was my understanding that 2 different species could not have an offspring and that there were many children born from parents from different ethnicities, so that means that all ethnicities have a common ancestor which asserts that human evolution is a fact, regardless of any discussion about discovery of bones.
Wishing our fellow Christians in Canada the best, you seem to have a tough time coming. Stay with God, love you
That's so sweet that you're concerned about Canadian orgasms while screaming, "Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, goddddddddddddddd!"
@@highroller-jq3ix uhhh ohhh found one Lolol
@@SpaceEagle93 What did you find, freak show, an unmonitored child?
@@highroller-jq3ix a person seeking God, lol you’ll find him if you want to don’t have to get on the internet and be rude to people to feel alive my friend
@@SpaceEagle93 Great lol bomb, goofball. Yes, if I want to find a fantasy god, like so many gullible imbeciles, I will. Instead, I want to use the rational capacity of my mind and maintain an intelligent, valid world view. You don't need a god fantasy to live out your humanity, random creeper who shouldn't be desperately throwing around terms of endearment on the internet.
7:21 If I remember correctly, a child visiting the museum is the one who pointed out the skull was fraudulent.
You remember incorrectly.
It was a German paleontology student, who was later killed at Verdun.
That student pointed out the Piltdown man was impossible, because it contradicted the predictions of the theory of evolution.
But because he was German, the clergy of England rallied around Piltdown Man, as the true ancestor of all good and loyal Englishmen.
As a result, religion and politics, forced science to conform to patriotic pressure.
To question Piltdown, was unpatriotic. And unchristian.
So it was until after WW2, when new technology let scientists finally test the age of the skull. The tests confirmed what scientists had been whispering for years.
@@danbeaulieu2130explain the 20 other “early human ancestors” that have been debunked. Evolution is religion just like communism was a religion to atheist Stalin and Mao and Marx was their God. Or how Social Darwanism was a religion to atheist Hitler. Without God people develop their own religion.
@@Stevewilldoit96
What is "atheist Hitler"?
A fantasy?
And what "20 other"?
@@danbeaulieu2130essentially hitler said he was christian but didn't often speak about it and devoted his life to eugenics and creating the "Aryan race". These are not the actions of a person who believes in God but rather believes himself to be a god or believes he has the power of a god. And stalin was basically the same way how they both sort of worshipped their work and objectives despite it being in a different way from what we think of as religion.
@@ethancorsmeier1110
Adolf Hitler remained a christian, that is a person who believes the core doctrines of christianity, all his life. Playing with the definition to posthumously exclude him, is dishonest at best.
The man was baptized into the faith, and never renounced his faith.
Hitler was a christian. None of his ideas were unique to him. All were traceable to earlier christian figures, including Luther. Especialy Luther.
I am not missing the irony of this video. So great! 😊
Where's the irony, maybe I can help
@@carllossa8114everything
@@carllossa8114thumbnail and title for a start...
Bringing up Piltdown man is scraping the bottom of the barrel. No scientifically literate person is going to be gullible enough to swallow this recycled insult to science.
It's like denying gravity, electromagnetism
Terrible comparison, since proof of evolution in humans is not all around us.
@@AnonymousCommentor_ Not only is it in our genome but we also have an outstanding amount of transitional fossils.
@@MrSucho-vl7ih Read my comment again, and then read yours. I don't think you realize how much of a fool you're sounding.
I was challenged by a creationist to attend a lecture on why evolution and spontaneous abiogenesis is bogus. I scoffed, but accepted.
I was completely shocked. My faith in Darwinian theory was obliterated. I was angry and confused and bitter. I couldn’t believe how I was lied to for so many years.
edit: Wow, this comment blew up. I want to clarify a few things: First, I should have added that mostly what I felt was complete shell-shock. My whole belief-structure about life was totally shattered. I walked back to my car after the lecture in a daze.
Second, I want to add that I did not immediately become a creationist or Christian. In fact I was so distraught about the whole thing that I refused to even think about the topic for years.
Me too
Well you are clearly humble. And humility is required to learn grow and adapt. Thanks for sharing.
Thank you for being honest and humble Geoff. Evolution is not the only thing we've intentionally been lied to about. If you assume everything the mainstream media tells you is true is false, then you won't be far from the truth.
I'm intrigued, could you please elaborate? For example who gave the lecture and what specifically disproved evolution?
I use to believe in evolution too, until I looked deeper into it and saw that it's all based on imaginary claims, with no evidence to support it.
I'm pretty upset myself that I fell for such foolishness.
I would love to see more debates from answers in Genesis.
I aprove. The woman from the Gutsick Gibbon channel would be my first choice.
@@Alien1375 she's awesome, isn't she?
@@Alien1375 except she won’t debate anymore. After her three consecutive losses against our team she runs from debates. Most people never even knows she debated us because she never put them on her channel. Just imagine how badly she would lose to a scientist from AIG. Nothing is stopping her from debating any of them either, but her and her team are far to afraid. We remind them all the time, why not submit to a written debate then if you are so scared to open mic debate ? They are even more afraid of that because then it’s written down for everyone to see forever and posted on AIG s website. At least YT debates they can hide from much easier.
Anytime you think she has a good point against AIG tell her to submit to a written debate or else it’s nothing but a bunch of hot air to an atheist audience who doesn’t understand anything she is saying anyway
@@YoungEarthCreation 🤡
@Soldier Are you his dad?
I am pretty sure that we are half Ape and half Alien, that makes more sense then the Creation thesis.
I've never found an evolution-denier who could both
A. accurately summarize evolution, and
B. address and debunk the vast mountain of evidence proving evolution is true.
With "A", it should only take a simple google search to be able to correctly quote what evolution means. Yet probably 40-60% of the deniers I speak with don't know that. Well if someone can't tell me _The Basic Summary_ of the idea they're arguing against, then they aren't really arguing against that idea, are they?
With "B", a small part of the evidence are hundreds of scientific papers linked in the references section of "evolution" on Wikipedia. To debunk those, they'd need to (1) take claims/observations made by those papers, and (2) using their own evidence prove that those claims/observations are somehow wrong.
Occasionally I can get deniers past Step A.
But I've never once seen a denier address the evidence proving evolution. And without making it past Step B that means we all should believe in evolution, because it's one of the strongest-evidenced facts of reality.
Only a lunatic would deduce that all is but atoms, and vacuum, and necessity, and chance.
@@billwalton4571 Yet that is, in a nutshell, all we observe. Except for the "chance" part. You guys are adament about that eh? Incapable of understanding that evolution is anything but chance.
On the other hand, I do wonder, do you have verifiable observations of such deity, any evidence supporting that "goddidit"?
@@lizadowning4389 we can indubitably verify that God exists because
1. we have life, which means there is a guiding force that binds cells together and instructs them with a purpose.
2. his wisdom surpasses human knowledge which is evidenced by the fruits of obeying his laws and precepts which is unto our wealth and profit, these benefits are measurable e.g. divorce rates are zero under full observance of the law, theft is down to nothing, and no homo.
3. and that since we are unable to obey always those laws to obtain the full glory of them, to be set free from the slave market of sin, and overcome even death, we require a ransom which is not available on the charts, not available by works, not anecdotal, but of faith only in Christ. So that in feeling this to be love is God himself working into our heart with evidence.
Now wave your hands from side to side, say
"who is wonderful? Its Jesus"
"who is wonderful? Its Jesus"
"Shout halleluyah halleluyah"
"Shout halleluyah halleluyah"
@@billwalton4571 Those are not evidence, those are claims. So you have nothing to show your god.
@@alexanderangelov230 you have less than nothing, you dont even have faith, all youve got is rocks and a microscope.
When you do not have the evidence, you have to make it up.
That’s a definition of religion.
You’re taking about creationism right?
@@gweilospur5877 ie the one about magic mud puddles giving life
@@gweilospur5877 Just like the religion of evolution.
@@TickedOffPriest And the religion of gravity.
There's a sucker born every minute -PT Barnum
lol😂😂😂😂
Ouch, the amount of incredibly ignorant stuff found in this comment section says a lot about the US education system.
Excellent video. Back in High School we were to have a debate in science class. One side for Evolution the other for Creationism. We were told we had to debate Creation as a theory because if we didn't there would be backlash. A lot of us were not pleased at the time about this because you got the feel that the Evolution side was portrayed as rather matter of fact. It was finally agreed that if we were going to have a fair debate the opposing view has to also argue as a theory as well. We did have a teacher that was fair in that regard. I'm pleased to say after a lot of healthy debate many people had a change of heart about all this Evolution nonsense. 🥰
Yeah, because high school students know everything, right? Debates about science should be among scientists, not people purposely closing their eyes against science.
What evidence did u have for creation
@@wingedhussar1453 open your eyes. What do you see? I don’t know what is in front of you but I think it did not create itself.
@@jockyoung4491 forreal? The debate is over, ever heard of Descartes? Not that he’s a lynchpin but a good place to start.
@@jockyoung4491 They will conclude whatever has the funding.
So your argument is....that science is iterative, that it makes mistakes sometimes because it works based on predictions from a developing body of evidence, and corrects itself when new evidence emerges to falsify its hypotheses?
That's literally the whole point of science.
Nope, that is not my argument...
The archaic term of science is "knowledge of any kind". This is not limited to having false information. Truth, however, is something that isn't supposed to change. Our understanding of it - our science - will change over time.
This principle of acquiring more understanding applies both to evolution and creationism. There is a truth both worldviews are striving to understand, and the understanding of individuals will update over time, whether toward truth, or away from it.
The issue is that there can be only one truth, and our finite capacity to know things leaves us with a leap of faith to cover that incapacity.
so how can you tell if it is right currently?
Science, for all the good and the bad it has unleashed, has never come close to proving the theory of evolution.
I knew and never bought into the lie,l still don't,And those that have,you can't tell them any different.
I know, right? There is no reason to believe anything the liars in the video say. They are dishonest and misrepresent everything they are attacking.
Which lie? That the world was made in 7 days?
The recent past certainly has shown more than enough what to think about 'follow the science'.
My trust remains in the Almighty.
Almighty?
Christian doctrinr is the product of men more corruptible than scientists.
“Follow the church”
Lool wht u god did for u?
Would have been a great opportunity to appear and provide a cure for Covid.😂
Men can become women if they cut off their genitals, Trust the science!
-Rational Reddit atheist/skeptic
People who want to limit what God can do and what He can't do amaze me. Because these people can't themselves imagine things greater than themselves, they want to put God in a box and confine Him to being capable of only certain powers and concepts. I am indeed amazed.
God made the earth in a long and vast process of creation in which evolution took hold of, he witnessed it in a glimpse of a second
So why did god limit himself? Why did he make the universe in 7 whole days? Why did he make Noah build a boat to store the animals instead of just magicking them into stasis while the flood happened? Why have a flood at all instead of just magically eliminating the “bad” people? Those are limitations that religious people themselves have set their god tox
This doesn’t disprove a thing, if a con man crafted a fake emerald and then passed it off as one, then later it was discovered not to be an emerald, that wouldn’t really be an argument of how emeralds are not real.
Yes. It is a flawed argument. Like if I faked discovering the ark, that doesn't make the story of the ark a false story.
@@wendigo53 Exactly! Instead, we have evidence of plant life, wildlife, and civilizations unbothered through the time period of the flood to help point us in the right direction with that one 👍🏻
Yet if he had the only emerald out there, and it was actually found to be another common green stone, then it would be exactly the same
@@johnwhoissavedbygrace9975 right, but there is mounds of other evidence for evolution
@Bob Berger one of the broader goals of the video is to call evolution itself into question and I disagree with your premise
I’m not an atheist unless you consider me not (to the Bible’s extent) believing in Christianity or Catholicism to be one, but I do believe there are a lot of other things that interfere with evolutions theory. One thing I definitely believe is that humanity has existed way before we thought and have just been wiped out multiple times and have just had to slowly come back to a humanistic way of life.
How could humanity be wiped out but then reappear? This is retarded, son. Evolution by natural selection is indeed a fact of life
Your intuition and free thinking are impressive. Never stop doing this.
And your thinking aligns with the Biblical flood which wiped out creation
@@rogueproductions9011 that’s what I’m saying, like maybe God has brought the flood more then once along with more then one Revelation or whatever it’s called
Finally! Someone who understands the earth is flat!
There’s an absurd lack of scientific evidence to the whole inter-dimensional creation man claim you made at the end, got any missing links for that one?
I've always thought archaeologists and anthropologists used an excess of imagination to come up with the stories they tell, from so few artifacts.
@@LordMathious This is one of the reasons this group makes me happy. I truly enjoy sharing my thoughts and opinions with like-minded Christians.
80% of all dinosaurs are plaster of paris made in daddy's garage by wannabe paleontologists who want to get their name in the science journal and fund for their museum.
Just one big tooth and they created the meglodon fron head to tail.
Just one jaw and they built the apeman. I can do better. Ever heard of tricked-u-saurus.
Yet you seem to love archeologists when they dig up some fragments of your precious bilblical manuscripts. Double standards?
" Yet you seem to love archeologists when they dig up some fragments of your precious bilblical manuscripts. Double standards? "
Smiles, that was funny
@@margeebechyne8642 So you have an actual inquiry about what methods anthropologist use to come to their conclusions, but instead of actually looking into it, you interact with other creationist who have motivation to bastardize what they actually do, because it reaffirms your belief.
You say that neanderthals were never subhuman. That is indeed correct, but they were not humans like us. They coexisted and even mingled with us.
How do we know this is true?
• It's part of a historical progression of discoveries in which successive testable young-earth creation predictions keep working
@@luckyson7594 Cause we have traces of their DNA within our own, actually.
@@Moniticethat is simply not true. We always hear this DNA explanation from
people who don’t really understand DNA to the degree they need to. The complexity of DNA variants and where they are found have dismantled that thought of some kind of evolutionary process or relation.
@@AlphaAchilles literally 99% of scientist that study the DNA agree that we have traces in our DNA from the Neanderthals.
@luckyson7594 you make no sense
So you say there is a lack of scientific evidence to support evolution, so where is your evidence to prove there is a God? Please, don't say the Bible.
LOL evidence is literally everywhere. You’re blind and will remain so.
@@kmontgomery3690and evidence for evolution is everywhere too, don't just believe in some random writings from the medieval ages in blind faith.
@@nikeman2001 haha thanks but I’ve been there done that for decades. It wasn’t the truth. People like yourself (and myself for way too long) are indoctrinated into a way of thinking, we think we aren’t but we are, the bible and the teachings is simple and makes sense and as science is proving it’s actually ahead of its time, you will disagree of course but it’s because you don’t understand it - I was the same and didn’t either at the time. You’ll either discover the truth or you won’t. The world opens up and makes more sense once you understand the way things actually are and why.
@@kmontgomery3690 yeah thanks, ill try my best not to fall to this type of stuff and worship a wrong god.
@@nikeman2001 yeah I did that, didn’t work out so well, thank God haha. There’s only one mate you’d understand that if you were interested in seeking the truth of our world. It’s amusing having this stuff said to me, I know you think you’re clever for it and that you’re above me because I’m clearly so stupid for believing in sky daddy and all that stuff, but just so you know it’s the exact same stuff I used to say to Christians on social media and to their face. Been there done that.
Creation: It is written.
Evolution: It is re-written. It is re-written. It is re-written.
Yes because the whole idea of the scientific process is getting closer to the truth with each iteration
And that rewriting is how we ended up with planes, the internet, smartphones, and big dumb blockbuster movies lol. Didn't you learn in school that rewriting and revising always make your work stronger?
@@sanserof7 So how can it be trusted as true today if it can be false tomorrow?
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 Creation never had to change because it remains constant and all the evidences keep pointing to it.
@@qwaurk985 It's not true, it's as close as possible to true
We need a similar takedown of the 'ancient aliens' nonsense.
I think that theory is more for entertainment than taken seriously.
It's actually more believable than anything in the bible; or anything religious for that matter.
@@sinclairj7492 Wish the same could be said for religion.
@@grandfathernurgle2840 why?
@@grandfathernurgle2840 It’s more believable if your 5 yrs old. Space aliens flying through space in their spaceships huh
Wow, someone didn’t take 9th grade biology honors at a Catholic school in 8th grade
not even 1st grade
We are part of the Great Ape family, with a common ancestor. Science develops as new fossils are found, and now we know there were a number of different human-like apes, all branches from the same tree. Trying to debunk these facts by saying science proceeds by theory which is then proven or disproven - and therefore makes errors - is simply misunderstanding the nature of science and substituting superstition for it.
That's not his point. He argues that the theory has evolved from evolutionary biases and hoaxes. He provides the evidence for these falsifications that led many to believe the scientific theory. One thing is sure, neanderthals were human.
The father of lies prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. My fellow Christians, stand up against these lies and fight for your rights in our public schools. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.
Yes, kids need to be taught to believe in the magical invisible friend in the sky and that they will burn in a lake of fire forever if they don’t.
@@gweilospur5877 He's not just a friend, He's THE Father, THE creator of the universe, and He sets the terms, not us. If you're wondering why there is a hell and heaven is because there is ultimately good and evil, if there isn't, life has no purpose and there are no morals or values at all, besides what the elites who run this world want to push on us. I could go rogue and kill people if I wanted to and wouldn't have to worry if I died in the process, because there is no punishment right? Nihilism is destructive, God hates that destructiveness and shows us His righteous punishment of all sinners.
The reality is there is a punishment if we don't repent and recognize Yeshua Hamachish as the savior of the world, and He wants to be our savior. Death is nothing more than an appointment with The Creator. *[Hebrews 9:27]*
If you choose to reject Him, that's your choice because we all have free will, but that still means you have to know the consequences of rejecting God, He will give you what you want. It's not coercion to believe in Him, it's just the standard He made, if you don't want Him, He will give you what you want and cast you into outer darkness like the Atheists want, but you will still experience eternity without God. *[Romans 1:18-32]*
It's nothing harsh, we do get to choose at the end which is the love of God, the love of God also showed Himself crucified on a cross so we don't have to be cast into outer darkness, where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth, where the worms never die and the fire isn't quenched, but that is only through repentance and becoming born again. God doesn't hate you, He wants to have a relationship with you.
@@gweilospur5877 That's the beauty of your free will. You can chose to deny God if you want to! I don't know you but I love you with all my heart. Hope you respond to the Lord's calling for your life today and experience his love for you. I was lost without a clue and tried everything to sustain my happiness but I was left empty every time. Jesus changed my life. I can say without a doubt that He is more real than you and me. "If there is anything that is gracious, generous, kind, and tender, yea lavish and superabundant in love, you always find it in Him." -Charles Spurgeon
Better yet, keep your children out of the public schools entirely.
@@t-radical99 I guess that why the Bible supports slavery, advocates stoning people to death for eating shrimp or for wearing linen, and celebrates god for orchestrating genocide.
My Husband visited the Neanderthal Museum in the Neander Valley, Germany which was named after Joachim Neander. He wrote the great hymn, “Praise to the Lord, the Almighty, the King of CREATION”. That was the hymn that was being played when my husband toured the museum. Obviously, the museum curators weren’t familiar with Joachim Neander!
it was named after the Neander river, you plonker.
@@henno3889 But the river was named after Joachim Neander, you plonker.
@@henno3889 the Valley was named after Joachim Neander, the writer of the famous hymn "Lobet den Herren, den mächtigen König der Ehren", as already mentioned above. There is no river called Neander. The river running through the Neander Valley is called Düssel, which gave Düsseldorf ("Düssel Village") its name.
I’m telling you this video was only made for Christian’s to complain
Perhaps the most persuasive fossil evidence for evolution is the consistency of the sequence of fossils from early to recent. Nowhere on Earth do we find, for example, mammals in Devonian (the age of fishes) strata, or human fossils coexisting with dinosaur remains
We're somewhere in the middle to the end of Matthew 24 where Jesus said watch and deception would be rampant so as a follower of Christ we need to be warning people The Wiles of the wicked one which are getting stronger by the day
Do you really think all scientists are "wicked"? Really?
Brothers and sisters what I am saying is we are in the end times oh, they are not coming they are here so in the name of Jesus Christ please wake up and that's soldier that God calls us to be. The Bible is clear this is a military organization not a social club or a debating Club. It's best to read and find that out now then at the last minute when you could lose your very salvation. May God bless you all and your families with the truth the life and the way and may you be ready to lose your life and sacrifice everything for him as the first church did Jesus our lord will return for nothing less than the church he left. That would be a a church meeting in the homes and small groups on the ground persecuted and on the Run not these big pseudo Christian organizations we see in buildings today as those buildings are owned by the bank and will be taken away or targeted as enemies of the state. Get your small groups and me and homes now now not later as you will regret waiting until the last minute because you could lose yourself ation and Jesus said he could blot you out of the book. He also said few find the Narrow Path leading to eternal life and few can endure until the end. That puts the fear of the Lord into me in a healthy way and causes me to be more serious about Christ everyday. I may lose my bank accounts everything I own but I will serve him with my head on on my head off. Problem is we think we're different from the first believers. That's brothers and sisters is a very grave mistake. Again God bless you with the truth the life and the way Jesus Christ Alone Hallelujah God bless you all
@@jockyoung4491 I don't think he is talking scientists alone, but the world in general.
It's all accelerating too. Jesus likened it to birth pains.
@@perfectblindguy By denying John you deny the Holy Spirit, as he spoke of Him and His words. You have just condemned yourself. There will be no forgiveness.
Good proof of evolution is looking at the evolution in the microbial life, since they generate a new generation in 20 mins, unlike humans who generate a new generation in 20-30 years, so in the time it took for a 1 new generation of humans, some microbe could have gone through 500.000, making it much easier for us humans to observe changes. For example bacterias over relatively short time gain immunity on certain antibiotics and that is a good example for natural selection where those bacteria which mutated the immunity will reproduce more and more and push out those that didn't grow the immunity. Its simmilar with viruses (covid and all its strains over time which it evolved).
No matter how long these micro organisms are studied they are still bacteria and viruses not some higher form of life. What you described is variability within a species not evolution!!!
"But microbes don't exist! It's not in the bahhble!"
Tbh that's a very good point, never looked at it that way. Thank you for shoving me the truth.
I found a dead squirrel in the forest. 1000 kilometres away I found a book lying on the ground. I can't be sure if the squirrel wrote the book or if it was just reading it, but this is nonetheless evidence that squirrels are literate, and are far more human than previously thought.
It's a great story but I'm not even sure what side of the debate you are on with that?
@@pup1008i’m pretty certain it is sarcasm and meant to show how absurd the evolutionist arguments are
@@gracebenedict
You may be right.
Bit of a waste of time though when no one has a clue what you are going on about...
@@pup1008 i knew exactly the comparison they were making the first time i read it. i don’t think it’s a waste of time it shows just how absurd their arguments are
@@gracebenedict of course, obviously the 2 are connected despite the 600miles
All the links are just photo attrubutions, there are no links to evidence, where are your links bruh
"I didn't come from no ape! That's degrading! I came from dirt."
From the ape means you also came from pond scum.
My greatest advance regret is that they won't let me be buried untreated under a tree, to return to the dirt from whence I came and provide food for a new tree.
I think you meant to say: I came from the hand of God.
🙂
@@gorgo4910 Sorry...I'm not in a cult like you are. LOL.
@@gorgo4910 ... maybe via apes?
There are actually billions of “missing links” across the biosphere. Not a single organism observed today has any kind of evolutionary chain in evidence. There are however almost innumerable examples of adaptation within ‘kinds’ observed which are touted as “evolution”. Even Darwin’s finches we’re all finches, they just had adapted beaks built from pre existent genomic information. Variation of phenotype is not evidence of generation of novel genotype. Just observe the life cycle of the butterfly for a profound example of such.
This. I find it baffling the Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian theories still has its power. I guess the corruption within academia is so immense to the point of criminal.
"I don't want to read about it, so it doesn't exist"
@@duckman554 They’re actually significantly lacking in actual evidence. The whale story is lacking in the transitional forms and the horse story is comprised of contemporaneous phenotypic examples presented as gradual change.
@@mrchoon2010 I assume this is saying I’ve just refused to read the stories? If so, quite the contrary. The difference is I’ve compared the claims to the actual evidence. There’s an enormous gap between the two.
Do this as an experiment- Whenever you see some kind of evolutionary representative depiction (like the ascent of man), remove all the elements not based on actual evidence. I think you’ll find the pretty graph gets very empty very quickly, and the few items left are examples of completely different animals or variations of the exact same animal. If you do this with the ascent of man drawing for example, you’re left with a primate on one end and a human on the other. Everything in between is made up.
@@natec4133 Exactly. You said "Not a single organism" then the only organism you can think of is "man"
Showing that you know nothing outside that tiny spectrum.
Isolated island habitats, like the Hawaiian Islands, allow species to evolve from mainland ancestors and become increasingly different over time. For example, Darwin's finches on the Galápagos Islands are unique to the islands but have distant relationships to mainland species
You know it's profound when the music hits 7:15
Today, we know that blood letting is in fact dangerous and isn't a good way to cure diseased. But back then, physicians didn't know, and so many died.
If only they had read the scriptures. Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you on the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul.
Amen! Amazing how NASA is searching the Scriptures and finding answers. Hahaha 🤣
@@roberttrough6439 good one😂
@@roberttrough6439 Now they’re going to have to rewrite the evolutionary processes of the entire universe. Thank you James-Webb!
Keep up the good work!
He comments on all Christian videos to endorse satanism 😂 most likely a bot, tranny, or demon person 🤣
@@jerrylong6238 go ahead and refute every single claim
@@jerrylong6238
Where's the evolution? Oops.
"None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another…Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic [e.g., bacterial] to eukaryotic [e.g., plant and animal] cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.
- Alan Linton, phd bacteriologist
@jerrylong6238 whatever John Balnis.
@@jerrylong6238 Please point out the specific lie(s) so we can discuss, thanks.
How do creationists actually envision the origin of species? Genesis descibes the creation of the first two humans Adam and Eve. Before this _supposed_ unique event there were, _allegedly,_ no humans at all. Do creationists imagine a similar unique event for each of the seventy million known species: the creation of the first two earthworms, the first two mosquitoes, the first two octopuses, the first two elephants, and so on and on and on for each of the millions of “kinds”??
The mind boggles!
It is not evidence of evolution that different ethnicities have different skin color, or eye color or eye shape or abundant skin hair?. Bible tells the story of Noah's son Ham which was cursed for having black skin and this story was used to justify slavery of black people. I had an acquaintance that stated that black people did not belong to the human race, and I said to him that it was my understanding that 2 different species could not have an offspring and that there were many children born from parents from different ethnicities, so that means that all ethnicities have a common ancestor which asserts that human evolution is a fact, regardless of any discussion about discovery of bones.
Or how they possibly populated the earth with just two people lol
"In early times, it was easier to control a million people than to kill a million. Today, it is infinitely easier to to kill a million people than to control a million." - Zbigniew Brzezinski
you must not have seen when the tv said go in the house till we say so and everybody did it.
Regarding Lucy walking upright, I don't think that is correct. A "scientist" at Indiana University had to take an electric sander to her pelvic bone sockets in order to make the femurs appear to fit correctly for an upright, humanlike stance.
It is clear from the anatomy that Lucy "walked upright". That does NOT mean she had a "humanlike stance." No scientist has ever claimed she did.
@@jockyoung4491 No, it isn't clear from the anatomy that she walked upright. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The IU "scientist"having to "help the science" aside, she had long curved fingers, long arms, a funnel-shaped chest and her hand bones show that she knuckle-walked like modern apes. You are extraordinarily poorly-informed on the position to which you are clinging. Take care.
@@johndoe-ln4oi
You are free to believe anything you want to, but don't lie about science. Why did you believe the "IU scientist lie anyway? because you head it from creationists and it fit what you already wanted to believe. ALL experts on hominid agree that Lucy could walk upright, although she could also still climb in trees. But even if she couldn't, that wouldn't refute anythind about evolution. What about the other 20 species of transitional hominids, most of which could obviously walk upright? They show a progression of changes between Lucy and modern humans. Why would that be? All you have is "I bet it's not." Sorry, you are not going to bring down 150 years of biology that way
I always thought looking for 'evidence of walking' was just stupid. Finding something thousands of years old with WRITING on it, showing an obvious LANGUAGE, is more reasonable. I don't hear anyone talking about how all the 'lucy's' walked all the way northeast to Mesopotamia. How could anyone claim how much walking a fossil would do, moment to moment? I've seen bears walk, poodles walk, and when they're not swimming, all penguins ever do is walk around. Why isn't their walking changing them into something different? 'ok, here we found LUCY and she could walk, so walking equals Darwin' I'm almost 50, anymore I just hate all things Darwin. They need to dig him up and get him away from Newton
@@johndoe-ln4oi Can you cite the DOI paper where this is stated? Or did you just make that up? That's how science work. You back up your claims with (documented) evidence - not popular apologist rumors.
Java-Man was described from a single tooth...
and nebraska man with an extinct pigs tooth.
How is this video not completely misleading? No evolutionary scientist in their right mind would use any of these examples as evidence for evolution(Outside of Lucy, which the video completely misrepresents). Even if you take out Lucy, there have been tons of other fossils found of proposed transitional forms. Where is the mention of those?
In order for humans to evolve from apes their would have to be millions of transitional skeletons between them museums should be stocked full of these examples not a few supposed examples here and there
I think the fossil examples given in this video aren’t meant to be comprehensive, but instead to demonstrate a pattern of misleading evidence historically used to support evolution. You could say “cherry-picking,” but whether all fossil evidence falls into this category or not is the crux of the debate, and the video doesn’t really get much into that.
It isn't arguing against evolution in general, just against the evidence of human evolution. It would be easier to name the evidence, then what you said
People will do mental gymnastics to make the world
Fit the narrative they want.
Genesis is not only silly, its basically impossible and doesnt make sense in the context of the Universe.
@@reedplaysgames I agree. But why does AiG care about a select few times where some random evolutionists made false claims? That would be like pointing to false claims made by only young earth creationists and then saying “aha the evidence for YEC is terrible!” How is it news to anyone that people do immoral things some time? What about the 30 other times where the proposed ape to man fossils aren’t fake? (That doesn’t mean we should conclude that evolution is true. The point is that no evolutionists today use what was mentioned in the video as evidence)
The title of the video implies that the things mentioned in the video are the only reasons to believe in evolution which as noted in my above comment, is the farthest from truth. There are tons of people that only listen to videos like this from AiG and then go to college and lose their faith because they realize that they were misled by videos like this. For many, that puts people on a track to doubting everything they were ever taught which eventually ends in people not being Christians anymore.
It's almost like evolutionists have never seen a monkey walk upright. They do that often lol
So do cats and dogs. But, none of them can do it efficiently. Walking upright efficiently requires a different bone structure. Talk to me when a monkey or a chimpanzee walk on their hind legs for a mile straight or even a straight kilometer. Humans and our nearest ancestors can do it for mile after mile.
Great video,im not a Christian or religious at all and have always questioned evolution it always made no sense to me.
Then learn more. It makes perfect sense.
Great for you!
@@clarkthompson8094 learn more???😄please. Science is about finding truth. Not learning dogma
@@Benjaminbumblebee the only dogma christianity presents is that sin separates us from god’s righteousness and through christ you are brought back to gods love.
Either god created the world in six days or the universe did with a big bang, both cases we are living with faith.
I don't think "evidence" is a subject religious people want to get into, considering their entire stack of cards is built on faith.
Have you actually researched the historical reliability of the Bible...?
@@hawk7466 I have. And I have to agree here; there is a LOT of unreliability in many Bible accounts being considered "historical". There is far to much actually for, in my opinion, anyone to consider the entire thing a reliable accounting.
@@mrastin821 like?
It's actually scientific discoveries that lead many to believe in God.
Look at Antony Flew.
@@mrastin821 If that’s your best argument then you should probably stay away from the discussion.
What are some Creationist discoveries which have turned out to be untrue?
Err.... Like *ALL* of them?
Creations don't make discoveries. What they do is misrepresent the science of something, and then they attack the misrepresentation. They are the kings of the strawman argument.
Theres's sooo much evidence avoided here, to me it is obvious who is just cherry picking the data that confirm their ideas...
When I was a child ion school, I was taught--through highschool and college--that neanderthal was able to harness 1 chemical reaction, that being fire. Now, because the archeology doesn't lie--mainly from caves found in South-Eastern Europe--neanderthal was now, apparently, able to ferment, including beer, meats and other alcoholic drinks.
Typical redneck
So what? It's just a proof that science isn't a religion or an ideology. The conclusions and theories can change over time as more evidence is found to prove otherwise. What do you expect? Scientists to say that any new evidence can't be real because their initial conclusions have to be absolutely correct? Or maybe archeologists correctly predicting everything about the lives of neanderthals before they can start collecting physical evidence?
If your argument is "all science is wrong because it's not always making correct predictions", then creationists can't make ANY predictions. Can you predict when God will create another new species of animal and show it pop up into existence? Do you have any explanation why God created so many hominid species that homo sapiens had to compete with, when according to the Bible God has created just one type of human and to rule over Earth?
Congratulations, you've learned that science changes as our understandings change!
@@askjake2426 Truth doesn't change.
@@Drakemiser there are no truths regarding gods existence, you have 0 proof which means you should not believe God, ever heard of old testament vs new testament? Oh wait, because he's god he's allowed to change his understandings and teaching but we can't? Yeah, you're just brainwashed. Science doesn't change truths it changes understandings, you not understanding the difference makes perfect sense to me considering.
Honestly it goes beyond ape like creatures. They say we descend from a fish like creature. So it's even more insane.
And worse that we descend from some unknown primordial goo. ; )
@@Flagrum3 which came from rocks!
i would like to know how you think evolution works, i realy want to.
@@tup4443 We'd like to know how you believe evolution works. We really want to.
@@tup4443 Simple, it doesn't. Time to move on from that lie.
We know, they altered monkey bones to make them look human 🤣, Lucy was a big hoax
There are tens of thousands of pieces of evidence for evolution, but it’s all false because one person played a hoax once.
Lucy is an ordinary Bonobo.
We have skeleton parts from some 25 separate individuals of the type Australopithecus ("Lucy"), she is not alone. It does not matter if someone took away the stone fragments that had fused together with that particularity hip bone or not.
They backed off real fast once they knew they would get caught and have their entire theory destroyed😂
" They backed off real fast once they knew they would get caught and have their entire theory destroyed😂 "
Yes, it is the same thing every time with YEC'ers, showing them that they parrot is not inline with reality makes them silent
I remember as a child wondering how they could possibly know altogether how something looked by having just a tooth or a few small bones. It didn't make sense.
Your lack of comprehension is not a refutation of the science.
"I don't understand something , therefore all the scientists are frauds"
- AIG and their goons
The funny part is that nobody actually knows what animals with minimal fossils look like and have to make educated guesses
@@LordMathious Nothing, I just thought it was funny because by the looks of it Kathleen (commenter) had that problem
@@pablito-e that's very wrong
I know!
It makes WAY more sense to believe a book riddled with superstition, messed up translations and political edits...
My favorite AiG series
1:15 the irony in this statement is palpable
Yeah you are right. These people are denying all evidence by saying how a particular fossil was differently interpreted by different scientists
Ikr
@steveg1961: Continued from my part 1: "For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any apes of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours?"
InMemphisJohn: I'm glad you brought up Australopithecus afarensis. Although discovered by Donald Johanson, who contends that this creature (known as “Lucy”) is the direct ancestor of man (see Johanson, 1981), numerous evolutionists strongly disagree. Lord Solly Zuckerman, the famous British anatomist, published his views in his book, Beyond the Ivory Tower. He studied the australopithecines for more than 15 years and concluded that if man descended from an apelike ancestor, he did so without leaving a single trace in the fossil record (1970, p. 64). Some might say, “But Zuckerman’s work was done before Lucy was discovered.” True, but that misses the point. Zuckerman’s research-which established conclusively that the australopithecines were nothing but knuckle-walking apes-was performed on fossils younger (i.e., closer to man) than Lucy! If more recent finds are nothing but apes, how could an older specimen be “more human”? Charles Oxnard, while at the University of Chicago, reported his multivariate computer analysis, which documented that the australopithecines were nothing but knuckle-walking apes (1975, pp. 389-395). Then, in the April 1979 issue of National Geographic, Mary Leakey reported finding footprints-dated even older than Lucy at 3.6-3.8 million years-that she admitted were “remarkably similar to those of modern man” (p. 446). If Lucy gave rise to humans, then how could humans have existed more than 500,000 years before her to make such footprints? [See Lubenow, 1992, pp. 45-58 for a detailed refutation of Lucy.]
steveg1961: "...I learned that one should think carefully about candor in argument (in publications, lectures, or correspondence) in case one was furnishing creationist campaigners with ammunition in the form of 'quotable quotes', often taken out of context." - Colin Patterson (Evolution, Cornell University Press, 1999, p. 122)
InMemphisJohn: So, Patterson didn't seem to think it was fair to use his words against him. If his words were true and NOT out of context, anything he said should be quotable. If you think I've taken anything he said out of context, I challenge you to prove it! So far, you have not done so.
steveg1961: You wrote, "So clear is the lack of evidence of evolutionary transition in the fossil record that evolutionary zoologist of Oxford University Mark Ridley went so far as to say, '[N]o real evolutionist, whether gradualistic or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.' Why? Because the fossil record does not support evolution; it supports Creation."
Did Ridley say what you here falsely pretend he is saying. Of course not. Those are your words - and they're your words based on not having a clue what else Ridley said, because all you're doing is regurgitating quote-mines you're picked up from other young earth creationists equally ignorant of the science... "So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the 'fossil evidence,' that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy." "These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability of species. Other defences of the theory of evolution could be made, not the least of which is the absence of a coherent alternative. Darwin's theory is also uniquely able to account for both the presence of design, and the absence of design (vestigial organs), in nature." - Mark Ridley ("Who doubts evolution?", New Scientist, Jun. 1981)
Now, you said that Ridley was saying that the fossil record supports creationism. But Ridley never said that. He said that creationists get punctuated equilibrium wrong. (Gould said the same thing. Patterson said the same thing. Creationists always get the science wrong.) End of Part 2
There is also a sheer lack of evidence for Genesis.
There’s people alive today whose skulls would look like these.
I guarantee the actor "The Great Khali" would look exactly like this.
@@electricspark5271 No it wouldn't. It has more to do with fat and muscles distribution rather than skull shape
@Electric Spark what a profoundly ignorant and stupid thing to say. So you're saying he looks like a caveman? How would you know what his skull looks like without an x-ray? I guarantee you wouldn't say that to his face too
@@notnotiron what a ridiculous cope
@@ShowMeYoBoob maybe
These Videos are really well put together
If you want to go against reality they are, but if you want the truth not so good then.
@@jerrylong6238 Such nonsense!
@@dooglitas really? Dismissing footprints attributed to Lucy because other sets were found 900 miles away? That is like dismissing American automotive use because cars are also found in Europe! These arguments are extremely weak and many are just plain false!
@@jerrylong6238 In the naturalist worldview, everything living dies and stays dead. Knowing "truth" offers no benefit in any way. "Truth" is not even a scientifically verifiable concept. If naturalism were accurate, everyone might as well believe anything they want because all we religious would end up in the same place as those who "knew the truth." It's almost like naturalism is the precursor to the satanic philosophy of "do what thou wilt" ... hmmm.
@@jasonpenn5476
Oops.
Millions of years never happened.
"It’s a pattern in the fossil record that footprints are found in strata millions of years before foot bones, and evolutionists never explain how the critter survived millions of years after leaving its footprints until it finally got buried."
"It was first presented in detail in a paper by Adventist Leonard Brand and a co-author J. Florence in 1982. The evolutionists have never answered this challenge in the 38 years since. The pattern is the same for reptiles, amphibians, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals."
if going from short arms to longer arms, through necessity and years of evolution, then what would happen once the need for longer arms is removed? do they de-evolve ? or do they stay the same?
They would stay long. No pressure, no need to change.
also "deevoling" is not a thing, if the need for longer arms were removed (which in its self makes no sense no offense) they would simply stay the same, unless environmental pressures were applied like for some reasons humans are suddenly forced to live in small caves or just do. similar to how cave animals have nimble small limbs and great senses other than eye sight.
Still no evidence for creation? What creation anyway? Genesis 1 and 2 describe two different types of creation.
People reject the idea that they evolved from apes, but believe that they are made out of dust.
I could listen to Calvin all day and not get bored
calming lies are the most successful
Correction; "never learn anything"
The early 2000 edge lords are responding 😅
Which Calvin? The French Theologian? Pastor and reformer of Geneva during the reformation? Or some nut job?
@Soldier i was refering to religion in general not just this liar ...
13:28 So you're saying their walking style was between ape and human? It's almost like that was what scientists were saying all along and supports the fact that they descended from earlier apes and were the ancestors (or were related to the ancestors) of modern humans.
@@perfectblindguy So, you’re blind and pathetically ignorant.
We did evolve from earlier apes. Now, we’re modern apes
As a atheist i'm astounded at how much faith creationists at a writing from politicians/monks that live milennia aftar the "events " that they are writing.😮
I am a mathematician and physicist, and I am afraid to tell everyone that evolution is a simple statistical side effect of our universe if you accept the following three axioms: (1) Information can propagate, (2) information can vary in its propagation and (3) information can be selected for (or filtered) by some criteria. I don't think any reasonable person can deny these 3 axioms because we observe them everyday. In classical evolution theory that you are taught in high school: (1) information propagates as DNA or 'the form of living things' reproducing itself, (2) information varies by mutation (traditionally thought to be random but new physical models reveal that particular mutations are more likely due to quantum physics) and (3) favourable mutations propagate more than unfavourable mutations (i.e. are selected for) by predation, sexual selection and other selection mechanisms. While I will comment and give creationists credit that I don't think classical evolution theory captures the full picture, this is simply because it does not take into account all the dimensions that carry information that behave according to the aforementioned axioms. In reality, living things seem to evolve on multiple DNA dimensions (cellular, mitochondrial, poly-morphical) , several cultural and social dimensions, physical dimensions and mental dimensions. Taking all this into account, evolution is indubitably as fundamental to the universe as entropy is.
An important discussion and thanks for posting
Thank you for uploading. Im struggling with my faith and i need answers
Don't look for them here, only lies can be found here.
@@Minifliek Yes. YOU are here. But why?
@@margeebechyne8642 I am here indeed, yet i'm not the one lying.
@@Minifliek You take the time to come to this Christian group . Why? Do you even listen to the video, or just look for people to spew on? Again, why?
@@Minifliek ⚰️
Right, so I've not watched the video yet so I'm thinking about this on a conceptual level.
Why is it important to debunk the 'opposition' or secular scientists when the authenticity of Christian dogma is centered on faith, not the scientific method?
I understand the need to poke alleged holes in atheism 'using their own rules', but it seems odd (rhetorically) to do this with a different standard (i.e. faith).
Is the objective here to convince questioning / young Christians that the secular way isn't all it seems?
Meanwhile COVID 19 evolves into many different strains.
Noted evolutionist Richard Dawkins (now 82 years old, and published "The God Delusion" in 2006) said over 30 years ago: "If you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane.”
Similarly, Professor René Dubos (1901-82 C.E.) once said: “Most enlightened persons now accept as a fact that everything in the cosmos-from heavenly bodies to human beings-has developed and continues to develop through evolutionary processes."
For example, by the late 1800’s, some 20 years after Charles Darwin published his Origin of the Species in 1859, the American public was already becoming convinced that science (and not the Bible) could improve every aspect of human life, and in which all the major universities had said yes to the theory of evolution.
In modern times, some have propounded the belief that it was about 350,000 years ago that humans started evolving, other say 2 million years ago when humans came on the scene, while in an article by the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History entitled "Introduction to Human Evolution", dated July 11, 2022, it said that "people originated from apelike ancestors and evolved over a period of approximately six million years", so there is NO consensus, and should cause a sincere person to realize the inconsistency and flaws of human views, even from scientific sources, such as "research papers".
To show how gullible even the most astute scientific minds are, consider the case of the Piltdown Man in 1912 supposedly an evolutionary link found at Piltdown Village in Sussex, England. Many are quick to accept what scientists, paleontologists or even politicians say about a certain fossil without carefully verifying their words, so in their desire to find evidence of “ape-men,” some scientists had been taken in by outright fraud, as the Piltdown man was found to be.
For about 40 years it was accepted as genuine by most of the evolutionary community. Finally, in 1953, the hoax was uncovered when modern techniques revealed that human and ape bones had been put together and artificially aged and perpetrated by A. C. Hinton, a former curator of zoology at London’s Natural History Museum, who died in 1961.
In another instance, an apelike “missing link” was drawn up and presented in the press. But it was later acknowledged that the “evidence” consisted of only one tooth that belonged to an extinct form of pig.(Missing Links, by John Reader, 1981, pgs 109, 110)
Or the "Man of Orce" that was "found" near Orce, Spain in southern Spain (Andalusia) and jumped to national headlines in 1983 and was based on an 8 cm (about 3 1/2 inches) wide skullcap fragment.(article "A fistful of fossils: The rise and fall of the Orce Man and the politics of paleoanthropological science", Journal of Human Evolution, April 2022) Prominent Spanish, French and British scientists had already vouched for its authenticity.
However, on May 12, 1984, two weeks before an international seminar on the subject was to occur, serious doubts arose as to the fragment's origin. After the meticulous removal of calcareous deposits from the interior part of the skull, paleontologists found a disconcerting or "unusual crest". Human skulls do not have such a crest. The seminar was quickly postponed.
Despite the fossil’s meager proportions, the “Man of Orce” was hailed as “the greatest paleontological find of recent years, as well as the missing link between the typical African man (Homo habilis) and the oldest man of the Eurasian continent (Homo erectus).”
Fertile imagination and not-so-scientific guesswork sufficed to fill in the details about the appearance and way of life of the “Man of Orce.” Finally, in 1987, a scientific paper written by Jordi Agusti and Salvador Moya' , two paleontologists involved in the original discovery, said that x-ray analysis had indeed confirmed that the fossil belonged to a kind of horse, not a man.(the latest information says that it "was most likely a skull fragment from a four-month-old donkey")
So, where does this put noted evolutionists with their "theory (or speculation, hypothesis, conjecture, personal view) of evolution" ? As something NOT to be trusted, but looked upon with doubt. Proverbs 14:15 in the Bible states: "The naive person believes every word ("its in a research or scientific paper, so it must be true"), but the shrewd one ponders each step."
If you don’t even understand what a scientific theory means, I’m not surprised that you don’t understand the theory itself 🤦🏻♂️
@@RealHooksy You need to get on your hands and knees and pray for the Holy Spirit to fill you up.
@@paulthompson9668 like an alter boy?
@@RealHooksy If you pray hard enough, then when you look back, you'll see Jesus penetrate you from behind and come inside you.
@@RealHooksy
I understand that a fact is a truth, well established as something a person can accept, while a "scientific theory" is just that, someone's hypothesis, speculation, conjecture on a matter, and NOT established as a FACT. It is like playing the stock market, whereby a person can never be sure of whether they will gain or "lose their shirt".
So many use the words "maybe", "possibility", "could", of a matter happening, but they cannot say CONCLUSIVELY that such an event or matter will happen or has happened. Being gullible is everywhere, but having EMPIRICAL (or proven) evidence (that can physically established) puts a matter as a fact. As astrophysicist Guillermo Gonzales, a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, once stated:
"My work, in part, deals with astrobiology from an astronomers viewpoint. I simply follow the empirical evidence wherever it will lead me, and I try not to let philosophical preconceptions color my interpretations". So, the WISE person does NOT accept anything based on speculation, conjecture, hypothesis, on a "hunch", on a theory.
It is as a Bible proverb states: "The naive person believes every word, but the shrewd one ponders each step."(Prov 14:15) A "shrewd" person can see when something is a fact and when it is NOT a fact, when it is someone's personal view or interpretation, in which you and I both know that personal views and interpretations are just that, personal and NOT necessarily factual.
Here is a list of some theories that were proven as wrong (in which the list could go on and on) (1) Pon's Nuclear fusion or "cold fusion", (2) that mass is destroyed in nuclear reactions, (3) Einstein's static or stationary universe, proven wrong by Edwin Hubble in 1929 C.E. (4) spontaneous generation, proven wrong by Louis Pasteur in 1859 C.E.(5) that the earth is the center of the universe, known as the geocentricism, proven wrong by Galileo in 1610 C.E.(6) luminiferous aether, that a "medium" of aether pervaded the universe and is the carrier of light waves, but was proven wrong in 1887 by the Mickelson-Morley experiment.
So, if you want to be gullible, go right ahead, but the wise person will NEVER accept a theory as fact, until proven by empirical evidence, beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is as New York banker David Hannum said in 1868, that "there's a sucker born every minute", speaking about "The Cardiff Giant", in which about 50 percent said it was a fake, while the other 50 percent thought it was a fossilized human giant, and in the end, it proved to be a hoax.
With the Bible (an accurate Bible), this never presents a theory, "only the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth".