Oops! The last sentence of the video got cut off. My closing sentence was supposed to finish with, "...because I know where it can lead people. As the Apostle Paul warned Timothy, it can sometimes lead to their worst possible regret: "O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge,” for by professing it some have swerved from the faith." 1 Timothy 6:20-21"
@@LarsLarson-u1x may God forgive you for your utter disrespect. May He humble you and make you His ambassador.. You attack the man without making an intelligent objection to anything he said.. You do not offer superior knowledge im.any form. Just baseless insults.
@@godd226 AiG and creationists in general's whole thing is to disrespect science, scientists, people who accept science, gay people and the list goes on. You do not get to complain about respect.
Yep 👍🏻. Well I give the man this at least he criticized his theory and saw it had no evidence. As in today when question evolutionary teachings and expose its weaknesses and its flaws you get scolded and mocked. But I don’t hate them nonetheless even though they may hate us.
@@RodericGurrola His book “Origins” is full of evidence. Have you ever bothered to read it? Or are you just relying on whatever your lying leaders tell you?
@@RodericGurrola Nobody "hates" you for not understanding science. We do get annoyed when you suggest scientists are stupid or dishonest for saying things you don't want to hear. Especially when you don't understand science.
I showed this to my evolutionist cousin. She started abusing and insulting me. She declared me an enemy to the society. I evolved from Cousin to Public Enemy in 30 Mins.
@@diddsdaddiddsdad6865 As a christian you do not believe that anything just popped out of the air. You are elementary wrong. But evoloutionists blieve that EVERYTHING, even space and time, just popped out of nothing. Hm, so the question is not who blieves, but who believes better or: what does make more sense.
@@JoergB As a realist I believe no one knows how life started. Christian’s certainly don’t know. They assert without a shred of evidence. I can accept evolution because we have evidence,and that’s what Darwin was explaining. Christian’s are very good at misquoting.
The problem for me isn't even the morphology but the biochemistry, the generation of new genes, proteins needed to create the new features of the animals. It doesn't make sense at all.
@@jockyoung4491 really? The questions I raised here have not been answered, it looks like you're among the ignorant group. The mutation and natural selection hypothesis is only a speculation, it fails terribly in explaining the origin of pure biological information, proteins and enzymes are very complex and also very specific, mutation/and natural selection alone doesn't have enough traction to build those structures. This problem Is widely known by Top biologists, not all, mainly those that are into the biochemistry and are aware of the mathematics. If you only listen to mainstream talks or read ordinary biology textbooks you won't learn anything new, you'll only be fed the speculations that has been imposed on the data.
@@MrLogo73 are you aware of how separate and scarce functional genes are? If you think that there would be functional advantage all the way from one gene to another then you really don't know the depth of what you're saying. You should obviously know that the ratio of functional genes to those that lack function are like 1/10⁷⁷ I'm not sure you understand what that number describes but you have to try to understand that proteins and enzymes are very complex and extremely precise in what they do, they do not tolerate much mutations, if you mutate about 5% of an protein coding gene there's a great chance that the gene would lose function and when that happens there would be no advantage for natural selection to work on. And by the way we just discovered that protein coding genes are not enough at all, the sections of the DNA previously called junk is now known to control how proteins are regulated, what they build and when to stop, etc. this alone is an issue because its no longer just about the proteins because having proteins around (even when against all odds natural selection happens to miraculously produce them) it won't be advantageous if there ist any complementary gene regulatory system to direct what they do, the gene regulatory system obviously wont evolve without having any advantage to the organism and when you do the math of the likelihood of getting any of these by pure chance you get even more dazzling Godlike numbers. Biologists in the depts of the field know this but are still committed to the standard thesis. You only get garbage talks like this comment of yours from UA-cam videos and textbooks which are only purely speculative.
Psalm 1 Blessed is the man Who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, Nor stands in the path of sinners, Nor sits in the seat of the scornful; 2 But his delight is in the law of the Lord, And in His law he meditates day and night. 3 He shall be like a tree Planted by the rivers of water, That brings forth its fruit in its season, Whose leaf also shall not wither; And whatever he does shall prosper. 4 The ungodly are not so, But are like the chaff which the wind drives away. 5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, Nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous. 6 For the Lord knows the way of the righteous, But the way of the ungodly shall perish.
Dinosaur bones with blood in them are ignored. When I was in high school, the science teacher showed us the Miller-Urey experiment. I asked the question when I was fifteen; how do amino acids work with oxygen? He ignored me.
“They treat you really bad,”. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” This is from Dr. Mary Schweitzer, whos discovery you are completely butchering. Maybe you should do a little research. There was no "blood" found in dino bones. Do some actual research. Your teacher ignored you because you were ignorant.
You are correct, they only give a one-side religious indoctrination of the modern mythology of atheistic evolution in our public education system - none of the problematic evidence or its extensive history of embarrassing radical ad-hoc rewrites are discussed, and most people don't know about them as a result. Another issue Atheists don't typically talk about is the problem of hydrolysis and how that militates against their belief that chemicals fizzed into life... creation makes sense with a Creator, but Atheism is about as anti-science as it gets... *"we've not made the RNA in a prebiotically relevant manner. It hydrolyzes too rapidly."* (Professor Jack Szostak, Chicago, 2021) [Regarding Abiogenesis] *"Chemistry is actually hard to get to work. The molecules precipitate. The molecules hydrolyze. The molecules decompose. And so it's very much a constraint that you have to deal with.. it's one g-d problem after another."* (Steve Benner, former Harvard Professor, Director of Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution, 2019) "Even a single protein could not arrive at its native structure in biological real time because conformational space is far too vast": ~10^95 possible conformations for a chain of 100 residues, so that *"even a small protein that initiated folding by random search at the time of the big bang would still be thrashing about today."* (Peter Tompa and George D. Rose, "The Levinthal Paradox of the Interactome," Protein Science 20 (2011): 2074.) Minimum requirements for a simpler cell: *"The minimal gene set* included genes for: DNA replication, repair, restriction, and modification; a basic transcription machinery; aminoacyl-tRNA synthesis; tRNA maturation and modification; ribosomal proteins; ribosome function, maturation, and modification; translation factors; RNA degradation; protein processing, folding, and secretion; cellular division; transport; energetic and intermediary metabolism (glycosis, proton motive force generation, pentose phosphate pathway, lipid metabolism, and biosynthesis of nucleotides and cofactors)." (Joana C. Xavier, Kiran Raosaheb Pahl, Isabel Rocha, *"Systems Biology Perspectives on Minimal and Simpler Cells,"* Microbiol Mol Biol Rev, 2014 Sep 76(3): 487-509).
The hardest question for a teacher is "how", but "why" is the hardest question. In science, one discovers, one calculates, one uses it for mankind, but the why is unknown in every subject, even if it seems not.
If your pickup truck reproduces, Calvin Smith promises you it will happen through "speciation" and in an accelerated timeline no biologist would accept - it would happen too fast
The said part is that evolutionists are good at making films and drawings depicting humanoids and other transitional creatures. This makes it very believable for people, especially young people who want to hear they have no accountability for their actions. Add the fact young people feel like they have forever ahead of them, they do not fear death and God’s judgement.
@@joefriday2275 So you expect skin, scales, etc. to be fully preserved? You just keep showing your ignorance, and you seem to be proud of it. Strange. Oh, any news on the 12 magical verses that appeared in Mark 200 years after the original manuscripts were written? No? I thought not.
@@joefriday2275 Being called out isn't necessarily about bringing you to task in a way that you can recognize and work to be better for, Joe. It's about making sure _everybody_ knows about your tendency to lie.
@@joefriday2275 The difference is you LIE. Always! Even when you are shown you are lying. You also call names, as does Calvin and Michael to name a few others, don't act innocent.
This video shows how the wickedness mankind and how we will do everything to support the evolution story in order to avoid the moral accountability required to repent(turn from sin) and believe in the death and resurrection of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
@@jockyoung4491 anyone who does not know Christ as their Savior is, according to the Bible, wicked and in need of salvation. Doesn't matter if they are a scientist or a garbage man. We all need salvation.
God's word is truth! Hebrews 4:12 - For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. Matthew 4:4 - But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” Psalm 119:105 - Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.
Calvin's word is a lie! We have at least 6 specimen of sperm whale and one dolphin with femurs attached to their pelvis. Why does Calvin lie about that?
@@SK-bw2cv I know you don't. If you don't want to accept the science of evolution because of your faith, just say so. I can respect that. But if you get the science wrong, you will be corrected.
@@heinpereboom5521 The story about the whale fossil has held back information making it misleading in a way it is a straight out lie. The unique ear bone from whales, the fact that the skull is clearly a whale skull, and they expect led it to be unique with a land walking body, but the first specimen didn’t have a body, it was only a whale skull. Then they found another whale head with a land body, showing how the scientists were right. Only one of several cheating stories from Answers in Genesis
@@jockyoung4491Except, they have. Decades ago, when I was a lowly biology major, pakicetus was taught as an indisputable transitional fossil from land to sea.
Don't worry. Evolutionists will wave the magic wand of time and everything will be better. Meanwhile we have to wait millions of years for them to prove their theories true. Unfortunately, none of us will be around in a million years.
@@SK-bw2cv the fossil record contains over 250,000 species of organisms. While some details are certainly disputed, evolution is clearly the only theory that can explain it all.
Christians are made alive spiritually and eternally because we are “born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring Word of God” (1 Peter 1:23). Believers “enter God’s eternal rest” (receive God’s free gift of salvation by grace through faith alone and not by self-effort, Ephesians 2:8-9) through the life-giving power of God’s Word. This truth is the main point the writer of Hebrews has been driving home in the previous verses (Hebrew 4:1-11), that no one can enter God’s true rest except those in whom God’s message has taken deep root and complete control. God does the work of salvation by the power of His Word when we submit to God’s dominion and trust Him to save us through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.
One of the worst forms of torture you could impose on anyone would be to live forever. Imagine being in your christian "heaven" (whatever that is) for a million billion trillion gazillion years. By that time, you've played chess with Einstein billions of times, you've followed Michelangelo's painting classes to the point that you can be his replacement teacher, and quite frankly... you're getting pretty bored with the whole thing. You've seen everything, talked to everyone, done everything there is to do... millions and millions and millions of times. Unfortunately for you, a million billion trillion gazillion years DOESN'T EVEN SCRATCH THE SURFACE of eternity! Fortunately the whole notion of "eternity" is a fantasy, as is the notion of "heaven", "god", "soul" and related stuff that people keep mentioning on this channel.
@@henno3889 and yet we do live forever and you have a choice. To choose to believe in Jesus or reject him. God has given you that choice. For those of us who will be with him for eternity, it's going to be beyond our imagination. You can choose to believe whatever you want to believe. I'm following my Savior and going to be with him forever.
@@sppindrgold1981 Thank you for your concern. I do not "BELIEVE" anything, I base my thinking on rational reasoning and factual knowledge. I recommend you do the same, instead of confusing yourself with bible stuff etc.
@@henno3889 wouldn't be doing any painting cause it is just your soul that goes, no corporeal body. And since most of the innocent's are individuals dead before the age of 5, if there were corporeal bodies, they would mostly be kids and infants.
God's word will stand the test of time 2 Timothy 3:16-17 - All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. John 17:17 - Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. Matthew 24:35 - Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
H S why did you lie and claim to have a PhD in "Evolution" from an Ivy League school when you've never taken a college science class in your life? Did you think we'd forget your blatant dishonesty?
Whales are ungulates. The "transitional forms" were predicted prior to discovery. We have genetic corroboration. The movement of the nostrils, hips disappearing, etc. What exactly do you want?
More than 500 times in the first five books of the Bible, God says, “This is My Word.” More than 1,000 times in the prophets, God says, “This is My Word.” More than 4,000 times in the Old Testament and 44 times in the New Testament, the Bible is called the “Word of God.” God Himself calls the Bible the Word of God. I could give hundreds of examples, but here are a few: And they spoke the Word of God with boldness. (Acts 4:31) So faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. (Romans 10:17) And take the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God. (Ephesians 6:17) For this reason, we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the Word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the Word of God…. (1 Thessalonians 2:13)
@@jockyoung4491 aaah but you have already given your opinion and shown that you have your own personal bias regarding our faith. No human being is without bias. It is part of who we are.
@@Romans1soldier Giving God a change, so to speak, is easy enough, the difficult part is pinning WHICH one of the thousands of mutually exclusive that claim being the One True Way to God is the correct one.
Just because some animals seem to be derived from similar sets of genetic “blueprints”, doesn’t necessarily mean, they are transitionally related…. (Orthodox science is surprisingly questionable, in other fields as well)…
Relationships are claimed only when there are enough detailed similarities that it can be explained only by a common ancestor. Scientists don't accept things without evidence.
@@SK-bw2cv Homology by definition is descent from a common ancestor. You might be thinking of analogy. It is true that not all similarities prove a common ancestor. So scientists do not make that claim until they have the evidence to back it up. Traits are homologous when a common ancestior is the only logical explanation. If it is not, then other scientists will happily point it out. Scientists love nothng more than to correct each other.
@@jockyoung4491 no, that is not what homology is. I said it right. ---the state of having the same or similar relation, relative position, or structure. That's homology and is perfectly explained by a designer. If a designer finds something that works and is suitable for a task, then it is reasonable to think that the Designer is going to repeat that design. No common ancestor needed. 😉
@@nathancook2852 Really! And when are the evil rulers ever going to be stopped by me? by you? Hitler, Putin, even pre Hitler Germany committed atrocities, génocide in Africa, as did Britain. The US is no Saint. The Vikings neither. There is most likely no nation on earth that isn't guilty, Denmark against the Greenland Eskimoes, Canada even today have problems with the killing of the native people, Australia. So, how is my statement a lie?!!! Instead, while God only promised eternal sleep, aka destruction, of the wicked, this shall happen. The 'innocent' shall be resurrected into, onto, an earthly Paradise where evil deeds will be met with swift judgment. Mercy will be given to those deserving such, but evil ones shall be totally destroyed. Christ will rule as a heavenly being beyond the need for human lust, money, power, and sexual favors. His rule only shall give us peace on earth by the will of the Almighty. And even the wicked shall be at peace as dust in the earth until forever. There they can feed our tulips, our onions and carrots as nutrition.
The only deceivers I see are Answers In Genesis and they're very hard at work indeed. They work around the clock to keep christian in a state of outrage, hysteria and as ignorant as possible.
@@Creationism-is-pseudoscience I don't think any agreement will ever be reached. I have distanced myself from all churches because no church teaches Biblical doctrine undiluted. Humans can simply not agree. Evolution however makes no sense at all as mathematicians have demonstrated. Each to his or her own.
@@bighairyviking387 All fake evidence. Radio carbon dating can only go back 60000 years according to what I read on Wikipedia because the half life of carbon 14 is only 5730 years. So after 60000 years it can no longer be detected.
@@bighairyviking387Any evidence for Darwin's warm little pond could support the prebiotic chemistry required for life? Scientists know which 6 elements that comprise 98% of what living things are made of, and can't make them form a complete set of the 20 specific amino acids protein is made of. The simplest cell has 42 million of thousands of different types. His warm little pond was exposed to all 98 naturally occurring elements.
The most amazing thing about Darwin's theory is just how little knowledge was available to him when he formulated it. He had no idea of genes nor DNA, both of those studies confirmed the basic idea of evolution. He was obviously wrong about some stuff and he's theory has been significantly improved upon. if he were to be alive again he would barely recognize the theory. But the basic mechanics behind he's theory which is small adaptations over a lot of time was so ahead of he's time that we continue to praise him by naming the theory after him. This video is heavily misleading and disrespectful to the people that continue to work tirelessly to improve our understanding of life. I guess it's much easier to say god did it and then do nothing else. Go ahead and keep your head in a hole, the smart people will continue working anyway. I personally think that if God existed he would not be happy with this dishonesty and probably will have no problem with those who dedicated their lives to better understand where we come from in the most honest way they possibly can.
Macro Evolution has never been observed in nature and the fossil record is devoid of transitional fossils. Dr. Stephen Jay Gould …paleontologist quotes on the fossil record: • “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. … In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, 1977) • “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” (Gould, 1980) • “All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.” (Gould, 1982, p. 189) • “No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seemed to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields … a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere!” (Eldredge, 1995, p. 95)
@@anthonycrumb5753 Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all big believers in evolution...which is one of the reasons they had no problems murdering over 100 million in the twentieth century.
Macro-evolution, the transition from one genome to another has never been observed in nature and the fossil record is devoid of transitional fossils. Dr. Stephen Jay Gould …paleontologist quotes on the fossil record: • “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. … In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, 1977) • “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” (Gould, 1980) • “All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.” (Gould, 1982, p. 189) • “No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seemed to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields … a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere!” (Eldredge, 1995, p. 95)
@@joefriday2275 Let's just imagine that these two statements were equally true and equally valid (I did say "imagine"...) Which would do more, deeper and more lasting harm to a civilisation : weakening the education system or putting tampons in the boys' bathroom ?
@@BruceFox-Lefriche Joe would support his cause no matter the evidence placed in front of him. Questions like these won't do any good in a conversation with him.
@@nathancook2852 Sadly, you are right ; and there is no shortage of other "Joes" in AiG circles. A conversation with a brick wall would probably be more fruitful.
@@joefriday2275 I am not "trying" to say anything. I either say things or I don't. I didn't say that, because it is not the point. I asked you a question, based on your comment. If you are incapable of answering, don't just go off at a tangent.
Other than the lack of transitional forms between species, irreducible complexity is the major problem with Darwin's theory. It is an argument in the field of biology that posits certain biological systems cannot function if any of their parts are removed or altered. These systems, often referred to as “molecular machines” or “cellular machines,” are considered too complex to have evolved through gradual modifications and natural selection. The theory for micro evolution, adaptability within species, is sound, but macro evolution, that any species has evolved into a different one, has no evidence and plenty of proof that it is not possible, and never happened.
There are thousands of intermediate forms between species, especially in the fossil record. And even Behe has admitted that his irreducible complexity argument is not sufficient to refute evolution. Evolution doesn't work backwards.
_considered too complex to have evolved_ They are only considered that by ignorant creationists. Science figured out decades ago how they evolved naturally.
I would put forth, origins, as in how do "things" operate without instruction sets, i.e. blind operation, is a far bigger problem than a mechnistic, step-wise process that at least follows many established scientific observations, just not in biological systems 😊, there is a reason Evolutionsts cling to very limited topics, no?
This. This was the argument that made me realize the impossibility of macro evolution. Check out smarter every days video on the motor design in sperm. Great video
Utter rubbish. If you think you have proper evidence to refute the complete bodies of science in biology, paleontology, archeology, physics, astronomy and the rest, stop trying to do so through a madcap UA-cam channel, and start publishing your findings through peer reviewed scientific journals. That is the only way in which you can ever gain any real-world credibility outside the absurdistic bubble of blind christian faith that choses to take those genesis stories as the literal truth.
Why would they say the dentition (tooth structure) indicated a diet of fish? How would teeth designed for fish be different than teeth designed for any other meat? As pointed out in the video, bears and even snakes eat fish, but their teeth are markedly different. And Panda bears eat bamboo exclusively, but you would never guess that from their teeth.
You start by being "selective with the truth" even though you've been told so many times why that's wrong. You may once have just been ignorant, but now you have to be deliberately deceptive. And I don't like having to say that about fellow Christians. Yes, your initial Darwin quotation is true. But that was his introduction to his chapter. Please read on. His literary style is to understand why his readers might object to his theory and to "steel man" their objections to it, then to address those concerns in that chapter. So yes, at the time he wrote his book there were very few fossils he could present as evidence for evolution, but he could see a pattern developing in what he saw. You quote his steel man objection without addressing his response. And that is deliberate on your part, isn't it, because it has been explained to you so many times? But worse, Darwin was only our first step along this road of exploration, and we've come so far since his day, with many, many more fossils found and the picture so much clearer. You are criticising our first steps and ignoring the miles we have covered. And again, you've had it pointed out to you so many times that we've even been able to predict which geological stratum a given "missing link" fossil would be found in it - which it was. (Tiktaalik - look it up.) It's as if people had dug a few holes and found a Roman mosaic floor, not knowing it was there, and Darwin was the first person to put together the pieces of the puzzle and see the pattern. That led to many more people digging lots more holes, using GPR to assess the size and shape of the floor, and to get a better idea of the pattern. And yes, we've discovered that the pattern is not quite what Darwin expected, but we know so much more now than he did, and we now know he was largely correct. We have moved on since Darwin. Please keep up. But in particular, please stop lying about evolution. If you want to present evidence for Creation please do. But claiming that evolution, probably the best-supported scientific theory, backed by so many different threads of scientific enquiry (geology, fossils, DNA analysis, lab experiments, etc.) is laughably false is just embarrassing. As Christians, you should do better.
All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, and if you understand "science" then you understand the implications of a competing explanation. If you are a fellow Christian, then you should know that Jesus Himself refuted it when He said *"“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’"* (Matthew 19:4) - God made male and female "at the beginning," not after billions of years of chemical reactions. We observe biblical speciation within each creature's kind (finch>finch, dog>dog, bacteria>bacteria), never even ONCE a change between kinds as "evolution" requires (fish>philosopher, dinosaur>chicken, scales>feathers, gills>ears...). The former is observational science and corroborates the Bible, the latter is a constantly radically ad-hoc rewritten atheistic origins mythology about the Unobservable Past (an Ideology) - not 'science' (a methodology). The tiktaalik is just a unique creature, and it can be explained by Genesis 1-12 just the same, evolution is simply not observed, nor required to explain the evidence. [Regarding Tiktaalik] "They force *a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish-tetrapod transition,* as well as the completeness of the body fossil record." (Niedzwiedzki, Grzegorz, "Tetrapod Trackways from the Early Middle Devonian period of Poland", Nature 463, 2010). [Regarding Tiktaalik] "[It] will cause *a significant reappraisal of our understanding of tetrapod origins."* ("Four Feet in the Past: Trackways Pre-date Earliest Body Fossils," Nature 463, 2010). "We thought we'd pinned down the origin of limbed tetrapods... *we have to rethink the whole thing."* (Jennifer Clack, "Ancient Four-Legged Beasts Leave Their Mark," Science, 2010). "These results *force us to reconsider our whole picture* of the transition from fish to land animals." (Per Ahlberg, "Fossil Footprints Give Land Vertebrates a Much Longer History," Science Daily, 2010) The reason you have to keep rewriting a story is because it simply doesn't match reality - that's what we have to keep doing with evolution... we are all Uncritically Indoctrinated into this modern atheistic origins mythology of evolution as young children today, so it's no wonder there is so much groupthink and confusion. All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, except as atheistic evolution is Constantly radically ad-hoc rewriting itself every time it runs into new problematic evidence (it has to be rewritten because it simply doesn't match reality), the same evidence can be explained by a biblical worldview - no rewrite required.
@@michaelg377 "The reason you have to keep rewriting a story is because it simply doesn't match reality". No, it means we learn more and make the picture that much clearer. Science is merely a tool we use to test our understanding and to refine it. By contrast, a fixed mindset about what the Bible says means that no matter what new information comes to light you will never change your understanding - even if that understanding contradicts reality. Maybe your understanding of what the Bible says is wrong? Have you considered that? Could Genesis 1-12 (and other major parts of the Bible) simply be allegory, a way of describing in simple terms a much larger, more complex picture? And no, Science is not indoctrination. I'm surprised you have the gall to suggest that, given that your organisation uses indoctrination to such a massive extent to teach your view of the Bible as Fact, and tries to dissuade people from looking at other sources of information. In fact, almost all the people who showed that the world was not created in 6 days 6,000 years ago were Christians who believed that, but who broke their own indoctrination when faced with the facts. Darwin was one; James Hutton, 100 years earlier, was another. Your projection regarding indoctrination is just mind-bending. Go talk to some scientists, and please be prepared to learn something new.
@@michaelg377 I went back and looked up your references, and the picture is clear: First, they are all from 2010 - 14 years old. That was only 4 years after the Tiktaalik find was publicised, and so it marks the beginning of the scientific discussion about what we can learn from it. And by the way, your first two references are to the same report (Nature 463). What was the result of "rethink the whole thing"? It has moved the transition from fish to land animal from 375 million years ago to 386 million. That's all. No-one questioned whether that transition happened, or how. Just when. As the first report says, "They force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish-tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record" - but NOT of whether it happened. There is no question that Tiktaalik is a transitional species - that is confirmed in each of the reports you cite. And the revision in age came about because we found not only the Tiktaalik fossil but also a trail of fossilised footprints made by it or by a similar animal, where the footprints were measured as older than the fossilised animal itself. Also note that Tiktaalik is not the only such fossil. The reports you cite also refer to Panderichthys, and it groups them both inside the group "transitional elpistostegids". I refer you to Nature 579 (Elpistostege and the origin of the vertebrate hand, 2020), where the author states "Elpistostege is potentially the sister taxon of all other tetrapods, and its appendages further blur the line between fish and land vertebrates." Note that phrase: "blur the line between fish and land vertebrates". That's the way evolution works: It blurs the lines between species, such that it is difficult to decide whether Tiktaalik is a fish or a land animal. There is no such thing as a "kind". And note that word transitional from Nature 463: If you're going to cite a report, then please be honest about what it says, rather than cherry-picking a few phrases that you can twist to mean something the author never intended. Be honest. Don't lie. God doesn't like liars. You seem to have forgotten that.
@@robwhythe793 _First, they are all from 2010 - 14 years old_ All Michael ever does is cut & paste the nonsense hand-waves he finds on AIG. As you note most of them are 15-20 years out of date or even older. Michael doesn't understand any of what he posts, he's just a clueless Godbot who gets paid to post this junk science.
The problem with "debunking" evolution theory is what you put on its place? How do you explain that in early geologichal times we have animals we did not see today and how today's animals are not displaced in the geologichal register of the past? Is always about denying evolution but never about answers the questions that evolution answered.
Quotemine Alert! Mr. Smith quotes Darwin asking a rhetorical question, and omits the answer Darwin gives in the next line and subsequent pages... Is this just an innocent oversight, or a deliberate attempt at misleading the viewer? Read the full quote and judge for yourself: _"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. _*_The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."_* He then goes on: _"In the first place, it should always be borne in mind what sort of intermediate forms must, on my theory, have formerly existed. I have found it difficult, when looking at any two species, to avoid picturing to myself, forms directly intermediate between them. But this is a wholly false view; we should always look for forms intermediate between each species and a common but unknown progenitor; and the progenitor will generally have differed in some respects from all its modified descendants. To give a simple illustration: the fantail and pouter pigeons have both descended from the rock-pigeon; if we possessed all the intermediate varieties which have ever existed, we should have an extremely close series between both and the rock-pigeon; but we should have no varieties directly intermediate between the fantail and pouter; none, for instance, combining a tail somewhat expanded with a crop somewhat enlarged, the characteristic features of these two breeds. These two breeds, moreover, have become so much modified, that, if we had no historical or indirect evidence regarding their origin, it would not have been possible to have determined from a mere comparison of their structure with that of the rock-pigeon, whether they had descended from this species or from some other allied species, such as C. oenas."_ And on and on... I really think Mr. Smith is doing his religion a disservice by being so intellectually dishonest in his defense of it. He says at the end of the clip _"Christians should be aware of the illegitimate debate tactic called "Elephant hurling"..."_ I think they should also be aware of "quotemining".
@@jpdobro8728 You said: _"You still got no fossil records!?!."_ The fossil record, spotty as it may be, really does exist, and every new fossil found bears witness to the profundity of what Darwin says in this quote. You said: _"So this whole quote is just Darwin trying to justify his theory without any proofs."_ The natural sciences deal in evidence and falsifiable hypotheses, not in "proofs". And Darwin is giving a rational explanation here why we don't find a complete or near complete series of related and evolving organisms in the ground. An explanation Mr. Smith simply omitted, erroneously giving the suggestion that Darwin never gave one. You said: _"In the end, Smith's argument still stands". In the end, Mr. Smith does not make an argument; he omits evidence to mislead his audience.
@@jpdobro8728 You said: _"You still got no fossil records!?!."_ The fossil record, spotty as it may be, really does exist, and every new fossil found bears witness to the profundity of what Darwin says in this quote. You said: _"So this whole quote is just Darwin trying to justify his theory without any proofs."_ The natural sciences deal in evidence and falsifiable hypotheses, not in "proofs". And Darwin is giving a rational explanation here why we don't find a complete or near complete series of related and evolving organisms in the ground. An explanation Mr. Smith simply omitted, thereby erroneously insinuating that Darwin never gave one. You said: _"In the end, Smith's argument still stands". In the end, Mr. Smith does not make an argument; he omits evidence and thereby misleads his audience.
It would be really disappointing if creation were true... The God revealed by the sheer awesomeness of the universe suggests an elegant God. One who would allow, through elegant mechanisms, over unimaginable periods of time, the evolution and differentiation of the species. He wouldn't need thousands of individual miracles for each species. The God who created all the animal species separately in a magic puff of smoke is unimaginative and doesn't do justice to the universe we observe.
God's word is greater than man's word. The Apostle Peter describes the Word of God in 1 Peter 1:23-25. He makes it clear: we are saved through the Word of God. [You have] been born again, not of corruptible [perishable] seed but incorruptible [imperishable], through the Word of God, which lives and abides forever, because [and here Peter quotes Isaiah 40:6-8] “All flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of the grass. The grass withers, and its flower falls away, but the Word of the Lord endures forever. (Bracketed information is added for explanation.) The Bible is not the book of the month. It’s the Book of the Ages. It took 1,500 years for the Bible to be written. Its authors spanned 30 generations. It was completed 2,000 years ago, yet it’s still a fresh reality. The Word of God is… …living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)
This guy is just plain lying for the book. What the heck has evolution got to do with you god people anyway? Just stick to mumbo jumbo, it’s more your area of expertise, and leave the science to the grown ups. By the way, do you have any evidence for any of that particular trinity yet?
God told us what happened. Evolutionists try to over throw it even though there’s no proof of their explanations. Evolutionists are anti-god. Proved by your question alone.
Years ago I asked an 'expert' how did this whale predecessor transition from giving birth on land to giving birth in water, no coherent answer was ever given.
Sea otters today give birth in water while floating on their backs, then help the babies which can't yet swim. What makes you think the mammalian semi-aquatic ancestors of extant whales couldn't do the same thing?
As a matter of fact, several mammal species can and do give birth in the water, to offspring with lungs. The transition is no more mysterious than why amphibians do the same. The toad is born with gills, and slowly develops lungs. That is evolution in action.
Circumstantial evidence is not treated as of less value than other evidence in a courtroom. If someone testifies that they saw the accused do something then that is direct evidence (as is video evidence) and everything else is circumstantial. Assume that you saw two people have an argument and one of them said "I'm going to kill you!" then you stepped out of the room to get the police. When you re-enter the room with the police you see a man bleeding on the floor while the other one who made the threat standing over the body holding a smoking gun the police would only have circumstantial evidence that the standing man killed the other.
Evidence in a courtroom is not comparable to what we are talking about here. They have a preconceived idea and are squishing the evidence to fit. Any confidence attorney in a court of law would destroy such a A preconceived idea that does not fit the fact
@brianschmidt704 Except with evolution, the dead body is in one layer of dirt and the gun is in another layer of dirt and the lawyer says the body became a gun... lol.
@@calvinsmith7575 We had flooding in Montreal in our house, only about 4 inches. Neighbors had as much as 3 feet. 175 mm of rain in one day. Many home were affected. Other than that we are great. Thank God.
@@calvinsmith7575 Calvin, still no response on why you lied about us knot have specimen with legs. We have at least 6 sperm whales and one dolphin with FEMURS attached to their pelvis. And that is only one type of whale. Lying is a sin... SMH
they do believe in evolution. they just put arbitrary restrictions on it and eye ball what animal is what without any method. so they would accept for example that noah had one type of cat "kind" on the ark. and that those cats diversified into all cats species we have today in just few hundred years
The Bible is always going to prove true in the end. It is inevitable. Give it time and evolution will be forgotten. Especially when Christ returns. There will be zero doubt.
Calvin is a liar. Consider the fact that at least 6 sperm whales HAVE been found with vestigial legs, and he just lied and said none have been. These have been known about since the 60's. It's not like it was just discovered.
@@nathancook2852 That's just not true my friend, have you ever looked up the biblical worldview and other scientific observations on this, or do you only listen to the radically ad-hoc rewritten evolutionary stories and imaginative drawings made up by evolutionists, like the original Pakicetus drawing depicted in this video? No, those still aren't "leg bones," sperm whales don't have "legs." There are bones that serve an important purpose in reproduction, for example, but sperm whales don't have "legs." That's just evolutionary wishful thinking in your zeal to prove your fish to philosopher, sea to land atheistic origins mythology. Many articles Answers in Genesis on this topic, like: *"Walking Whales on Noah's Ark?"* , or Creation's "The strange tale of the leg on the whale." Here are a few excerpts: "Let’s begin by examining the “vestigial limbs” found on whales and dolphins. It has certainly been documented in scientific literature, as well as anecdotal accounts from fishermen, that on rare occasions small rear flippers have been found on dolphins and small bones have been found on the backs of some whales. Counting both the scientific and anecdotal accounts, starting with Roy Chapman Andrews’ 1921 report of a 1919 humpback whale find off Vancouver island all the way to the 2006 find of a dolphin with two rear fins, we have about a century of observed cases. Yet for all this time, we have approximately 10 cases. One case involved a herd of 450 blue-white (or striped) dolphins, caught by Japanese fisherman off the eastern coast of Izu Peninsula. Out of the 450 dolphins, only one had what was described as “rudimentary hind limbs.” Yet no mention of bones was in the account, so these were likely a pair of rear flippers. All other accounts of vestigial hind limbs are similar singletons, but some have been documented and photographed showing bones in right whales, sperm whales, and humpback whales. Most of these bones are ridiculously small, often just several centimeters, and bear no resemblance to femurs and tibia (although evolutionary biologists frequently make that claim). Rather than proof of an evolutionary lineage, they are proof that we live in a cursed world. Using the example of the 450 dolphins above, why was only one found with “vestigial” hind limbs? And out of the many whales killed for food, accidentally killed, or beached over the past 100 years, why have so few “vestigial” limbs been reported? Paleontologist Roy Chapman Andrews stated this in 1921 after examining the “hind leg bones” of a female humpback whale: “After studying the material and discussing it with various scientists, I have come to the conclusion that the protrusions actually do represent vestigial hind limbs and show a remarkable reversion to the primitive quadrupedal condition.”6 If there exists a vestigial organ or set of bones on an animal, shouldn’t it be much more pervasive in specimens?7 The scarceness of these bones (or rear flippers) indicates they are much more likely the result of mutation than a genetic throwback. We occasionally see five-legged pigs8 and cows,9 yet these are never (nor should they be) claimed as vestigial limbs of an alleged six-legged porcine or bovine ancestor. Rather than proof of an evolutionary lineage, they are proof that we live in a cursed world." "As PhD marine biologist Robert Carter has said, The evolutionary ancestors of whales could not nurse their young underwater. Their breathing and eating systems were still connected. They would have had no need for those strange mouth plates that baleen whales use to filter out krill from the water. They would not have had the ability to echolocate. There are entire suits of morphological and behavioural changes that are necessary to explain whales.16 Creation geologist John Woodmorappe discusses the tail fluke of whales and says in reference to a study on whale fluke evolution, “It is not only the limbs, but also the tail, which supposedly underwent extensive modifications in order to convert a terrestrial creature into an aquatic one. Entirely omitted in the National Geographic article is the fact that, owing partly to preservation problems, there is a lack of intermediates between tails and flukes.”17 ..... "From whales to human tails Even if these poorly documented accounts are true, a fist-sized bump on the side of a whale, with bony tissue inside, bears little resemblance to the report by the popular evolutionist Bakker, quoted earlier. Sadly, many people are being given the idea that there is good scientific evidence of modern whales being born with complete legs dangling from their sides! It seems as if this particular ‘evidence’ for evolution is about the same as that of the occasional human babies which are born with an abnormal lump of fat close to the base of the spine. In spite of the fact that these lumps have no tail-like structures in them, and are often not even on the mid-line, they are still frequently claimed to be ‘throw-backs’ to an alleged evolutionary ancestor with a tail! The changes required in the evolutionary belief system for a land animal to become a whale are incredibly complex and far reaching. Evolutionist Anthony Martin explains: ‘Principally it meant developing a new mode of locomotion (from walking to swimming), a physiology to cope with a dense medium (water rather than air), new methods of detecting and catching prey, and a means of breathing efficiently at the sea surface. ‘This adaptation was achieved by changing every part of the body, particularly the head … As well as changes to the head, adaptation to an aquatic way of life brought about fundamental alterations to the rest of the body.’3" Do fossil whales have legs? Many claims have been made in recent times that the fossil ancestors of modern whales have been found, and that some extinct creature or another shows the transition from creatures walking on land, with legs, to today’s whales which have no legs. Pakicetus was claimed to be a ‘walking whale’-yet the type specimen consisted only of jaw and skull fragments. Basilosaurus has been claimed as the whale’s ancestor. However, while it did have functional hind limbs, these were far too tiny to have anything to do with walking, and evolutionists themselves have said they were probably used for grasping in reproduction. Ambulocetus, with clear-cut hind limbs, was obviously able to walk, and is the latest fossil candidate-but it is doubtful that this imaginatively reconstructed creature had anything to do with the history of whales, as previous articles (see ‘further reading’ list above) have shown. ("The strange tale of the leg on the whale", Creation)
@@michaelg377 6 sperm whale specimen with femurs attached to their pelvis. it is true. I know Calvin programmed you to lie, so you are backing up my point. Thanks for that.
@@nathancook2852 Your chain of thought in your argument there exposes your bias - your entire story here depends on where bones are attached, *not the function of those body parts you are describing.* If any creature was ever formed in a different way, you would end up with a false conclusion because of your false assumptions on this. The fact remains that what you are calling a "femur" because of its attachment to a "pelvis" is used in whales for reproduction, not for walking - that's a huge difference in function my friend, and it does not support your mythology. *"Why, if whales originated from other tetrapods, should whales use bones that are perfectly suited for controlling their sexual organs instead of showing any vestige of usefulness for life on land?"*
@@dodget3well… I think we should care how they believe because if they don’t believe(mark 1:15, Ephesians 2:8-9, John 3:16), then they CANNOT enter heaven…so they would go to hell. They cannot earn their salvation with good works(Isaiah 64:6), just like how a criminal cannot escape jail time because he did charity work a few months ago. They would Need Jesus saving grace to pay the pail money they deserve for their sins!
@@bsan7070 Nope. Still none of your business. Just as your faith is none of my business. You can certainly give your opinion if asked, but you should respect the choices of others, if you want your choices to be respected.
Darwin was right to bemoan the lack of fossils in his day and age. Now we have many fold the number of fossils compared to his time. If pelvic bones are necessary for whale procreation then how come basking sharks and whale sharks manage to procreate without pelvic bones? Atavisms in the form of miniature legs do occasionally occur in whales and dolphins. The chain of links between Pakicetus and the intermediates culminating in modern whales/dolphins do exhibit nostrils migrating towards the back of the neck in the form of blowholes in modern whales. Just a fun point to ponder, if all the intermediates were proven to be not intermediates then those species would need to be added to an already crowded Ark.
Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just wait a long enough *time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people? With respect, much of what you said is wrong. For starters, 2 of each kind of land animal went on the ark, not necessarily sea creatures, and it was 2 of each "kind" as defined by reproductive boundaries in a biblical worldview (usually at Family/Genus level), not "species" as you suggested. Third, even those "miniature legs" you're referring to are used for reproduction - but they're not "legs" in the sense that evolutionists are attempting to use them to link whales to land animals, there's a huge jump in logic there. Consider this question: *"Why, if whales originated from other tetrapods, should whales use bones that are perfectly suited for controlling their sexual organs instead of showing any vestige of usefulness for life on land?"* Check out "Vital Function Found for Whale 'Leg' Bones" from ICR if you want to understand the other side - blessings to you and yours.
Yeah, Calvin also lies and says we don't have any whale specimen with leg bones, We have at least 6 sperm whales and one dolphin (which took me no time at all time find and confirm) with femurs attached to the pelvis. This clowns are claiming that the experts misclassified a fin as a femur, and one delusional poster tried to claim that the femur was there to help the whale have sex. Like all whales wouldn't have femurs if they aided in reproduction. They are impossibly indoctrinated. Almost as bad as flat earthers.
@@nathancook2852 My friend, that is quite the series of *Ad-Hominem and Appeal to Ridicule logical fallacies* - science (a methodology) works in the realm of disproving things, not just propping up an atheistic origins story that fish evolve into philosophers. We observe that whales do not have "legs" in the sense that evolutionists are using the term, but those items do play an important role in reproduction. *Since you believe in science, how would you disprove this claim?* Or is telling the atheistic-evolutionary Story about whales walking on land all that you have to offer?
@@nathancook2852 No, I'm just asking you a question - and calling out your logical fallacies my friend. Be reasonable. Again, science cannot "prove" anything, so you cannot use science (a methodology) to "prove" that land creatures evolved into whales - that is story telling. The biblical creation explanation for those same bones (the same evidence) in whales is that it has been discovered that they serve an important role in reproduction. Given your "leg" evolutionary version, and since 'science' can't "prove" anything - how would you falsify the alternative? *"New research turns a long-accepted evolutionary assumption on its head - finding that far from being just vestigial, whale pelvic bones play a key role in reproduction"* ("Whale Sex: It’s All In The Hips", USC Today, September 08, 2014) *"Why, if whales originated from other tetrapods, should whales use bones that are perfectly suited for controlling their sexual organs instead of showing any vestige of usefulness for life on land?"*
Psalm 53:1 (KJV) The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: There is none that doeth good. Psalm 14:1 (KJV) The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, There is none that doeth good.
@@moris3532 until the Bible and your specific god can be demonstrated as fact; these verses are meaningless to me. Why should we take your preferred holy book as fact but ignore the thousands of other ones?
Rather than convincing people who understand science that they are wrong, I believe that these clips create more atheists by exposing the absurdity of YEC objections. I guess it's an attempt to stem the tide of science education and maybe genuine proselytising. Fair enough, but your risk is that informative debate will do the opposite.
I'd say from our comment section you are absolutely incorrect, because anyone evaluating that picture in Science magazine and Gingrich declaring Pakicetus as 'perfectly intermediate' based on a few skull fragments realizes the absurd story tellin evolutionists are willing to deceive people with. 'Follow the science' is losing its luster...
I'm not sure what you're referring to specifically, but that's what we actually have to do with evolution - we are all Uncritically Indoctrinated with this modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers as young children, it's even in our nursery rhymes and stories, and very few ever get to hear about evolution's problems, its embarrassing history of radical ad-hoc readjustment, or another perspective outside of evolutionary indoctrination. For example, we were all Uncritically Indoctrinated with this lie that we are "99% similar to apes" as young children... "and now for the rest of the story,": *Did you know that the evolutionary mythology that "we are 99% similar to apes" has been debunked by modern science?* "The higher-quality human genome assemblies have often been used to guide the final stages of nonhuman genome projects, including the order and orientation of sequence contigs and, perhaps more importantly, the annotation of genes. *This bias has effectively “humanized” other ape genome assemblies."* (Kronenberg, Z. N. et al. 2018. High-resolution comparative analysis of great ape genomes. Science. 360 (6393). *“the percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 84.38%” and “4.06% had no alignment to the chimp assembly.”* (Richard Buggs, PhD, University of London's specialist in evolutionary genomics). [Regarding Human-Chimp DNA similarity]: *"There is a 13.3% difference in sections of our immune systems when insertions and deletions are considered."* (Anzai, et. a., "Comparative Sequencing of Human and Chimpanzee MHC Class 1 Regions Unveils Insertions/Deletions as the Major Path to Genomic Divergence," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100, no. 13 (2003). *"The chimpanzee genome was 12% larger than the human genome... gene copy numbers revealed a 6.4% difference"* (Jeffery Demuth, et al., "the Evolution of Mammalian Gene Families," 2006). [Regarding Human-Chimp DNA similarity]: *"There is a 17.4% difference* in gene expression in the cerebral cortex" (Jon Cohen, "Relative Differences: *the Myth of 1%"* Science 316, no. 5833, 2007).
@@michaelg377 There are some quite impressive AI reply-generating softwares available these days, so either AiG have been ripped off with their "Michaelg377" or it's being used by someone who doesn't know how to handle it properly. They must be pretty ashamed at the repetitious garbage it churns out, replete with incorrect use of capital letters, unnecessary heavy type and general irrelevance of its comments. Plus, of course, the unfortunate problem that it gets all its facts wrong.
@@michaelg377 For those curious in the peanut gallery, the current estimates regarding human-chimp genetic similarities is at about 96% for the whole genome, but climbs to almost 99% when you look at coding regions. The typical creationist number of ~80% comes from the shoddy work of Jeanson, whose methods would have my own genome not match 100% with _itself._ All the rest are effectively quotemines.
The mutations are already happening, though they are generally called tumors. The people with these tumors will eventually pass on these mutations and they will of course out compete the people without tumors until natural selection will promote these people and everyone will have tumor heads, in 3 million years.
@@asanseil5553 It is hard to find good TH's (tumor heads), for a video. If we could get designers to quit removing the tumors, and allow the natural evolution process to progress, it allow the TH's to pass on their genetic predisposition to head tumors and people could be born with the mutations. The TH's keep complaining that their heads hurt so bad they wish to die, or that they can't reproduce because they have lost all their senses, not knowing that the tumors give them advantages for survival of the fittest. WE can imagine a future where people prefer to only mate with others predisposed to brain tumors, but the designers keep interfering with that natural process. It could take millions of years for attitudes to change and promote the tumors, whereas if we just let nature take its course, everyone might be able to have the advantage of tumors within the same time period. We are impeding evolution with our intervention. It is too early to do a video, the interventionist have too much power and the TH's are too brainwashed.
I use the whale evolution in my lessons when I teach ID, I then use the question posed by Dr David Berlinski when he asked “how many engineering modifications would it take to turn a “car into a submarine”? Whale evolution is by far the most absurd of ALL the claims of evolution.
That would be Berlinski's famous lie when he claimed to have sat one night and thought of 50,000 modifications for a cow to evolve into a whale. Never mind that whales didn't evolve from cows. 🙄 If Berlinski though of one change every ten seconds it would have taken him almost *six 24 hours days* to do what he claimed. 😄
@@bighairyviking387 my analogy is perfect, your too obtuse, or rather, haven’t evolved the minerals to comprehend the point being made. But then, you live your life with a world view that there is no God, but demand the moral rights that come from a God you claim does not exist. Face the facts, you’re a septic cowardly hypocrite, nothing more, though likely a whole lot less. Scooby Do isn’t as confused.
this is what we call cherry picking, there is an endless amount of evidence to back up evolution, scientists have been wrong before and maybe this guy was but that doesn’t disprove all of evolution. please do your own research its a very interesting topic :)
It's a poorly chosen cherry for that matter, I googled for just a few minutes to find out that actually this is not considered controversional at all...
Isaiah 40:22 . KJV It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers, who stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in, JOB 26:7 KJV He stretcheth out the North over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing. Get up to speed on what the bible teaches about the Earth ...the Earth is a sphere hanging on nothing.
Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just wait a long enough *time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people by chance? Let me ask you this... when all the right chemicals just happened to fizz into all the necessary proteins required for life (already an atheistic miracle), and then programmed themselves with mass quantities of ordered, sequenced, encoded instructions in its DNA (information from non-information without an intelligent source), and then into all the necessary cell components inside of a cell enclosure by chance chemical reactions... *how did it overcome the problem of hydrolysis which inhibits protein formation in water?* Here are a few examples of what scientists who actually work with this say about it: *"we've not made the RNA in a prebiotically relevant manner. It hydrolyzes too rapidly."* (Professor Jack Szostak, Chicago, 2021) [Regarding Abiogenesis] *"Chemistry is actually hard to get to work. The molecules precipitate. The molecules hydrolyze. The molecules decompose. And so it's very much a constraint that you have to deal with.. it's one g-d problem after another."* (Steve Benner, former Harvard Professor, Director of Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution, 2019) "Even a single protein could not arrive at its native structure in biological real time because conformational space is far too vast": ~10^95 possible conformations for a chain of 100 residues, so that *"even a small protein that initiated folding by random search at the time of the big bang would still be thrashing about today."* (Peter Tompa and George D. Rose, "The Levinthal Paradox of the Interactome," Protein Science 20 (2011): 2074.) Minimum requirements for a simpler cell: *"The minimal gene set* included genes for: DNA replication, repair, restriction, and modification; a basic transcription machinery; aminoacyl-tRNA synthesis; tRNA maturation and modification; ribosomal proteins; ribosome function, maturation, and modification; translation factors; RNA degradation; protein processing, folding, and secretion; cellular division; transport; energetic and intermediary metabolism (glycosis, proton motive force generation, pentose phosphate pathway, lipid metabolism, and biosynthesis of nucleotides and cofactors)." (Joana C. Xavier, Kiran Raosaheb Pahl, Isabel Rocha, *"Systems Biology Perspectives on Minimal and Simpler Cells,"* Microbiol Mol Biol Rev, 2014 Sep 76(3): 487-509).
@@SuperCilis Say high to sky daddy for me. Oh, wait, you can't. You have no idea if he is real or not, no idea if anything in that book is inspired or not, no idea how many times that book has changed, although we do know that Mark 16 varies by up to 12 verse in different versions and that the original gospels contradict each other, but sure, go ahead and cast that stone....
@@nathancook2852 ah the strawan appears. Evolution has been debunked more often than the big bang, but go ahead and worship your religion. I won't stop you
Notification: You've been using the wrong interpretations. The proper understanding that biblical creation is of spiritual nature, not material nature has been discovered. Biblical creation is metaphors for psychological factors not material and is the creation of Adam. 34
@@Msfeathers7 I made no such claim, nor did i say anything close to that. If you read just two sentences from me and got them entirely wrong, I'm betting you do the same when you read your bible - invent what you want it to say, instead of following what it actually says.
@@Msfeathers7 I thought I made it clear. The OP praised Cliff's video, and I responded. About Cliff. Cliff's WHOLE arsenal is to take a piece of science, distort it or misrepresent it, then "argue" against it, and preach to his followers who have ZERO science background and believe every word he says. He's a snake-oil salesman for Jesus. His WHOLE schtick relies on Christians refusing to educate themselves, and who are willing to listen to just HIS side of the story, even though he pretends to present both sides.
Fossils exist. Choosing to classify a fossil as an earlier or later ancestor in a made up classification system is the problem. For decades it was thought there was a species of miniature T-Rex called Microtyrannus, now we know they are just juveniles. Paleontologists get things wrong.. get this… ALL THE TIME! You can’t just look at a skeleton and decide it was the ancient ancestor of a modern animal. BeCaUsE tHe bOneS lOok ThE sAmE. It’s all a just confirmation bias and too much trust in the intellect and reason of mankind.
I believe you know what he means, the drawings are “guesses” but ARE taken by many as actual fossils that have been found. (Which is a lie) many have not been found there is a huge gap between different animals “evolving” from or into others.
@@halodude4481 Of course all of those are fossils that have been found. It wouldn't be named if it wasn't an existing fossil. Scientists aren't dishonest.
@@donteatthecats0001Fact? What is the proof that the creature in the video is in fact, a land whale. The story in the text books say it is a land whale but there is no evidence. There is no DNA, there further transitional samples. Did it in fact go from land whale to sea whale in one mutation?
@@douglasjacobs882 Science doesn't do proof. Science supplies positive supporting evidence. The evidence comes from the comparative anatomy of the pakicetus fossils, the fossils of other modern whale ancestors in the geochronology record, and the morphologies of extant whales. There is also considerable genetic evidence for the terrestrial origin of whales in the genomes of extant cetaceans. All the evidence taken as a consilient whole establishes pakicetus as the ancestor of modern whales.
The best argument for evolution is methodological naturalism. There is no historical standard for evaluating the supernatural so therefore we have to default to finding natural explanations for things. Finding natural explanations also has practical utility. With supernatural explanations there is inherently no "how" answer.
Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and that if you just wait a long enough *Time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people by chance? The irony is that even the atheistic-naturalist relies on unavoidable supernatural phenomena, they just don't realize it. Let me ask you this... the 1st law of thermodynamics doesn't allow energy to "naturally" come from nothing. The 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy) says that energy is always being converted into a less usable form, and it doesn't allow energy to remain usable forever, because in the infinite past it would have been infinitely used up by now (Heat Death). *So if our universe can't "naturally" have a beginning from nothing, and it can't have just always been here (otherwise all of our energy would be infinitely used up), how do you naturally explain the beginning of our universe?* Have you ever wondered why Atheistic-Naturalists have to invoke such wild and sci-fi sounding theories to sustain their "natural" (atheistic) beliefs on our origins? *Infinite* alternate universes, an *eternal self-existent* singularity, alternate unobservable metaphysical laws of nature, *pre-existent* phenomena... they have to attribute supernatural qualities of God to "nature" in order to "naturally" explain our origins. This is the Atheist's Natural-Supernatural (!) worldview. It's an internally inconsistent and self-refuting belief system... the only way for nature to create itself is if nature is *pre-existent - like God.* *"The evidence of God... has been clearly seen since the beginning in all that has been created, so they will have no excuse"* (Romans 1:20)
I’ve been making this argument in debates with atheists for at least 10 years now. Their comeback is usually something like 'your incredulousness does not prove God did it. My reply is usually ' I’d rather be incredulous than to be credulous and believe anything someone told me, And fall for the worst fallacy of all, The argument from authority'.. 'Be more skeptical' I tell them. The theory of evolution is just a narrative that fits some of the fossil record, But it requires you to believe the absurd.
@jockyoung Scientists are people too. If the alternative to evolution is God, then they have no choice but to believe in evolution because they won't accept God as an option. What evidence would you need to believe that God created everything?
@@jockyoung4491Nothing about the claim that a small land dwelling mammal the size of a large dog 'evolved' into a whale strikes you as absurd? You sir will believe anything an authority tells you. You are credulous, something you hypocritically accuse theists of. To my sorrow, many Christians are guilty of the same thing, believing something solely on the word of an authority. If you can’t understand some phenomenon yourself, don’t claim it as fact until you can.
@@OtterFlys Debates with atheist for 10 years. Have you given them any evidence to back up your claims. You have the burden of proof. All Christians have to do is to give evidence,if you had it there wouldn’t be any atheist
How does "they've not finished finding everything yet" = "so it must be false!!" I'm an avid daily bible reader. You telling me dinosaurs were on the ark in your last video has zero bible evidence. Zero. So where do you get off lecturing others on what level of proof THEY need to have?? Your bar of proof seems to be "if I can think it up, then it must be possible". If anyone reads the garden of eden story as a documentary then I have to assume they've already decided their view before reading it.... Because a tree of life with a fruit giving immortality means it's not in God's hands. You believe a fruit gave Adam and eve immortality and stopping eating it stopped their immortality? The tree has to be a metaphor or else you have to change how God works. Same for a tree of "knowledge". Think through every part of the Adam and eve story and they all have to be metaphors or else god is not god. They are beautiful, useful, helpful, metaphors... But still metaphors. Parables. Something the Bible is absolutely packed with!! But no.... Not for the passages you have decided on apparently ....
Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers? No my friend, Genesis is plainly written in a genre called Hebrew Historical Narrative - it is not written as allegory or metaphor, it's written as actual history including plain unembellished language, lists of kings, battles, and genealogies, the unique wayiqtol form which is characteristic of this genre, and even cited resources like the book referenced in Genesis 5:1 - to attempt to allegorize the "Adam and Eve story" is to misinterpret an entire genre and several books of literature that the author clearly conveyed as history. *All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, without evolution, except as Naturalistic evolution is constantly radically ad-hoc rewriting itself every time it runs into a new problem (because it simply doesn't match reality), a biblical worldview explains all the same evidences - no rewrite required.*
@@michaelg377 its literal? Wow. So you believe a "fruit" gives people immortality? Not god? So there's a cherubim angel guy and a hovering sword (on fire for some reason) currently guarding the tree that gives people immortality in the garden of eden? That's literal?? Boy are they going to be annoyed when the world ends and they find out they've been guarding the tree for 6000 yrs for no reason. Because Eden is invisible. We can't find it. They've guarded a tree no one can find for 6000 yrs. 😬Awkward... So when we die then, God doesn't give us immortality....you believe he lets us back into the garden of eden and we all eat the fruit? How the heck do we go to the garden to eat the fruit to get immortality if we're dead though? Doesn't god have to bring us back to life first, to then take us to eden to eat this immortality fruit? I don't get what you can possibly believe if you think Genesis is literal. Haven't even got to a fruit that gives you knowledge .... So god doesn't give people that either? None of that is a metaphor to you? It's magic fruits that give everything to humans? Not god? He's just a gardener and decides if we have access to the fruit trees or not??
@@picklesadventures With respect, you have some very basic misconceptions about the biblical worldview my friend. No, Genesis is a Historical Narrative - it is history, a polemical narrative, and is not allegory - you're taking it a step further with your "literalist" demands my friend. In the biblical worldview God created human beings already immortal (ie. death was not in the world until sin came, c.f. Romans 5:12), magical "fruit" had nothing to do with it - and when Adam and Eve used their God-given free will to rebel against God by disobeying the one rule that He gave them, they were separated from God - which is what biblical "death" really is, and since then death has been in the world. Eden, the "tree" you're demanding, the angel God posted outside of Eden... *did you know that was all pre-flood...?* Food for thought my friend. *Why such incredulity against what God said He did?* You're a theistic evolutionist, who denies Jesus' words (Matthew 19:4), allegorizes a Historical Narrative genre of literature in God's Word to which Jesus often refers (Genesis 1-3), you undermine the biblical gospel specifically with death being the product of evolution for no reason rather than result of sin (Romans 5:12), and you're misrepresenting basic facts of the biblical account of creation - referring to magical fruit as if that's the mechanism that caused them to have eternal life (which they already had... demonstrating you don't understand what Scripture says). *As a Christian, is Jesus Christ your Lord and Savior - meaning the ruler over your life, your God, your Creator, and the Savior of your soul?* Here's why God used this kind of imagery, plainly stated: *"But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; He chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong"* (1 Corinthians 1:27) *"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned."* (1 Corinthians 2:14) Here are some relevant verses that challenge your position, I hope you will re-read the actual accounts yourself my friend: "After he drove the man out, *he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden* cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life." ...and this was pre-flood, before God destroyed nearly all life on earth, laid down the entire fossil record in the global flood, etc. so it's ridiculous to expect that same Eden to still exist today.
@@michaelg377 😂😂😂 You just made up your own things and answered them. The flood doesn't negate my question. You didn't even attempt to answer the one basic question I asked. "it's not an allegory, it's not literal, it's a Hebrew narrative..." - so... That means you get to pick which bits you... Ach, you know what, forget it. Any bit that doesn't fit, youll invent a reason why, tell yourself it's true, or just pretend there's not a problem and talk about something else.... Like you just did with my example. 🤦🤦🤦🤦
@@michaelg377 it's "utterly ridiculous" to imagine god could protect the garden of eden during a flood? Sorry. I didn't realise god was that powerless! You seem really strongly convinced that would be impossible for your god? But you see the problem... I dont believe the garden of eden was there at all so I dont need to argue anything about the flood. You're arguing a point I didn't make because you can't answer my actual question. 😂🤦😂🤦😂🤦 YOU assume what the flood can do and where everything is and when it all happened. Show me the Bible verse where it says eden was washed away or that all the fossils were laid down in the flood or anythung... These are all YOUR beliefs. Your wild guesses. You pretending it's got anything to do with scripture. You're not even quoting the correct..... Nevermind. Go tell someone else the beliefs you've invented for yourself.....
Actually, the fact that 'evolution' is the only way atheists have to explain our origins without God (!!!) aside, "evolution" historically has a demonstrable atheistic motive. Charles Lyell openly sought to 'separate science from Moses' with his theory of old-earth geology, and Darwin built upon Lyell's work and was heavily influenced by him to the point where he said "it's as if my thoughts came out of Lyell's brain." In other words, evolution is the 2nd step doctrine in the original effort to "separate science from Moses." Theistic evolutionists are attempting to combine one worldview that seeks to "separate science from Moses" (evolution) with "Moses" (Christianity) - that's what doesn't make sense, and they have to compromise aspects of both worldviews in the process. Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just wait a long enough *time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people by chance?
@@michaelg377 I'm sure most atheists don't know enough science to have an opinion on the matter. Most Christians don't either, but they still have an opinion because they think their faith demands it. People have to "compromise" their faith with the real world. If not, then they are going to lose people who go out and actually look at the real world
@@michaelg377 I can assure you that NOBODY accepts the science of evolution just because they reject God. If somebody didn't want to believe in God, then they would be atheist. That has nothing to do with science. Besides, accepting evolution does NOT reject God. Millions of Christians accept the science of evolution.
I don't usually leave comments, but this video is highly disingenuous. You conveniently left out that Pakicetus' skull was found with characteristics within the inner ear (the auditory bulla being formed from the ectotympanic bone to be exact), a feature only found in modern day cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises). It only takes two minutes of research to learn that, but instead the whole video is spent talking about how "they just decided it was a whale without any evidence". As a Christian I find this sort of thing very disrespectful to the legitimate work done by scientists and only continues to push people away from religion and God's word. Do better
Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers? What you're suggesting here is a common evolutionist logical fallacy that says "A looks like B, therefore A and B are related," when at best in reality you're just looking at two things that were *designed* with some similarities. And actually, there is nothing clearly linking the dog-like Pakicetus with Whales in their ears either - Pakicetus has the "auditory mechanism" of a land animal with no evidence it could hear directly underwater or of vascularization of the middle ear to maintain pressure when diving. I think it's unfair for you to accuse your fellow Christians of "disrespect" and being "disingenuous," as your accusation itself is both - and is in defense of an ideology (evolution) that actually seeks to explain our creation without our Creator by "separating science from Moses" (Lyell - Darwin). Here is an excerpt from an ICR article related to this that I hope you will find of interest: "This fossil material was found in fluvial red sediments, or river-produced deposits colored by material leached from iron ores. This formation is thus a terrestrial or continental deposit. The fossil remains associated with Pakicetus are dominated by land mammals. Non-mammalian remains include other terrestrial remains such as snails, fishes (particularly catfish), turtles, and crocodiles. This evidence indicates a fluvial and continental, rather than a marine environment, as would be expected for a whale or whale-like creature. It is highly significant that the auditory mechanism of Pakicetus was that of a land mammal, rather than that of a whale, since there is no evidence that it could hear directly under water, nor is there any evidence of vascularization of the middle ear to maintain pressure during diving. The authors stated that the teeth resemble those of the mesonychids, which possibly fed on carrion, mollusks, or tough vegetable matter. On the basis of this evidence, the idea was challenged that Pakicetus was anything other than a land mammal, with no relationship to marine mammals." ("When is a Whale a Whale?," ICR)
@@michaelg377 what you're saying is a common young earth creationist view of oversimplifying the idea of evolution in order to make it sound more ridiculous. No sane evolutionist has ever said a fish became a philosopher, because that never happened. Rather, it was very small and gradual changes, such as a change in the adaptations of the fin bones which made it possible for an organism to crawl onto land in the case of fish. That would eventually lead to full terrestrial capabilities which from there would eventually lead to us. You also can't say that "A looks like B, therefore A and B are related". It's once again a disingenuous oversimplification to make things seem more ridiculous. In the case of Pakicetus, the organization of the inner ear bones are only seen in modern day cetaceans, nowhere else. Therefore it makes sense that Pakicetus was connected to cetaceans in some way, no matter how distant. There are many more examples of this that I could name, from some dinosaurs sharing pubic bone characteristics of birds, where once again you see a gradual change until it practically perfectly represents that of a bird. And there's many more examples of relations I can give. As for pulling people away from the creator, I don't like that claim at all. I believe it's a much more beautiful idea to be able to study our modern world and see the evidence for what existed before us, in order to greater appreciate God's creation. This is the biggest problem with the religion vs atheism argument, both sides think each are completely incompatible, but that couldn't be further from the truth. Is it not much more of an incredible thought that God engineered everything in a way that over millions of years, organisms would change and evolve, until they become the humans which would go on to inherit the Earth? Personally I find that much more fascinating than "on this day all living things are snapped into existence"
@@jackmorgan1568 What do you mean, do you not believe that humans have fish ancestry? *"Human Ears Evolved from Ancient Fish Gills"* (Bjorn Carey, Live Science, 2006) *"We are fish"* (P.Z. Myers, PhD, Associate Professor of Biology, University of Minnesota Morris) *"That’s because we, and in fact all tetrapods (four-limbed vertebrates, many of which live on land), share a more recent common ancestor with the coelacanth and lungfish than we do with ray-finned fishes."* (evolution berkeley edu) It's not that the things I pointed out are wrong at all, it's that the evolutionist leans on lots of little steps in between and sciency sounding terminology to obfuscate the mythological and unscientific nature of your belief system - and it also attempts to mask the unscientific efforts to constantly radically ad-hoc rewrite the story of evolution rather than falsifying it as scientific theories should be falsifiable. What you find 'fascinating' has nothing to do with truth my friend - *All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12,* and if you understand science then you understand the implications of a competing explanation. Let me ask you this... Charles Darwin met the gold standard of science (a methodology) by giving a testable hypothesis for his theory: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex *organ* existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down..." *How did male and female evolve?* Before you answer, consider that these are two separate, yet interdependent, precision tuned sets of organs that all have to be working just right or reproduction, life, and evolution fail. For example: The fallopian tubes are lined with millions of these little hairs that all wave the same direction, and their purpose is to guide the egg from the ovaries down into the uterus. If they stood still, laid flat, waved the wrong direction, or didn't exist - the egg would either die or it would implant in the fallopian tube thus killing the mother. Some of these are known medical conditions that prevent pregnancy - "Evolution" had to get these millions of hairs just right.... "by numerous, successive, slight modifications." *Simultaneously* the sperm has a whip like rotor, a motor encasing, a bushing like material, a nutrient transfer system, and several other components that all have to be working *just right* or the sperm can't find the egg. Reproduction and life fails. "Evolution" had to get the interdependent parts of the sperm "just right" ... "by numerous, successive, slight modifications." *Then* you have the placenta which does everything for the baby including keeping the mother's and baby's blood separate, the expanding and contracting uterus and cervix, the mechanism which only allows one sperm into the egg, and numerous other components that all had to be *designed* just right, or reproduction and life fails. "Evolution" had to *SIMULTANEOUSLY* get all of these just right "by numerous, successive, slight modifications." Which gender evolved first, and how did it reproduce while the other hadn't evolved yet? And going backwards in time, which of these critical organs do you gradually reduce first "by numerous, successive, slight modifications" without causing reproduction to fail? *"“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’"* (Matthew 19:4). Such *specified complexity* looks like the product of an Intelligent engineering mind, not the result of chance fizzing chemicals in a puddle. Puddles don't turn themselves into people no matter how much *time* you add to the mix.
@@michaelg377 Nope not at all, it's just a lot more complicated than "fish becomes human". Remember, the first fish come up around 500 million years ago in the Late Cambrian period, give or take, and proper mammals don't come around until just under 250 million years ago in the Triassic period. It was only a few million years ago that hominids started appearing. So no, fish didn't become humans, they became amphibians which became mammals which became the specific branch of hominids that led to us, along with many small changes in between. A lot of the specifics of this journey have even been discovered and documented. You might be familiar with an animal known as Tiktaalik. Discovered in the early 2000's and living about 375 million years ago, it was hailed as a missing link in evolution from aquatic fish to terrestrial tetrapods. Why is this? Its leg bones were found to be sturdier than anything that came before it, closely resembling the morphology of land animals. I highly suggest you look into Tiktaalik and the other animals that came before and after it in the lineage. Even if you don't believe it, it's quite fascinating to read. Now, as for your mentions of the incredible intricacies such as fallopian tubes and placenta, I believe they only prove the existence of a creator beyond just the physical plane that we can observe. If God could snap everything into existence as written in Genesis, I don't think it's much of a stretch that He engineered the evolutionary processes that we observe today. Picture this, a world teeming with strange creatures, over hundreds of millions of years, taking on different forms through the guidance of God, until they begin to resemble what we know today. Eventually, humanity itself arises, and goes on to inherit the Earth as God promised. I believe this argument of the intricacies of nature would be better suited to a discussion relating to the existence of a creator as a whole, as opposed to the inner workings of said creator, which we both believe in. Lastly, it's important to note, I don't have the answer to everything, neither do scientists. Science is about finding the answers, and new discoveries are made every day that prove or disprove once firmly held beliefs. Imo it's the beauty of it!
@@jackmorgan1568 Well your beliefs contradict those evolutionists above my friend, you're just distancing yourself from an obvious staple doctrine of evolution by saying "it's more complicated" - fish evolve into philosophers in your worldview no matter how many steps in between you use to obfuscate that mythology. Now for your comments on male and female evolution and God - sure, God could have done it a million different ways, but He also told us how He did it: *"Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’"* (Matthew 19:4) - not after billions of years of evolution, but "at the beginning" - *the question is, as a Christian, do you agree with Jesus, or do you disagree with Him?* Per Darwin, until you can answer that question, evolution is "absolutely break[ing] down..." - this is only a problem for evolution, not for a biblical worldview. Science is a naturalistic *methodology* that is wonderful for measuring and interacting with natural phenomena - what you're talking about is an *Ideology* when you say things like "Science is about finding the answers, and new discoveries are made every day that prove or disprove once firmly held beliefs," and that Ideology (Naturalism) you are following assumes a priori that the "natural" is all that exists. What you are doing is attempting to combine the Lyellian-Darwinian worldview that seeks to "separate science from Moses" (Evolution) with "Moses" (Christianity) - it's an internally inconsistent worldview and you have to compromise aspects of both in order to sustain your beliefs my friend. I am generally familiar with the Tiktaalik story pushed by evolutionists, but you are correct - I disagree because in reality the Tiktaalik shows no evidence of evolution, it's just a unique creature - it's the evolutionist's zeal to find evidence for evolution that its similarity to other creatures/features *becomes* evidence for evolution. Appeals to "morphology" to prove evolution is just a logical fallacy that says "A looks like B, therefore A and B must be related" and proceeds to fill the gaps with storytelling - when in reality A and B may just look similar because they have the same Creator - evolution not required. It's an example of evolutionist confirmation bias. The tiktaalik is just a unique creature, and it can be explained by Genesis 1-12 just the same, evolution not required. Here is an excerpt that may help explain it: "The limbs of tetrapods share similar characteristic features which meet the special demands of walking on land. In addition to a distinctive suite of bones in the limbs proper, there are characteristic bones in the ankle (or wrist) and in the digits (fingers and toes). In order to support the weight of the body on land, and permit walking, the most proximal bones of the limbs must be securely attached to the rest of the body. The hind limbs in particular have a robust pelvic girdle securely attached to the vertebral column. *This differs radically from that of any fish including Tiktaalik. Essentially all fish (including Tiktaalik) have small pelvic fins relative to their pectoral fins.* The legs of tetrapods are just the opposite: the hind limbs attached to the pelvic girdle are almost always more robust than the fore limbs attached to the pectoral girdle. *No fish (including Tiktaalik) has true finger or toe bones.* It is significant that the “earliest” true tetrapods recognized by evolutionists (such as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega) have all of the distinguishing features of tetrapod limbs (and their attachment bones) and were clearly capable of walking and breathing on land. The structural differences between the tetrapod leg and the fish fin is easily understood when we consider that the fish has no need to support its weight in water where it is essentially weightless. Finally, no fish (including Tiktaalik) has true finger or toe bones. Instead, *fish have slender bony fin rays, which even evolutionists concede are not homologous or related in any way to digits.* While fin rays are ideal for swimming in water, they are unsuited to bear weight on land and thus permit only a slithering and belly-dragging mode of locomotion on land (in certain living species) that can be described as “walking” in only the most trivial sense of the word." ("Tiktaalik and the Fishy Story of Walking Fish," Answers in Genesis) All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, except as atheistic evolution is Constantly radically ad-hoc rewriting itself every time it runs into new problematic evidence (it has to be rewritten because it simply doesn't match reality), the same evidence can be explained by a biblical worldview - no rewrite required.
By the logic of evolution shouldn't it be that the apes evolved from humans. I mean - apes have by far more properties for survival than I do. In comparison a human is a degraded ape, a chihuahua of apes - no strength, no fur, no agility. If it is survival of the fittest - I don't stand a chance compared to apes.
Humans currently are still apes. You can never evolve out of a clade of beings. Humans have a selection pressure that focuses on our brain’s strength and social community rather than physical strength. Our cunningness and collectiveness is what elevated our specific species of apes to dominate the world.
If apes decided to annihilate humans, it wouldn't go well for the apes. If humans decided to annihilate apes, it still wouldn't go well for the apes. Can you spot the evolutionary advantage we've been given? I'll give you a hint: use your head. By using our brains, we have given ourselves VASTLY greater skills for survival. God didn't invent tools for us - we did, with the help of our evolved brain.
Did any of them went to the moon or make fire or built a Kalashnikov , if a chihuahua got a know how to shot a desert eagle e could kill all Pitbull's, not so weak now
@@jockyoung4491 Are you referring to the same 'science' that's unable to say what a woman is?...or what the 'science' that claims what the weather will be in a hundred years from now, yet unable to accurately forecast it beyond a month from from today? Is that the deity of 'science' we're supposed to submit our rational thinking to?
@@mrgone658 No. The science that understands that climate and weather are two different things. And the gender thing is not a science issue; it's a freedom issue.
Find your evidence and prove evolution to be wrong, I’m happy for you to do that all day long. But once your done you still have the burden of proving it was god. Disproving evolution does not prove gods existence. Let me repeat that, Disproving evolution does not prove gods existence.
Well, without evolution, then how else were you created? Because this isn't just proving evolution to be wrong - by demonstrating that each creature was made according to its kind, that information doesn't create itself from non-information without an intelligent source, evidence of complex precision-tuned engineering in creation... that's evidence for a Creator, an Engineer: God. *"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."* (Romans 1:20) You had to come from somewhere, and if the atheistic 'we're just chemical reactions' version of our origins is ruled out... what else is there?
@@michaelg377 created is a very poor word to use. Saying life was created carries a burden of proof. No one can support creationism, it's not at all factual. Kind doesn't mean anything... The word you're looking for is species... You have no clue how science works, you should save yourself the humiliation
Whether Jesus existed and rose from the dead or not is totally irrelevant to biological evolution or an old earth. Evolution is one of the most tested theoies in science, Jesus's resurrection is neither provable or totally unprovable, as far as I am concerned it's a story that I do not personally believe. Jesus saves from what ?
@@pekde You can, but you'll have to get very, very old to see the results...an essential element of evolution is time, measured in millions of years...
@@tmjcbs well if you have not follow the tests, how do you know that the system has worked at all? How do you know what has caused all The living things? Why to stick only in one theory?
Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just wait a long enough *time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people by chance...? All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, without evolution, which says a lot about the "evidence" evolutionists think they have... Let me ask you this... when all the right chemicals just happened to fizz into all the necessary proteins required for life (already an atheistic miracle), and then programmed themselves with mass quantities of ordered, sequenced, encoded instructions in its DNA (information from non-information without an intelligent source), and then into all the necessary cell components inside of a cell enclosure by chance chemical reactions... *how did it overcome the problem of hydrolysis which inhibits protein formation in water?* Here are a few examples of what scientists who actually work with this say about it: *"we've not made the RNA in a prebiotically relevant manner. It hydrolyzes too rapidly."* (Professor Jack Szostak, Chicago, 2021) [Regarding Abiogenesis] *"Chemistry is actually hard to get to work. The molecules precipitate. The molecules hydrolyze. The molecules decompose. And so it's very much a constraint that you have to deal with.. it's one g-d problem after another."* (Steve Benner, former Harvard Professor, Director of Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution, 2019) "Even a single protein could not arrive at its native structure in biological real time because conformational space is far too vast": ~10^95 possible conformations for a chain of 100 residues, so that *"even a small protein that initiated folding by random search at the time of the big bang would still be thrashing about today."* (Peter Tompa and George D. Rose, "The Levinthal Paradox of the Interactome," Protein Science 20 (2011): 2074.) Minimum requirements for a simpler cell: *"The minimal gene set* included genes for: DNA replication, repair, restriction, and modification; a basic transcription machinery; aminoacyl-tRNA synthesis; tRNA maturation and modification; ribosomal proteins; ribosome function, maturation, and modification; translation factors; RNA degradation; protein processing, folding, and secretion; cellular division; transport; energetic and intermediary metabolism (glycosis, proton motive force generation, pentose phosphate pathway, lipid metabolism, and biosynthesis of nucleotides and cofactors)." (Joana C. Xavier, Kiran Raosaheb Pahl, Isabel Rocha, *"Systems Biology Perspectives on Minimal and Simpler Cells,"* Microbiol Mol Biol Rev, 2014 Sep 76(3): 487-509).
@@joefriday2275 I could do a google search and post a bunch of links, but you can do that as well. Perhaps you should open your mind and read one of the thousands of textbooks on evolutionary biology that explain how it works and what evidence supports the theory (fossil record, differences in isolated species, etc.), instead of an ancient book with science based on the thoughts of Aristotle, an ancient Greek philosopher who got just about everything wrong. Evidence based science is always willing to improve when new evidence is presented and tested; do you have any evidence that there are any errors in evolutionary theory? If you do, you should present it and prove to the world that you are a brilliant scholar.
@@vernbrown9504 Science is a methodology, what you're talking about is an Ideology - that's not 'science,' that's something else. All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, without evolution - and if you understand "science" then you understand the implications of a competing explanation. *Scientific Theories are supposed to be Falsifiable, Religions are Not: Given its extensive history of radically ad-hoc readjusting itself every time it runs into problematic evidence, what would it take to "Falsify" the Theory of Evolution today?* In 1982 a federal court ruled that Creation can't be taught in schools because "it is not falsifiable." Evolution has a long history of radically rewriting itself as it runs into more and more problems - what would it take to "falsify" Naturalistic Evolution? Over 500 Living Fossils? Debunked "Junk" DNA? Finding a 70M+ year extinct *evolutionary transitional form alive, unevolved, with no evidence of it ever evolving?* Discovering that many "vestigial" (leftover) organs actually have a normal function, like the appendix? Finding "millions of years" old creatures with no signs of evolution? Fully developed vertebrate creatures in the Cambrian explosion? An Ankylosaurus fossil found where it's not supposed to be buried among sea creatures? Whale fossils deep inland in the United States? Trilobites found appearing suddenly and fully developed with complex eyes in the Cambrian - and in every fossil layer indicating they were buried rapidly? Maybe measurably young tissues in dinosaur fossils that look similar to 4000 year old mummies or the Tyrolean Ice Man? Early jawed placoderm fossils showing fully developed complex jaws - causing evolutionists to claim that they must have evolved, de-evolved, and then re-evolved those jaws to maintain their story of shark evolution? *What if scientists admitted that Human-Ape DNA is down from 99% "similar" to only 84% "similar" and admitted their bias in "humanizing" the ape genome?* ...or should we just reinterpret all of these problematic evidences to keep the belief in Atheistic/Naturalistic evolution alive, and why? We are all *uncritically indoctrinated* into this Atheistic-Naturalist religion of evolution in our public education system today... Should Evolution be held to the same standard as Creation? All of the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, and if you understand "science" then you understand the implications of a competing explanation. *"The evidence of God... has been clearly seen since the beginning in all that has been created, so they will have no excuse"* (Romans 1:20)
Very informative video, however, you may want to reconsider saying circumstantial evidence is of little importance, I think Christian Apologist J Warner Wallace would disagree with you since he build his entire case for Christianity purly on circumstantial evidence. 😂 Nonetheless great video that I will be sending to my atheist friends and family.
Actually their "biggest problem" is the LAKE OF FIRE:" ALL UNBELIEVERS SHALL have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone which is the second death" - Revelation 21:8
The lake of fire symbolizes eternal destruction, not eternal suffering. "For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their name is forgotten. 6 Their love, their hate and their jealousy have long since vanished; never again will they have a part in anything that happens under the sun." (Ecclesiastes 9:5 and 6)
@@s.unosson Eternal destruction was described clearly by Jesus in the Gospels. He spoke of hell more than heaven. Hell is also described as a place created for the Devil and his angels.
@@wesleydahar7797 Jesus spoke of the death as, well, "death, sheol in Hebrew, hell is not a biblical word, it is a wrong translation. He spoke also of Gehenna or Ge-Hinnom, a valley outside Jerusalem where garbage was thrown and burned, that has been translated as "hell fire".
@@s.unosson You're taking one interpretation and applying it in preference to hundreds of others. Why would you try and deceive yourself and others into thinking that hell isn't real? You need to give the "correct" interpretation of EVERY passage that speaks of hell before you try to take one out of context to make your argument.
@@wesleydahar7797 How do you explain that a loving God has created the hell and punishes persons who have sinned during maybe 40 years with eternal hell? That does not sound like love at all. One cannot interpret a text in the Bible without taking into consideration what the rest of the Bible says.
The platypus is that animal, still alive and its Genome proves beyond doubt evolution is truth and middle eastern myths set in ink are indeed children's tales
@@Barri-rj9vt Pretty easy. First of, there's no such thing as an ''evolutionist''. That's a creationist lie. There are people who understand/accept science and then there are creationists and flat earthers. Secondly, I urge you to fact check every sentence from Calvin's mouth. You'll find more often than not he's deliberately misrepresenting things and twisting them around. Creationists don't do science, so they have to lie about science and the people who practice it and/or accept the overwhelming consensus. One good example is the constant complaining about Darwin as though science hasn't progressed at all in 150 years and making him out to be this ''prophet'' almost. In short, the reason for this is creationists need science to be a religion. This is a constant for creationists.
@@razark9 What specifically in this video did the creationist get wrong? Basically, the claim is there is a level of inference used to justify macroevolution that can be seen as "religious".
Another set of great story tellers is geologists. The whole story of how the mountains were formed and how long it took for the continents to move to where they are today is hilarious. I can easily see how things happened because of the Flood. I know it would be impossible to make a living as a geologist if you stuck to the Biblical six days. I wonder how many are creationists but are playing the game to make a living?
If they were young-earthers they wouldn't be able to make any money because none of their predictions would be accurate. Instead, they use the knowledge of Earth's history to make accurate predictions for many industries who pay them for their accuracy, and not what they believe
Oops! The last sentence of the video got cut off. My closing sentence was supposed to finish with, "...because I know where it can lead people. As the Apostle Paul warned Timothy, it can sometimes lead to their worst possible regret: "O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge,” for by professing it some have swerved from the faith." 1 Timothy 6:20-21"
Nothing of value was lost. Knowledge doesn't fit your narrative so you must twist and misrepresent it at all costs.
It took you a whole 3 days to figure that out??
Nothing but the highest of quality from AIG....
@@LarsLarson-u1x may God forgive you for your utter disrespect. May He humble you and make you His ambassador.. You attack the man without making an intelligent objection to anything he said.. You do not offer superior knowledge im.any form. Just baseless insults.
@@godd226 AiG and creationists in general's whole thing is to disrespect science, scientists, people who accept science, gay people and the list goes on. You do not get to complain about respect.
“The strongest objection, is that there’s no actual evidence for my theory” well yeah Darwin, that’s precisely it
Evolution is backed up by a vast body of evidence.
He never even said that.
Yep 👍🏻. Well I give the man this at least he criticized his theory and saw it had no evidence. As in today when question evolutionary teachings and expose its weaknesses and its flaws you get scolded and mocked. But I don’t hate them nonetheless even though they may hate us.
@@RodericGurrola
His book “Origins” is full of evidence. Have you ever bothered to read it?
Or are you just relying on whatever your lying leaders tell you?
@@RodericGurrola
Nobody "hates" you for not understanding science. We do get annoyed when you suggest scientists are stupid or dishonest for saying things you don't want to hear. Especially when you don't understand science.
I showed this to my evolutionist cousin.
She started abusing and insulting me.
She declared me an enemy to the society.
I evolved from Cousin to Public Enemy in 30 Mins.
Then you are blessed
@@diddsdaddiddsdad6865 That's an either-or fallacy.
@@diddsdaddiddsdad6865 As a christian you do not believe that anything just popped out of the air. You are elementary wrong.
But evoloutionists blieve that EVERYTHING, even space and time, just popped out of nothing. Hm, so the question is not who blieves, but who believes better or: what does make more sense.
@@JoergB As a realist I believe no one knows how life started. Christian’s certainly don’t know. They assert without a shred of evidence. I can accept evolution because we have evidence,and that’s what Darwin was explaining. Christian’s are very good at misquoting.
@@wesleydahar7797 It’s called fact, I know Christians don’t like that word.
If anyone is looking for landwhales, there are plenty in Missouri. Try a local Wal-Mart there.
In Louisiana we have land hippos.
😂
Or any American swimming pool.
@@Androgen321 They be whales in Tennessee too!
😂😂😂
Pakicetus spoke 7 languages fluently and was an accomplished artist that specialized in clay modeling 🙄🤣
🤣🤣
Also played a mean electric guitar!!😂
@@gmoll7535😂
😂
Pakicetus would know when Calvin was lying to it. Which is more than you all can say....
The problem for me isn't even the morphology but the biochemistry, the generation of new genes, proteins needed to create the new features of the animals. It doesn't make sense at all.
Then study the science and learn. It makes sense to actual biologiosts.
New genes form from old genes.
@@jockyoung4491 really? The questions I raised here have not been answered, it looks like you're among the ignorant group. The mutation and natural selection hypothesis is only a speculation, it fails terribly in explaining the origin of pure biological information, proteins and enzymes are very complex and also very specific, mutation/and natural selection alone doesn't have enough traction to build those structures. This problem Is widely known by Top biologists, not all, mainly those that are into the biochemistry and are aware of the mathematics. If you only listen to mainstream talks or read ordinary biology textbooks you won't learn anything new, you'll only be fed the speculations that has been imposed on the data.
@@MrLogo73 are you aware of how separate and scarce functional genes are? If you think that there would be functional advantage all the way from one gene to another then you really don't know the depth of what you're saying. You should obviously know that the ratio of functional genes to those that lack function are like 1/10⁷⁷ I'm not sure you understand what that number describes but you have to try to understand that proteins and enzymes are very complex and extremely precise in what they do, they do not tolerate much mutations, if you mutate about 5% of an protein coding gene there's a great chance that the gene would lose function and when that happens there would be no advantage for natural selection to work on.
And by the way we just discovered that protein coding genes are not enough at all, the sections of the DNA previously called junk is now known to control how proteins are regulated, what they build and when to stop, etc. this alone is an issue because its no longer just about the proteins because having proteins around (even when against all odds natural selection happens to miraculously produce them) it won't be advantageous if there ist any complementary gene regulatory system to direct what they do, the gene regulatory system obviously wont evolve without having any advantage to the organism and when you do the math of the likelihood of getting any of these by pure chance you get even more dazzling Godlike numbers. Biologists in the depts of the field know this but are still committed to the standard thesis. You only get garbage talks like this comment of yours from UA-cam videos and textbooks which are only purely speculative.
@@jockyoung4491Evolution makes sense? Biology actually disproves evolution. How could tRNA evolve?
Psalm 1 Blessed is the man Who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, Nor stands in the path of sinners, Nor sits in the seat of the scornful; 2 But his delight is in the law of the Lord, And in His law he meditates day and night. 3 He shall be like a tree Planted by the rivers of water, That brings forth its fruit in its season, Whose leaf also shall not wither; And whatever he does shall prosper.
4 The ungodly are not so, But are like the chaff which the wind drives away. 5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, Nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous. 6 For the Lord knows the way of the righteous, But the way of the ungodly shall perish.
Amen
Dinosaur bones with blood in them are ignored.
When I was in high school, the science teacher showed us the Miller-Urey experiment. I asked the question when I was fifteen; how do amino acids work with oxygen? He ignored me.
“They treat you really bad,”. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” This is from Dr. Mary Schweitzer, whos discovery you are completely butchering. Maybe you should do a little research. There was no "blood" found in dino bones. Do some actual research. Your teacher ignored you because you were ignorant.
You are correct, they only give a one-side religious indoctrination of the modern mythology of atheistic evolution in our public education system - none of the problematic evidence or its extensive history of embarrassing radical ad-hoc rewrites are discussed, and most people don't know about them as a result. Another issue Atheists don't typically talk about is the problem of hydrolysis and how that militates against their belief that chemicals fizzed into life... creation makes sense with a Creator, but Atheism is about as anti-science as it gets...
*"we've not made the RNA in a prebiotically relevant manner. It hydrolyzes too rapidly."* (Professor Jack Szostak, Chicago, 2021)
[Regarding Abiogenesis] *"Chemistry is actually hard to get to work. The molecules precipitate. The molecules hydrolyze. The molecules decompose. And so it's very much a constraint that you have to deal with.. it's one g-d problem after another."* (Steve Benner, former Harvard Professor, Director of Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution, 2019)
"Even a single protein could not arrive at its native structure in biological real time because conformational space is far too vast": ~10^95 possible conformations for a chain of 100 residues, so that *"even a small protein that initiated folding by random search at the time of the big bang would still be thrashing about today."* (Peter Tompa and George D. Rose, "The Levinthal Paradox of the Interactome," Protein Science 20 (2011): 2074.)
Minimum requirements for a simpler cell:
*"The minimal gene set* included genes for: DNA replication, repair, restriction, and modification; a basic transcription machinery; aminoacyl-tRNA synthesis; tRNA maturation and modification; ribosomal proteins; ribosome function, maturation, and modification; translation factors; RNA degradation; protein processing, folding, and secretion; cellular division; transport; energetic and intermediary metabolism (glycosis, proton motive force generation, pentose phosphate pathway, lipid metabolism, and biosynthesis of nucleotides and cofactors)." (Joana C. Xavier, Kiran Raosaheb Pahl, Isabel Rocha, *"Systems Biology Perspectives on Minimal and Simpler Cells,"* Microbiol Mol Biol Rev, 2014 Sep 76(3): 487-509).
The hardest question for a teacher is "how", but "why" is the hardest question.
In science, one discovers, one calculates, one uses it for mankind, but the why is unknown in every subject, even if it seems not.
No one ignores this. It has been documented repeatedly in the literature. It doesn't mean what you think it means.
What are you referring to with 'work with oxygen'? Are you under the impression amino acids shouldn't exist in an atmosphere with oxygen?
They constantly need good cartoonists
Knock knock
Who’s there. 🦈Candy Gram LoL 😂
Is that why evangelicals present arguments in the form of cartoons?
@@taylorthetunafish5737 those look simillar. yes because you draw them
Why aren't the creationists doing any science to disprove evolution instead of just posting misinformation and ''nuh-uh'' on UA-cam and on blogs? 🤔
@@Creationism-is-pseudoscience because it hasnt been proven.
I’ve been waiting for my Pickup Truck to turn into an El Camino….. 😂
1. Cars do not reproduce, so they can't evolve.
2. Individuals do not evolve; species do. Nothing "turns into" anything else.
@Packhorse-bh8qn listen man don't diss the El Camino 🤣
Jessie picked it to escape jack for a reason 🤣🤣
If your pickup truck reproduces, Calvin Smith promises you it will happen through "speciation" and in an accelerated timeline no biologist would accept - it would happen too fast
Well, I've been waiting for Jesus to come back. We all know that we will ride flying, latin speaking pigs before that happens😅
The El Camino can fit a 454. I guess it depends on truck brand and engine compartment space.
Christ is King!!!
Bs
And Jehovah is God ❤
Christ is God the Holy Spirit is God!
The said part is that evolutionists are good at making films and drawings depicting humanoids and other transitional creatures. This makes it very believable for people, especially young people who want to hear they have no accountability for their actions. Add the fact young people feel like they have forever ahead of them, they do not fear death and God’s judgement.
@@joefriday2275 The real sad part is ignorant trolls like Joefriday do their best to make Christians look like dishonest azz wholes.
@@joefriday2275 So you expect skin, scales, etc. to be fully preserved? You just keep showing your ignorance, and you seem to be proud of it. Strange. Oh, any news on the 12 magical verses that appeared in Mark 200 years after the original manuscripts were written? No? I thought not.
Best way to get Joey here to disappear is to call him out for lying and press it until it hurts
@@joefriday2275 Being called out isn't necessarily about bringing you to task in a way that you can recognize and work to be better for, Joe. It's about making sure _everybody_ knows about your tendency to lie.
@@joefriday2275 The difference is you LIE. Always! Even when you are shown you are lying. You also call names, as does Calvin and Michael to name a few others, don't act innocent.
This video shows how the wickedness mankind and how we will do everything to support the evolution story in order to avoid the moral accountability required to repent(turn from sin) and believe in the death and resurrection of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Please don't do that. No, people who accept science are not "wicked", and millions of them are Christians.
@@jockyoung4491 anyone who does not know Christ as their Savior is, according to the Bible, wicked and in need of salvation. Doesn't matter if they are a scientist or a garbage man. We all need salvation.
@@SK-bw2cv
Your religious intolerance is sad. I don't think anybody is wicked or bad because of their faith.
@@jockyoung4491 it is what it is. A person cannot find salvation if they don't realize first that they need it.
This video shows once again how desperate creationists are to deny reality and escape into fantasy.
God's word is truth!
Hebrews 4:12 - For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
Matthew 4:4 - But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
Psalm 119:105 - Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.
Calvin's word is a lie! We have at least 6 specimen of sperm whale and one dolphin with femurs attached to their pelvis. Why does Calvin lie about that?
sharper than a two edge ballon sword that is
@@snakewithnolegs I believe God can help you see otherwise
I don't know how the f**k I managed to spell ballon as "alloy"
His word is as delusional as that of all other religions
"because I..." - something went wrong...
Bible accounts can be backed up by archeological evidences.
Evolution stories are backed up with pure imagination it seems.
*Bible accounts can be backed up by archeological evidences* So can some of the stories in Harry Potter.
That's not what it "seems" to people who understand the science.
@@jockyoung4491 we don't care what they say
@@1VFA666 then trust in Harry. We'll trust in Jesus.
@@SK-bw2cv
I know you don't. If you don't want to accept the science of evolution because of your faith, just say so. I can respect that. But if you get the science wrong, you will be corrected.
Um... This is a great video, but the last couple minutes or few seconds is cut off.
A video full of never ending lies. That is perfect for AIG.
@@BladeOfLight16 I doubt they would have added much.
@@nathancook2852
Can you give 1 example of what was lied?
@@heinpereboom5521 The story about the whale fossil has held back information making it misleading in a way it is a straight out lie.
The unique ear bone from whales, the fact that the skull is clearly a whale skull, and they expect led it to be unique with a land walking body, but the first specimen didn’t have a body, it was only a whale skull.
Then they found another whale head with a land body, showing how the scientists were right.
Only one of several cheating stories from Answers in Genesis
Yeah, it's a shame to have cut off the last few seconds, it would be vastly improved by cutting out the last 13 minutes and 12 seconds
Good to see you in Answers in Genesis 💪❣️
Answers in Genesis is a carnival of pseudoscience and religious dogma
An extinct wolf became whales?
And they call creationism "faith-based."
Nobody has claimed that, no.
@@jockyoung4491Except, they have. Decades ago, when I was a lowly biology major, pakicetus was taught as an indisputable transitional fossil from land to sea.
@@noneyabidness9644 No one ever said or thought Pakicetus descend from wolves.
@@donteatthecats0001 it didn't descend from wolves. It IS a wolf. An extinct variety, sure. But morphologically, a wolf.
@@noneyabidness9644 it's not a wolf 😂 it's an Artiodactyl in the family pakicetidae.
Don't worry. Evolutionists will wave the magic wand of time and everything will be better. Meanwhile we have to wait millions of years for them to prove their theories true. Unfortunately, none of us will be around in a million years.
@Packhorse-bh8qn good points! Thank you
@Packhorse-bh8qn
Nobody has "invented" time. Time is just a feature of reality. The Earth is over 4 billion years old. Deal with it
@@SK-bw2cv
No, we don't have to wait millions of years. We already have millions of years of evidence for evolution.
@@jockyoung4491 the much disputed fossil record? Sure you do.
@@SK-bw2cv
the fossil record contains over 250,000 species of organisms. While some details are certainly disputed, evolution is clearly the only theory that can explain it all.
Christians are made alive spiritually and eternally because we are “born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring Word of God” (1 Peter 1:23). Believers “enter God’s eternal rest” (receive God’s free gift of salvation by grace through faith alone and not by self-effort, Ephesians 2:8-9) through the life-giving power of God’s Word. This truth is the main point the writer of Hebrews has been driving home in the previous verses (Hebrew 4:1-11), that no one can enter God’s true rest except those in whom God’s message has taken deep root and complete control. God does the work of salvation by the power of His Word when we submit to God’s dominion and trust Him to save us through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.
One of the worst forms of torture you could impose on anyone would be to live forever. Imagine being in your christian "heaven" (whatever that is) for a million billion trillion gazillion years. By that time, you've played chess with Einstein billions of times, you've followed Michelangelo's painting classes to the point that you can be his replacement teacher, and quite frankly... you're getting pretty bored with the whole thing. You've seen everything, talked to everyone, done everything there is to do... millions and millions and millions of times. Unfortunately for you, a million billion trillion gazillion years DOESN'T EVEN SCRATCH THE SURFACE of eternity!
Fortunately the whole notion of "eternity" is a fantasy, as is the notion of "heaven", "god", "soul" and related stuff that people keep mentioning on this channel.
@@henno3889 and yet we do live forever and you have a choice. To choose to believe in Jesus or reject him. God has given you that choice. For those of us who will be with him for eternity, it's going to be beyond our imagination.
You can choose to believe whatever you want to believe. I'm following my Savior and going to be with him forever.
@@henno3889 Is it more comfortable for u to believe this way?
@@sppindrgold1981 Thank you for your concern. I do not "BELIEVE" anything, I base my thinking on rational reasoning and factual knowledge. I recommend you do the same, instead of confusing yourself with bible stuff etc.
@@henno3889 wouldn't be doing any painting cause it is just your soul that goes, no corporeal body. And since most of the innocent's are individuals dead before the age of 5, if there were corporeal bodies, they would mostly be kids and infants.
The fact that animals show similitudes amongst them, doesn't mean they evolved from each other, it means that they have a common creator: God.
There is ample evidence for Evolution. You guys cannot even produce real evidence for the Great Flood. AIG lies, a lot.
As always, if science hasn't proved otherwise....God did it.
@@jonrussell2695
That is pretty much the level of reasoning by Calvin The Lying Canadian AIG Front.
And who created this "god" of yours?
@@JanWnogu
Flick lighter at gaming table
The name is Special, Special Pleading. A division of Because I Said So LLC
Keep up the good work brother
God's word will stand the test of time
2 Timothy 3:16-17 - All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
John 17:17 - Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.
Matthew 24:35 - Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
Nope. This religion will fall into disuse as thousands of others already have.
200 years later and still no evidence of a hypothetical organism that created all life on earth
H S why did you lie and claim to have a PhD in "Evolution" from an Ivy League school when you've never taken a college science class in your life? Did you think we'd forget your blatant dishonesty?
I still don't understand why you think that says anything about the theory of biological evolution.
@@jockyoung4491 because the theory requires it. it is called the LUCA which is the basis for common descent according to the theory
@@HS-zk5nn
It doesn't necessarliy require a SINGLE common ancestor, but yes evolution involves common ancestors at every step along the way. So?
@@jockyoung4491 great so you agree that God created multiple animals kinds that adapted to their enivronments. perfect!
Thank you AIG for all you do! God's word is true! Amen
@@zerosteel0123 propaganda is alive and well
Wake up,he is a manmade myth,just like all previous God's.
@@weemac4645 you need to wake up and realize Jesus is the only one who can save you from eternal damnation.
@@diddsdaddiddsdad6865 we see it every day with the garbage people are fed from this secularist society.
@@zerosteel0123 evidence and facts is a killer. No myth involved
Whales are ungulates. The "transitional forms" were predicted prior to discovery. We have genetic corroboration. The movement of the nostrils, hips disappearing, etc. What exactly do you want?
No amount of proof will convince people brainwashed by religion.
More than 500 times in the first five books of the Bible, God says, “This is My Word.” More than 1,000 times in the prophets, God says, “This is My Word.” More than 4,000 times in the Old Testament and 44 times in the New Testament, the Bible is called the “Word of God.”
God Himself calls the Bible the Word of God. I could give hundreds of examples, but here are a few:
And they spoke the Word of God with boldness. (Acts 4:31)
So faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. (Romans 10:17)
And take the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God. (Ephesians 6:17)
For this reason, we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the Word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the Word of God…. (1 Thessalonians 2:13)
Circular logic does not prove anything. You have faith that the Bible is the word of God. That's fine. Just don't expect everyone else to agree.
@@jockyoung4491 too bad you won't give God a chance. Fortunately, there are those who will and it is for those that we keep doing what we're doing.
@@Romans1soldier
And I have no problem with faith. I am interested only in dscussing science.
@@jockyoung4491 aaah but you have already given your opinion and shown that you have your own personal bias regarding our faith. No human being is without bias. It is part of who we are.
@@Romans1soldier Giving God a change, so to speak, is easy enough, the difficult part is pinning WHICH one of the thousands of mutually exclusive that claim being the One True Way to God is the correct one.
Just because some animals seem to be derived from similar sets of genetic “blueprints”, doesn’t necessarily mean, they are transitionally related….
(Orthodox science is surprisingly questionable, in other fields as well)…
Relationships are claimed only when there are enough detailed similarities that it can be explained only by a common ancestor. Scientists don't accept things without evidence.
@@jockyoung4491 homology isn't rock solid evidence for your theory. Homology can just as easily and perhaps even better, show design.
@@SK-bw2cv
Homology by definition is descent from a common ancestor. You might be thinking of analogy. It is true that not all similarities prove a common ancestor. So scientists do not make that claim until they have the evidence to back it up. Traits are homologous when a common ancestior is the only logical explanation. If it is not, then other scientists will happily point it out. Scientists love nothng more than to correct each other.
@@jockyoung4491 no, that is not what homology is.
I said it right.
---the state of having the same or similar relation, relative position, or structure.
That's homology and is perfectly explained by a designer.
If a designer finds something that works and is suitable for a task, then it is reasonable to think that the Designer is going to repeat that design.
No common ancestor needed.
😉
@@jockyoung4491lol false. Scientists accept things without evidence all the time
The Deceiver is hard at work everywhere. Many fall for a universe that holds none accountable.
Amen 🙏 so true!
Humans have held themselves accountable for all of recorded history. Stop lying.
@@nathancook2852 Really! And when are the evil rulers ever going to be stopped by me? by you?
Hitler, Putin, even pre Hitler Germany committed atrocities, génocide in Africa, as did Britain. The US is no Saint. The Vikings neither. There is most likely no nation on earth that isn't guilty, Denmark against the Greenland Eskimoes, Canada even today have problems with the killing of the native people, Australia.
So, how is my statement a lie?!!!
Instead, while God only promised eternal sleep, aka destruction, of the wicked, this shall happen. The 'innocent' shall be resurrected into, onto, an earthly Paradise where evil deeds will be met with swift judgment. Mercy will be given to those deserving such, but evil ones shall be totally destroyed.
Christ will rule as a heavenly being beyond the need for human lust, money, power, and sexual favors. His rule only shall give us peace on earth by the will of the Almighty. And even the wicked shall be at peace as dust in the earth until forever. There they can feed our tulips, our onions and carrots as nutrition.
The only deceivers I see are Answers In Genesis and they're very hard at work indeed. They work around the clock to keep christian in a state of outrage, hysteria and as ignorant as possible.
@@Creationism-is-pseudoscience I don't think any agreement will ever be reached. I have distanced myself from all churches because no church teaches Biblical doctrine undiluted. Humans can simply not agree. Evolution however makes no sense at all as mathematicians have demonstrated. Each to his or her own.
Charles Darwin was the weakest link.
And yet his theory is backed up by a vast body of evidence.
@@bighairyviking387 All fake evidence. Radio carbon dating can only go back 60000 years according to what I read on Wikipedia because the half life of carbon 14 is only 5730 years. So after 60000 years it can no longer be detected.
@@suggesttwo
How is that relevant?
he was a very confused man. had to get daddy to bail him out.
@@bighairyviking387Any evidence for Darwin's warm little pond could support the prebiotic chemistry required for life? Scientists know which 6 elements that comprise 98% of what living things are made of, and can't make them form a complete set of the 20 specific amino acids protein is made of. The simplest cell has 42 million of thousands of different types. His warm little pond was exposed to all 98 naturally occurring elements.
The most amazing thing about Darwin's theory is just how little knowledge was available to him when he formulated it. He had no idea of genes nor DNA, both of those studies confirmed the basic idea of evolution. He was obviously wrong about some stuff and he's theory has been significantly improved upon. if he were to be alive again he would barely recognize the theory. But the basic mechanics behind he's theory which is small adaptations over a lot of time was so ahead of he's time that we continue to praise him by naming the theory after him. This video is heavily misleading and disrespectful to the people that continue to work tirelessly to improve our understanding of life. I guess it's much easier to say god did it and then do nothing else. Go ahead and keep your head in a hole, the smart people will continue working anyway.
I personally think that if God existed he would not be happy with this dishonesty and probably will have no problem with those who dedicated their lives to better understand where we come from in the most honest way they possibly can.
Macro Evolution has never been observed in nature and the fossil record is devoid of transitional fossils.
Dr. Stephen Jay Gould …paleontologist quotes on the fossil record:
• “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. … In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, 1977)
• “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” (Gould, 1980)
• “All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.” (Gould, 1982, p. 189)
• “No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seemed to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields … a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere!” (Eldredge, 1995, p. 95)
We need more Darwins and less Ken Hams.
@@anthonycrumb5753 Spoken like a true Hitler, Mao, Stalin....all of which believed in evolution and that murders were just a statistic.
@@anthonycrumb5753 Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all big believers in evolution...which is one of the reasons they had no problems murdering over 100 million in the twentieth century.
Macro-evolution, the transition from one genome to another has never been observed in nature and the fossil record is devoid of transitional fossils.
Dr. Stephen Jay Gould …paleontologist quotes on the fossil record:
• “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. … In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” (Gould, 1977)
• “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.” (Gould, 1980)
• “All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.” (Gould, 1982, p. 189)
• “No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seemed to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields … a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere!” (Eldredge, 1995, p. 95)
Watching creationist videos is really educational, the logical fallacies are so crisp, so clear.
This is why republicans want to weaken the education system
@@joefriday2275 Let's just imagine that these two statements were equally true and equally valid (I did say "imagine"...) Which would do more, deeper and more lasting harm to a civilisation : weakening the education system or putting tampons in the boys' bathroom ?
@@BruceFox-Lefriche Joe would support his cause no matter the evidence placed in front of him. Questions like these won't do any good in a conversation with him.
@@nathancook2852 Sadly, you are right ; and there is no shortage of other "Joes" in AiG circles. A conversation with a brick wall would probably be more fruitful.
@@joefriday2275 I am not "trying" to say anything. I either say things or I don't. I didn't say that, because it is not the point. I asked you a question, based on your comment. If you are incapable of answering, don't just go off at a tangent.
Incredible...calm, wonderful response! Thank you
Loads of lies, actually.
@@JanWnogu Interesting...so you've studied in that area
Other than the lack of transitional forms between species, irreducible complexity is the major problem with Darwin's theory. It is an argument in the field of biology that posits certain biological systems cannot function if any of their parts are removed or altered. These systems, often referred to as “molecular machines” or “cellular machines,” are considered too complex to have evolved through gradual modifications and natural selection.
The theory for micro evolution, adaptability within species, is sound, but macro evolution, that any species has evolved into a different one, has no evidence and plenty of proof that it is not possible, and never happened.
There are thousands of intermediate forms between species, especially in the fossil record.
And even Behe has admitted that his irreducible complexity argument is not sufficient to refute evolution. Evolution doesn't work backwards.
_considered too complex to have evolved_ They are only considered that by ignorant creationists. Science figured out decades ago how they evolved naturally.
I would put forth, origins, as in how do "things" operate without instruction sets, i.e. blind operation, is a far bigger problem than a mechnistic, step-wise process that at least follows many established scientific observations, just not in biological systems 😊, there is a reason Evolutionsts cling to very limited topics, no?
This. This was the argument that made me realize the impossibility of macro evolution.
Check out smarter every days video on the motor design in sperm. Great video
Utter rubbish. If you think you have proper evidence to refute the complete bodies of science in biology, paleontology, archeology, physics, astronomy and the rest, stop trying to do so through a madcap UA-cam channel, and start publishing your findings through peer reviewed scientific journals. That is the only way in which you can ever gain any real-world credibility outside the absurdistic bubble of blind christian faith that choses to take those genesis stories as the literal truth.
Why would they say the dentition (tooth structure) indicated a diet of fish? How would teeth designed for fish be different than teeth designed for any other meat? As pointed out in the video, bears and even snakes eat fish, but their teeth are markedly different. And Panda bears eat bamboo exclusively, but you would never guess that from their teeth.
You start by being "selective with the truth" even though you've been told so many times why that's wrong. You may once have just been ignorant, but now you have to be deliberately deceptive. And I don't like having to say that about fellow Christians.
Yes, your initial Darwin quotation is true. But that was his introduction to his chapter. Please read on. His literary style is to understand why his readers might object to his theory and to "steel man" their objections to it, then to address those concerns in that chapter. So yes, at the time he wrote his book there were very few fossils he could present as evidence for evolution, but he could see a pattern developing in what he saw. You quote his steel man objection without addressing his response. And that is deliberate on your part, isn't it, because it has been explained to you so many times?
But worse, Darwin was only our first step along this road of exploration, and we've come so far since his day, with many, many more fossils found and the picture so much clearer. You are criticising our first steps and ignoring the miles we have covered. And again, you've had it pointed out to you so many times that we've even been able to predict which geological stratum a given "missing link" fossil would be found in it - which it was. (Tiktaalik - look it up.)
It's as if people had dug a few holes and found a Roman mosaic floor, not knowing it was there, and Darwin was the first person to put together the pieces of the puzzle and see the pattern. That led to many more people digging lots more holes, using GPR to assess the size and shape of the floor, and to get a better idea of the pattern. And yes, we've discovered that the pattern is not quite what Darwin expected, but we know so much more now than he did, and we now know he was largely correct. We have moved on since Darwin. Please keep up.
But in particular, please stop lying about evolution. If you want to present evidence for Creation please do. But claiming that evolution, probably the best-supported scientific theory, backed by so many different threads of scientific enquiry (geology, fossils, DNA analysis, lab experiments, etc.) is laughably false is just embarrassing. As Christians, you should do better.
All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, and if you understand "science" then you understand the implications of a competing explanation. If you are a fellow Christian, then you should know that Jesus Himself refuted it when He said *"“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’"* (Matthew 19:4) - God made male and female "at the beginning," not after billions of years of chemical reactions. We observe biblical speciation within each creature's kind (finch>finch, dog>dog, bacteria>bacteria), never even ONCE a change between kinds as "evolution" requires (fish>philosopher, dinosaur>chicken, scales>feathers, gills>ears...). The former is observational science and corroborates the Bible, the latter is a constantly radically ad-hoc rewritten atheistic origins mythology about the Unobservable Past (an Ideology) - not 'science' (a methodology).
The tiktaalik is just a unique creature, and it can be explained by Genesis 1-12 just the same, evolution is simply not observed, nor required to explain the evidence.
[Regarding Tiktaalik] "They force *a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish-tetrapod transition,* as well as the completeness of the body fossil record." (Niedzwiedzki, Grzegorz, "Tetrapod Trackways from the Early Middle Devonian period of Poland", Nature 463, 2010).
[Regarding Tiktaalik] "[It] will cause *a significant reappraisal of our understanding of tetrapod origins."* ("Four Feet in the Past: Trackways Pre-date Earliest Body Fossils," Nature 463, 2010).
"We thought we'd pinned down the origin of limbed tetrapods... *we have to rethink the whole thing."* (Jennifer Clack, "Ancient Four-Legged Beasts Leave Their Mark," Science, 2010).
"These results *force us to reconsider our whole picture* of the transition from fish to land animals." (Per Ahlberg, "Fossil Footprints Give Land Vertebrates a Much Longer History," Science Daily, 2010)
The reason you have to keep rewriting a story is because it simply doesn't match reality - that's what we have to keep doing with evolution... we are all Uncritically Indoctrinated into this modern atheistic origins mythology of evolution as young children today, so it's no wonder there is so much groupthink and confusion.
All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, except as atheistic evolution is Constantly radically ad-hoc rewriting itself every time it runs into new problematic evidence (it has to be rewritten because it simply doesn't match reality), the same evidence can be explained by a biblical worldview - no rewrite required.
@@michaelg377 "The reason you have to keep rewriting a story is because it simply doesn't match reality". No, it means we learn more and make the picture that much clearer. Science is merely a tool we use to test our understanding and to refine it. By contrast, a fixed mindset about what the Bible says means that no matter what new information comes to light you will never change your understanding - even if that understanding contradicts reality. Maybe your understanding of what the Bible says is wrong? Have you considered that? Could Genesis 1-12 (and other major parts of the Bible) simply be allegory, a way of describing in simple terms a much larger, more complex picture?
And no, Science is not indoctrination. I'm surprised you have the gall to suggest that, given that your organisation uses indoctrination to such a massive extent to teach your view of the Bible as Fact, and tries to dissuade people from looking at other sources of information. In fact, almost all the people who showed that the world was not created in 6 days 6,000 years ago were Christians who believed that, but who broke their own indoctrination when faced with the facts. Darwin was one; James Hutton, 100 years earlier, was another. Your projection regarding indoctrination is just mind-bending.
Go talk to some scientists, and please be prepared to learn something new.
_You start by being "selective with the truth"_ It's called lying by omission. Creationists have made it into an art form.
@@michaelg377 I went back and looked up your references, and the picture is clear: First, they are all from 2010 - 14 years old. That was only 4 years after the Tiktaalik find was publicised, and so it marks the beginning of the scientific discussion about what we can learn from it. And by the way, your first two references are to the same report (Nature 463).
What was the result of "rethink the whole thing"? It has moved the transition from fish to land animal from 375 million years ago to 386 million. That's all. No-one questioned whether that transition happened, or how. Just when. As the first report says, "They force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish-tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record" - but NOT of whether it happened.
There is no question that Tiktaalik is a transitional species - that is confirmed in each of the reports you cite. And the revision in age came about because we found not only the Tiktaalik fossil but also a trail of fossilised footprints made by it or by a similar animal, where the footprints were measured as older than the fossilised animal itself.
Also note that Tiktaalik is not the only such fossil. The reports you cite also refer to Panderichthys, and it groups them both inside the group "transitional elpistostegids".
I refer you to Nature 579 (Elpistostege and the origin of the vertebrate hand, 2020), where the author states "Elpistostege is potentially the sister taxon of all other tetrapods, and its appendages further blur the line between fish and land vertebrates." Note that phrase: "blur the line between fish and land vertebrates". That's the way evolution works: It blurs the lines between species, such that it is difficult to decide whether Tiktaalik is a fish or a land animal. There is no such thing as a "kind".
And note that word transitional from Nature 463: If you're going to cite a report, then please be honest about what it says, rather than cherry-picking a few phrases that you can twist to mean something the author never intended.
Be honest. Don't lie. God doesn't like liars. You seem to have forgotten that.
@@robwhythe793 _First, they are all from 2010 - 14 years old_ All Michael ever does is cut & paste the nonsense hand-waves he finds on AIG. As you note most of them are 15-20 years out of date or even older. Michael doesn't understand any of what he posts, he's just a clueless Godbot who gets paid to post this junk science.
The problem with "debunking" evolution theory is what you put on its place?
How do you explain that in early geologichal times we have animals we did not see today and how today's animals are not displaced in the geologichal register of the past?
Is always about denying evolution but never about answers the questions that evolution answered.
Evolution answered no questions, only hypothesized fantasy.
@@danmorris1248tell us more about how you were denied a scientific education...
@@danmorris1248so just blatant lying huh? Surprise
Quotemine Alert!
Mr. Smith quotes Darwin asking a rhetorical question, and omits the answer Darwin gives in the next line and subsequent pages... Is this just an innocent oversight, or a deliberate attempt at misleading the viewer? Read the full quote and judge for yourself:
_"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. _*_The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."_*
He then goes on:
_"In the first place, it should always be borne in mind what sort of intermediate forms must, on my theory, have formerly existed. I have found it difficult, when looking at any two species, to avoid picturing to myself, forms directly intermediate between them. But this is a wholly false view; we should always look for forms intermediate between each species and a common but unknown progenitor; and the progenitor will generally have differed in some respects from all its modified descendants. To give a simple illustration: the fantail and pouter pigeons have both descended from the rock-pigeon; if we possessed all the intermediate varieties which have ever existed, we should have an extremely close series between both and the rock-pigeon; but we should have no varieties directly intermediate between the fantail and pouter; none, for instance, combining a tail somewhat expanded with a crop somewhat enlarged, the characteristic features of these two breeds. These two breeds, moreover, have become so much modified, that, if we had no historical or indirect evidence regarding their origin, it would not have been possible to have determined from a mere comparison of their structure with that of the rock-pigeon, whether they had descended from this species or from some other allied species, such as C. oenas."_
And on and on...
I really think Mr. Smith is doing his religion a disservice by being so intellectually dishonest in his defense of it. He says at the end of the clip _"Christians should be aware of the illegitimate debate tactic called "Elephant hurling"..."_ I think they should also be aware of "quotemining".
@@jpdobro8728 You said: _"You still got no fossil records!?!."_
The fossil record, spotty as it may be, really does exist, and every new fossil found bears witness to the profundity of what Darwin says in this quote.
You said: _"So this whole quote is just Darwin trying to justify his theory without any proofs."_
The natural sciences deal in evidence and falsifiable hypotheses, not in "proofs". And Darwin is giving a rational explanation here why we don't find a complete or near complete series of related and evolving organisms in the ground. An explanation Mr. Smith simply omitted, erroneously giving the suggestion that Darwin never gave one.
You said: _"In the end, Smith's argument still stands".
In the end, Mr. Smith does not make an argument; he omits evidence to mislead his audience.
@@jpdobro8728 You said: _"You still got no fossil records!?!."_
The fossil record, spotty as it may be, really does exist, and every new fossil found bears witness to the profundity of what Darwin says in this quote.
You said: _"So this whole quote is just Darwin trying to justify his theory without any proofs."_
The natural sciences deal in evidence and falsifiable hypotheses, not in "proofs". And Darwin is giving a rational explanation here why we don't find a complete or near complete series of related and evolving organisms in the ground. An explanation Mr. Smith simply omitted, thereby erroneously insinuating that Darwin never gave one.
You said: _"In the end, Smith's argument still stands".
In the end, Mr. Smith does not make an argument; he omits evidence and thereby misleads his audience.
I have no doubt this is a deliberate attempt. Religious propagandists lie with a straight face, as always.
It would be really disappointing if creation were true...
The God revealed by the sheer awesomeness of the universe suggests an elegant God. One who would allow, through elegant mechanisms, over unimaginable periods of time, the evolution and differentiation of the species. He wouldn't need thousands of individual miracles for each species.
The God who created all the animal species separately in a magic puff of smoke is unimaginative and doesn't do justice to the universe we observe.
God's word is greater than man's word.
The Apostle Peter describes the Word of God in 1 Peter 1:23-25. He makes it clear: we are saved through the Word of God.
[You have] been born again, not of corruptible [perishable] seed but incorruptible [imperishable], through the Word of God, which lives and abides forever, because [and here Peter quotes Isaiah 40:6-8] “All flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of the grass. The grass withers, and its flower falls away, but the Word of the Lord endures forever. (Bracketed information is added for explanation.)
The Bible is not the book of the month. It’s the Book of the Ages. It took 1,500 years for the Bible to be written. Its authors spanned 30 generations. It was completed 2,000 years ago, yet it’s still a fresh reality. The Word of God is…
…living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12)
Your "god's word" is man's word, though. The words of ignorant, barbaric, superstitious and scared men.
"Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind
And makes flesh his strength,
And whose heart turns away from the LORD"
--Jeremiah 17:5
This guy is just plain lying for the book. What the heck has evolution got to do with you god people anyway? Just stick to mumbo jumbo, it’s more your area of expertise, and leave the science to the grown ups. By the way, do you have any evidence for any of that particular trinity yet?
God told us what happened. Evolutionists try to over throw it even though there’s no proof of their explanations. Evolutionists are anti-god. Proved by your question alone.
Years ago I asked an 'expert' how did this whale predecessor transition from giving birth on land to giving birth in water, no coherent answer was ever given.
Sea otters today give birth in water while floating on their backs, then help the babies which can't yet swim. What makes you think the mammalian semi-aquatic ancestors of extant whales couldn't do the same thing?
Humans can give birth underwater. Women do it every day. Try to keep up.
Humans have water births all the time
@1VFA666 yeah but, if you watched the video you realize it was all just a story probably for fame or some other motive he made it up.
As a matter of fact, several mammal species can and do give birth in the water, to offspring with lungs. The transition is no more mysterious than why amphibians do the same. The toad is born with gills, and slowly develops lungs. That is evolution in action.
Bottom line most people do not want to follow God even if the evidence points to His creation.
Except the evidence doesn't. Even if there was evidence of a creator god, it might not be the one you believe in, but one of the hundreds you don't.
Circumstantial evidence is not treated as of less value than other evidence in a courtroom. If someone testifies that they saw the accused do something then that is direct evidence (as is video evidence) and everything else is circumstantial. Assume that you saw two people have an argument and one of them said "I'm going to kill you!" then you stepped out of the room to get the police. When you re-enter the room with the police you see a man bleeding on the floor while the other one who made the threat standing over the body holding a smoking gun the police would only have circumstantial evidence that the standing man killed the other.
Evidence in a courtroom is not comparable to what we are talking about here. They have a preconceived idea and are squishing the evidence to fit. Any confidence attorney in a court of law would destroy such a A preconceived idea that does not fit the fact
@@brianschmidt704 which makes it surprising that evolution is even a theory
Begging the question
@@brianschmidt704you got it! Evolution doesn't even stand up to requirements for circumstantial evidence! Well done using the neurons
@brianschmidt704 Except with evolution, the dead body is in one layer of dirt and the gun is in another layer of dirt and the lawyer says the body became a gun... lol.
This video is fire
A dumpster fire. Or maybe that's just Calvin's pants with the flames shooting up.
@@donteatthecats0001 hi annie what happened to razark?
@@HS-zk5nn Why did you lie and claim to have a PhD in "Evolution" from an Ivy school?
@@donteatthecats0001 they don’t come here anymore. You got a new account Ogden?
Why did it cut off?
He became an evolutionist right before the end...
SO GOOD!!! ❤❤❤
Pakicetus isn't just a wolf-like animal. Wolves are members of carnivora, Pakicetus was an artiodactyl.
Compared to the heap of stupidities and lies the creationists try to push this is just one tiny detail.
They couldn't have dreamed up something more believable??? Not very CREATIVE now are they . 😂
Your ignorance of evolution is showing. Back to school for you. This time past grade 6.
Your ignorance of science is not a valid argument against it.
Bruh this is one of the most believable things in evolution.
@@jodyjohnston2899Really? Then it‘s looking worse for evolution, than I thought.
@@LLAMASinNEEDyour ignorance of God's word and who He is will be your eventual downfall.
Good job Calvin.
Thanks brother. Trust you and yours are well : )
@@calvinsmith7575 We had flooding in Montreal in our house, only about 4 inches. Neighbors had as much as 3 feet. 175 mm of rain in one day. Many home were affected. Other than that we are great. Thank God.
@@calvinsmith7575 Calvin, still no response on why you lied about us knot have specimen with legs. We have at least 6 sperm whales and one dolphin with FEMURS attached to their pelvis. And that is only one type of whale. Lying is a sin... SMH
Replace evolution with God fiddling around with his creations and all of a sudden creationist would believe the argument/theory.
they do believe in evolution.
they just put arbitrary restrictions on it and eye ball what animal is what without any method.
so they would accept for example that noah had one type of cat "kind" on the ark.
and that those cats diversified into all cats species we have today in just few hundred years
The Bible is always going to prove true in the end. It is inevitable. Give it time and evolution will be forgotten. Especially when Christ returns. There will be zero doubt.
Never argue with a fool according to his folly
Simply speak the truth the Word of God
The truth needs no defense, it just needs to be spoken 👍
@@mhughes1160 I will certainly keep that in mind the next time a Christian tell me his god creates🤭
@@diddsdaddiddsdad6865 Psalm 14:1
A fool says in his heart There is no God
@@mhughes1160 I don’t believe what a book tells me unless it has evidence. You quoting verses proves absolutely nothing
@@diddsdaddiddsdad6865 God's word always has a purpose. Even if that purpose is to harden your heart even more.
GLORY TO GOD
Glorify your god all you want, Calvin is still a liar, and nothing on this channel disproves evolution.
@@nathancook2852 whats Your education till now ? Or branch of science in which you are in ?
God is a cosmic horror.
@@haitaelpastor976 God is the Mighty Judge and The Mighty Saviour
Just found this channel. Love it and subscribed
You subscribed to propaganda producers whose only purpose is to keep you outraged, hysterical and ignorant?
Loads of religious propaganda and lies.
We need to be screaming the truth
Calvin is a liar. Consider the fact that at least 6 sperm whales HAVE been found with vestigial legs, and he just lied and said none have been. These have been known about since the 60's. It's not like it was just discovered.
@@nathancook2852 That's just not true my friend, have you ever looked up the biblical worldview and other scientific observations on this, or do you only listen to the radically ad-hoc rewritten evolutionary stories and imaginative drawings made up by evolutionists, like the original Pakicetus drawing depicted in this video? No, those still aren't "leg bones," sperm whales don't have "legs." There are bones that serve an important purpose in reproduction, for example, but sperm whales don't have "legs." That's just evolutionary wishful thinking in your zeal to prove your fish to philosopher, sea to land atheistic origins mythology.
Many articles Answers in Genesis on this topic, like: *"Walking Whales on Noah's Ark?"* , or Creation's "The strange tale of the leg on the whale." Here are a few excerpts:
"Let’s begin by examining the “vestigial limbs” found on whales and dolphins. It has certainly been documented in scientific literature, as well as anecdotal accounts from fishermen, that on rare occasions small rear flippers have been found on dolphins and small bones have been found on the backs of some whales. Counting both the scientific and anecdotal accounts, starting with Roy Chapman Andrews’ 1921 report of a 1919 humpback whale find off Vancouver island all the way to the 2006 find of a dolphin with two rear fins, we have about a century of observed cases. Yet for all this time, we have approximately 10 cases. One case involved a herd of 450 blue-white (or striped) dolphins, caught by Japanese fisherman off the eastern coast of Izu Peninsula. Out of the 450 dolphins, only one had what was described as “rudimentary hind limbs.” Yet no mention of bones was in the account, so these were likely a pair of rear flippers. All other accounts of vestigial hind limbs are similar singletons, but some have been documented and photographed showing bones in right whales, sperm whales, and humpback whales. Most of these bones are ridiculously small, often just several centimeters, and bear no resemblance to femurs and tibia (although evolutionary biologists frequently make that claim).
Rather than proof of an evolutionary lineage, they are proof that we live in a cursed world.
Using the example of the 450 dolphins above, why was only one found with “vestigial” hind limbs? And out of the many whales killed for food, accidentally killed, or beached over the past 100 years, why have so few “vestigial” limbs been reported? Paleontologist Roy Chapman Andrews stated this in 1921 after examining the “hind leg bones” of a female humpback whale: “After studying the material and discussing it with various scientists, I have come to the conclusion that the protrusions actually do represent vestigial hind limbs and show a remarkable reversion to the primitive quadrupedal condition.”6 If there exists a vestigial organ or set of bones on an animal, shouldn’t it be much more pervasive in specimens?7 The scarceness of these bones (or rear flippers) indicates they are much more likely the result of mutation than a genetic throwback. We occasionally see five-legged pigs8 and cows,9 yet these are never (nor should they be) claimed as vestigial limbs of an alleged six-legged porcine or bovine ancestor. Rather than proof of an evolutionary lineage, they are proof that we live in a cursed world."
"As PhD marine biologist Robert Carter has said,
The evolutionary ancestors of whales could not nurse their young underwater. Their breathing and eating systems were still connected. They would have had no need for those strange mouth plates that baleen whales use to filter out krill from the water. They would not have had the ability to echolocate. There are entire suits of morphological and behavioural changes that are necessary to explain whales.16
Creation geologist John Woodmorappe discusses the tail fluke of whales and says in reference to a study on whale fluke evolution, “It is not only the limbs, but also the tail, which supposedly underwent extensive modifications in order to convert a terrestrial creature into an aquatic one. Entirely omitted in the National Geographic article is the fact that, owing partly to preservation problems, there is a lack of intermediates between tails and flukes.”17
.....
"From whales to human tails
Even if these poorly documented accounts are true, a fist-sized bump on the side of a whale, with bony tissue inside, bears little resemblance to the report by the popular evolutionist Bakker, quoted earlier. Sadly, many people are being given the idea that there is good scientific evidence of modern whales being born with complete legs dangling from their sides! It seems as if this particular ‘evidence’ for evolution is about the same as that of the occasional human babies which are born with an abnormal lump of fat close to the base of the spine. In spite of the fact that these lumps have no tail-like structures in them, and are often not even on the mid-line, they are still frequently claimed to be ‘throw-backs’ to an alleged evolutionary ancestor with a tail!
The changes required in the evolutionary belief system for a land animal to become a whale are incredibly complex and far reaching. Evolutionist Anthony Martin explains:
‘Principally it meant developing a new mode of locomotion (from walking to swimming), a physiology to cope with a dense medium (water rather than air), new methods of detecting and catching prey, and a means of breathing efficiently at the sea surface.
‘This adaptation was achieved by changing every part of the body, particularly the head … As well as changes to the head, adaptation to an aquatic way of life brought about fundamental alterations to the rest of the body.’3"
Do fossil whales have legs?
Many claims have been made in recent times that the fossil ancestors of modern whales have been found, and that some extinct creature or another shows the transition from creatures walking on land, with legs, to today’s whales which have no legs.
Pakicetus was claimed to be a ‘walking whale’-yet the type specimen consisted only of jaw and skull fragments.
Basilosaurus has been claimed as the whale’s ancestor. However, while it did have functional hind limbs, these were far too tiny to have anything to do with walking, and evolutionists themselves have said they were probably used for grasping in reproduction.
Ambulocetus, with clear-cut hind limbs, was obviously able to walk, and is the latest fossil candidate-but it is doubtful that this imaginatively reconstructed creature had anything to do with the history of whales, as previous articles (see ‘further reading’ list above) have shown.
("The strange tale of the leg on the whale", Creation)
@@michaelg377 6 sperm whale specimen with femurs attached to their pelvis. it is true. I know Calvin programmed you to lie, so you are backing up my point. Thanks for that.
@@nathancook2852 Your chain of thought in your argument there exposes your bias - your entire story here depends on where bones are attached, *not the function of those body parts you are describing.* If any creature was ever formed in a different way, you would end up with a false conclusion because of your false assumptions on this. The fact remains that what you are calling a "femur" because of its attachment to a "pelvis" is used in whales for reproduction, not for walking - that's a huge difference in function my friend, and it does not support your mythology. *"Why, if whales originated from other tetrapods, should whales use bones that are perfectly suited for controlling their sexual organs instead of showing any vestige of usefulness for life on land?"*
Never apologize to evolutionists nor Atheists. Jesus never did, so we won't either.
Amen. We don't apologize for what we believe in.
@@troycarothers8254 apologize for what?
An apology won't be necessary, we don't care how you believe, only how you behave. 😊
@@dodget3well… I think we should care how they believe because if they don’t believe(mark 1:15, Ephesians 2:8-9, John 3:16), then they CANNOT enter heaven…so they would go to hell. They cannot earn their salvation with good works(Isaiah 64:6), just like how a criminal cannot escape jail time because he did charity work a few months ago. They would Need Jesus saving grace to pay the pail money they deserve for their sins!
@@bsan7070
Nope. Still none of your business. Just as your faith is none of my business. You can certainly give your opinion if asked, but you should respect the choices of others, if you want your choices to be respected.
Darwin was right to bemoan the lack of fossils in his day and age. Now we have many fold the number of fossils compared to his time.
If pelvic bones are necessary for whale procreation then how come basking sharks and whale sharks manage to procreate without pelvic bones?
Atavisms in the form of miniature legs do occasionally occur in whales and dolphins.
The chain of links between Pakicetus and the intermediates culminating in modern whales/dolphins do exhibit nostrils migrating towards the back of the neck in the form of blowholes in modern whales.
Just a fun point to ponder, if all the intermediates were proven to be not intermediates then those species would need to be added to an already crowded Ark.
Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just wait a long enough *time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people? With respect, much of what you said is wrong. For starters, 2 of each kind of land animal went on the ark, not necessarily sea creatures, and it was 2 of each "kind" as defined by reproductive boundaries in a biblical worldview (usually at Family/Genus level), not "species" as you suggested. Third, even those "miniature legs" you're referring to are used for reproduction - but they're not "legs" in the sense that evolutionists are attempting to use them to link whales to land animals, there's a huge jump in logic there.
Consider this question: *"Why, if whales originated from other tetrapods, should whales use bones that are perfectly suited for controlling their sexual organs instead of showing any vestige of usefulness for life on land?"* Check out "Vital Function Found for Whale 'Leg' Bones" from ICR if you want to understand the other side - blessings to you and yours.
Yeah, Calvin also lies and says we don't have any whale specimen with leg bones, We have at least 6 sperm whales and one dolphin (which took me no time at all time find and confirm) with femurs attached to the pelvis. This clowns are claiming that the experts misclassified a fin as a femur, and one delusional poster tried to claim that the femur was there to help the whale have sex. Like all whales wouldn't have femurs if they aided in reproduction. They are impossibly indoctrinated. Almost as bad as flat earthers.
@@nathancook2852 My friend, that is quite the series of *Ad-Hominem and Appeal to Ridicule logical fallacies* - science (a methodology) works in the realm of disproving things, not just propping up an atheistic origins story that fish evolve into philosophers. We observe that whales do not have "legs" in the sense that evolutionists are using the term, but those items do play an important role in reproduction. *Since you believe in science, how would you disprove this claim?*
Or is telling the atheistic-evolutionary Story about whales walking on land all that you have to offer?
@@michaelg377 Yes, you all like to use ad hominem and appeal to ridiculous fallacies. We know that.
@@nathancook2852 No, I'm just asking you a question - and calling out your logical fallacies my friend. Be reasonable. Again, science cannot "prove" anything, so you cannot use science (a methodology) to "prove" that land creatures evolved into whales - that is story telling. The biblical creation explanation for those same bones (the same evidence) in whales is that it has been discovered that they serve an important role in reproduction. Given your "leg" evolutionary version, and since 'science' can't "prove" anything - how would you falsify the alternative? *"New research turns a long-accepted evolutionary assumption on its head - finding that far from being just vestigial, whale pelvic bones play a key role in reproduction"* ("Whale Sex: It’s All In The Hips", USC Today, September 08, 2014)
*"Why, if whales originated from other tetrapods, should whales use bones that are perfectly suited for controlling their sexual organs instead of showing any vestige of usefulness for life on land?"*
Great video!
If you enjoy being lied too.
Psalm 53:1 (KJV)
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: There is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14:1 (KJV)
The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, There is none that doeth good.
The idiot says in his head these passages are effective for anyone beyond those who already believe.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God.
@@moris3532 until the Bible and your specific god can be demonstrated as fact; these verses are meaningless to me.
Why should we take your preferred holy book as fact but ignore the thousands of other ones?
@@larrycarter3765 had me going there for a moment 😉
Genesis got a passage of sisters fucking is father
Amen AIG 🙏
Rather than convincing people who understand science that they are wrong, I believe that these clips create more atheists by exposing the absurdity of YEC objections. I guess it's an attempt to stem the tide of science education and maybe genuine proselytising. Fair enough, but your risk is that informative debate will do the opposite.
Evolution is science fiction.
@@colonalklink14 Only to fools who don't know what it actually is.
@@donteatthecats0001 Nothing but theories stacked upon more theories stacked upon more theories, with zero actual evidence 😜.
Prove me wrong.
I'd say from our comment section you are absolutely incorrect, because anyone evaluating that picture in Science magazine and Gingrich declaring Pakicetus as 'perfectly intermediate' based on a few skull fragments realizes the absurd story tellin evolutionists are willing to deceive people with. 'Follow the science' is losing its luster...
@@colonalklink14
I have been studying the actual evidence of evolution for 40 nyears. I can assure you that you are wrong.
Why do I see the same 3 people arguing with every comment here? That’s really odd.
BRILLIANT CLIP!!
Putting it in caps doesn’t make it anymore convincing. Just makes you sound like a chode.
It's funny that with Calvin you always need to add "and now for the rest of the story."
I'm not sure what you're referring to specifically, but that's what we actually have to do with evolution - we are all Uncritically Indoctrinated with this modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers as young children, it's even in our nursery rhymes and stories, and very few ever get to hear about evolution's problems, its embarrassing history of radical ad-hoc readjustment, or another perspective outside of evolutionary indoctrination. For example, we were all Uncritically Indoctrinated with this lie that we are "99% similar to apes" as young children... "and now for the rest of the story,": *Did you know that the evolutionary mythology that "we are 99% similar to apes" has been debunked by modern science?*
"The higher-quality human genome assemblies have often been used to guide the final stages of nonhuman genome projects, including the order and orientation of sequence contigs and, perhaps more importantly, the annotation of genes. *This bias has effectively “humanized” other ape genome assemblies."* (Kronenberg, Z. N. et al. 2018. High-resolution comparative analysis of great ape genomes. Science. 360 (6393).
*“the percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 84.38%” and “4.06% had no alignment to the chimp assembly.”* (Richard Buggs, PhD, University of London's specialist in evolutionary genomics).
[Regarding Human-Chimp DNA similarity]: *"There is a 13.3% difference in sections of our immune systems when insertions and deletions are considered."* (Anzai, et. a., "Comparative Sequencing of Human and Chimpanzee MHC Class 1 Regions Unveils Insertions/Deletions as the Major Path to Genomic Divergence," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100, no. 13 (2003).
*"The chimpanzee genome was 12% larger than the human genome... gene copy numbers revealed a 6.4% difference"* (Jeffery Demuth, et al., "the Evolution of Mammalian Gene Families," 2006).
[Regarding Human-Chimp DNA similarity]: *"There is a 17.4% difference* in gene expression in the cerebral cortex" (Jon Cohen, "Relative Differences: *the Myth of 1%"* Science 316, no. 5833, 2007).
Calvin has become a master of lying by omission. He loves posting 40 to 50 year old papers as if they represent our latest scientific finds.
@@michaelg377 Calvin is a useless human being
@@michaelg377 There are some quite impressive AI reply-generating softwares available these days, so either AiG have been ripped off with their "Michaelg377" or it's being used by someone who doesn't know how to handle it properly. They must be pretty ashamed at the repetitious garbage it churns out, replete with incorrect use of capital letters, unnecessary heavy type and general irrelevance of its comments. Plus, of course, the unfortunate problem that it gets all its facts wrong.
@@michaelg377 For those curious in the peanut gallery, the current estimates regarding human-chimp genetic similarities is at about 96% for the whole genome, but climbs to almost 99% when you look at coding regions. The typical creationist number of ~80% comes from the shoddy work of Jeanson, whose methods would have my own genome not match 100% with _itself._ All the rest are effectively quotemines.
Thank you AIG
Thank you for revealing how unnatural this alleged "evolutionary evidence" is.
We're gonna have to wait a few million more years for our heads to grow larger, so we can understand more.
The mutations are already happening, though they are generally called tumors. The people with these tumors will eventually pass on these mutations and they will of course out compete the people without tumors until natural selection will promote these people and everyone will have tumor heads, in 3 million years.
@@douglasjacobs882 Do you really believe we will still be here in 3 million years. Mankind will destroy itself but nature will survive
The Neanderthals had bigger brains than we. So more likely our brains are becoming smaller.
@@douglasjacobs882 That's so cool. Make a YT vid about it, please!
@@asanseil5553 It is hard to find good TH's (tumor heads), for a video. If we could get designers to quit removing the tumors, and allow the natural evolution process to progress, it allow the TH's to pass on their genetic predisposition to head tumors and people could be born with the mutations. The TH's keep complaining that their heads hurt so bad they wish to die, or that they can't reproduce because they have lost all their senses, not knowing that the tumors give them advantages for survival of the fittest. WE can imagine a future where people prefer to only mate with others predisposed to brain tumors, but the designers keep interfering with that natural process. It could take millions of years for attitudes to change and promote the tumors, whereas if we just let nature take its course, everyone might be able to have the advantage of tumors within the same time period. We are impeding evolution with our intervention. It is too early to do a video, the interventionist have too much power and the TH's are too brainwashed.
I use the whale evolution in my lessons when I teach ID, I then use the question posed by Dr David Berlinski when he asked “how many engineering modifications would it take to turn a “car into a submarine”?
Whale evolution is by far the most absurd of ALL the claims of evolution.
Actually, the series of intermediate fossils can almost prove evolution by themselves
Cars don't reproduce. Your analogy is ridiculous.
That would be Berlinski's famous lie when he claimed to have sat one night and thought of 50,000 modifications for a cow to evolve into a whale. Never mind that whales didn't evolve from cows. 🙄 If Berlinski though of one change every ten seconds it would have taken him almost *six 24 hours days* to do what he claimed. 😄
@@thunderous-one
what do you teach in a class on ID?
@@bighairyviking387 my analogy is perfect, your too obtuse, or rather, haven’t evolved the minerals to comprehend the point being made.
But then, you live your life with a world view that there is no God, but demand the moral rights that come from a God you claim does not exist.
Face the facts, you’re a septic cowardly hypocrite, nothing more, though likely a whole lot less.
Scooby Do isn’t as confused.
this is what we call cherry picking, there is an endless amount of evidence to back up evolution, scientists have been wrong before and maybe this guy was but that doesn’t disprove all of evolution. please do your own research its a very interesting topic :)
It's a poorly chosen cherry for that matter, I googled for just a few minutes to find out that actually this is not considered controversional at all...
creationist and flat earthers......🙄
@@joefriday2275 All those options and you're still an Incel. 😄
Ooo. Cool fallacy.
Combining two very different world views and acting like they are equivalent.
Like: Atheists and genocide.
Isaiah 40:22 . KJV It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers, who stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in,
JOB 26:7 KJV He stretcheth out the North over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
Get up to speed on what the bible teaches about the Earth ...the Earth is a sphere hanging on nothing.
Creationists exist so Scientologists have someone to laugh at.
Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just wait a long enough *time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people by chance? Let me ask you this... when all the right chemicals just happened to fizz into all the necessary proteins required for life (already an atheistic miracle), and then programmed themselves with mass quantities of ordered, sequenced, encoded instructions in its DNA (information from non-information without an intelligent source), and then into all the necessary cell components inside of a cell enclosure by chance chemical reactions... *how did it overcome the problem of hydrolysis which inhibits protein formation in water?*
Here are a few examples of what scientists who actually work with this say about it:
*"we've not made the RNA in a prebiotically relevant manner. It hydrolyzes too rapidly."* (Professor Jack Szostak, Chicago, 2021)
[Regarding Abiogenesis] *"Chemistry is actually hard to get to work. The molecules precipitate. The molecules hydrolyze. The molecules decompose. And so it's very much a constraint that you have to deal with.. it's one g-d problem after another."* (Steve Benner, former Harvard Professor, Director of Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution, 2019)
"Even a single protein could not arrive at its native structure in biological real time because conformational space is far too vast": ~10^95 possible conformations for a chain of 100 residues, so that *"even a small protein that initiated folding by random search at the time of the big bang would still be thrashing about today."* (Peter Tompa and George D. Rose, "The Levinthal Paradox of the Interactome," Protein Science 20 (2011): 2074.)
Minimum requirements for a simpler cell:
*"The minimal gene set* included genes for: DNA replication, repair, restriction, and modification; a basic transcription machinery; aminoacyl-tRNA synthesis; tRNA maturation and modification; ribosomal proteins; ribosome function, maturation, and modification; translation factors; RNA degradation; protein processing, folding, and secretion; cellular division; transport; energetic and intermediary metabolism (glycosis, proton motive force generation, pentose phosphate pathway, lipid metabolism, and biosynthesis of nucleotides and cofactors)." (Joana C. Xavier, Kiran Raosaheb Pahl, Isabel Rocha, *"Systems Biology Perspectives on Minimal and Simpler Cells,"* Microbiol Mol Biol Rev, 2014 Sep 76(3): 487-509).
@@michaelg377 Still working to make your daily quota of creationist C&Ped lies I see.
So your religion is scientology? Makes sense. About as dumb as macroevolution
@@SuperCilis Say high to sky daddy for me. Oh, wait, you can't. You have no idea if he is real or not, no idea if anything in that book is inspired or not, no idea how many times that book has changed, although we do know that Mark 16 varies by up to 12 verse in different versions and that the original gospels contradict each other, but sure, go ahead and cast that stone....
@@nathancook2852 ah the strawan appears. Evolution has been debunked more often than the big bang, but go ahead and worship your religion. I won't stop you
isnt lying a sin in your religion?
it does not seem you believe that
Notification: You've been using the wrong interpretations. The proper understanding that biblical creation is of spiritual nature, not material nature has been discovered. Biblical creation is metaphors for psychological factors not material and is the creation of Adam. 34
@oldseer7610 Can you explain why the law, Jesus and the disciples all spoke of it in actual terms and not as metaphor?
great work. as usual.
Lies, distortions, deceptions, and omission impress you? How odd.
@@saintmalaclypse3217 You claim to be wise, you know better then God... but Romans 1:22 says: " Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools."
@@Msfeathers7 I made no such claim, nor did i say anything close to that.
If you read just two sentences from me and got them entirely wrong, I'm betting you do the same when you read your bible - invent what you want it to say, instead of following what it actually says.
@@saintmalaclypse3217 Perhaps you should say who you are saying is making up these "Lies, distortions, deceptions, and omission..."
@@Msfeathers7 I thought I made it clear. The OP praised Cliff's video, and I responded. About Cliff.
Cliff's WHOLE arsenal is to take a piece of science, distort it or misrepresent it, then "argue" against it, and preach to his followers who have ZERO science background and believe every word he says.
He's a snake-oil salesman for Jesus. His WHOLE schtick relies on Christians refusing to educate themselves, and who are willing to listen to just HIS side of the story, even though he pretends to present both sides.
The whale drawings are not used as evidence; the fossils are. Are you suggesting the fossils don't exist?
Fossils exist. Choosing to classify a fossil as an earlier or later ancestor in a made up classification system is the problem. For decades it was thought there was a species of miniature T-Rex called Microtyrannus, now we know they are just juveniles. Paleontologists get things wrong.. get this… ALL THE TIME! You can’t just look at a skeleton and decide it was the ancient ancestor of a modern animal. BeCaUsE tHe bOneS lOok ThE sAmE. It’s all a just confirmation bias and too much trust in the intellect and reason of mankind.
Well duh the fossils were planted by Satan to deceive us to lure us away from god /s
I believe you know what he means, the drawings are “guesses” but ARE taken by many as actual fossils that have been found. (Which is a lie) many have not been found there is a huge gap between different animals “evolving” from or into others.
@@halodude4481
Of course all of those are fossils that have been found. It wouldn't be named if it wasn't an existing fossil. Scientists aren't dishonest.
It’s only a theory, yet is proponents take it as golden truth…
Just like gravity, electromagnetism, thermodynamics, etc.
Evolution is both a well established scientific fact and a scientific theory which explains the fact.
@@kdaviper just because one theory is correct doesn't make them all correct. What a horrible argument.
@@donteatthecats0001Fact? What is the proof that the creature in the video is in fact, a land whale. The story in the text books say it is a land whale but there is no evidence. There is no DNA, there further transitional samples. Did it in fact go from land whale to sea whale in one mutation?
@@douglasjacobs882 Science doesn't do proof. Science supplies positive supporting evidence. The evidence comes from the comparative anatomy of the pakicetus fossils, the fossils of other modern whale ancestors in the geochronology record, and the morphologies of extant whales. There is also considerable genetic evidence for the terrestrial origin of whales in the genomes of extant cetaceans. All the evidence taken as a consilient whole establishes pakicetus as the ancestor of modern whales.
The best argument for evolution is methodological naturalism. There is no historical standard for evaluating the supernatural so therefore we have to default to finding natural explanations for things. Finding natural explanations also has practical utility. With supernatural explanations there is inherently no "how" answer.
Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and that if you just wait a long enough *Time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people by chance? The irony is that even the atheistic-naturalist relies on unavoidable supernatural phenomena, they just don't realize it. Let me ask you this... the 1st law of thermodynamics doesn't allow energy to "naturally" come from nothing. The 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy) says that energy is always being converted into a less usable form, and it doesn't allow energy to remain usable forever, because in the infinite past it would have been infinitely used up by now (Heat Death). *So if our universe can't "naturally" have a beginning from nothing, and it can't have just always been here (otherwise all of our energy would be infinitely used up), how do you naturally explain the beginning of our universe?*
Have you ever wondered why Atheistic-Naturalists have to invoke such wild and sci-fi sounding theories to sustain their "natural" (atheistic) beliefs on our origins? *Infinite* alternate universes, an *eternal self-existent* singularity, alternate unobservable metaphysical laws of nature, *pre-existent* phenomena... they have to attribute supernatural qualities of God to "nature" in order to "naturally" explain our origins. This is the Atheist's Natural-Supernatural (!) worldview. It's an internally inconsistent and self-refuting belief system... the only way for nature to create itself is if nature is *pre-existent - like God.*
*"The evidence of God... has been clearly seen since the beginning in all that has been created, so they will have no excuse"* (Romans 1:20)
@@michaelg377 Boring liar for Jesus troll is *very* boring. 🥱
I’ve been making this argument in debates with atheists for at least 10 years now. Their comeback is usually something like 'your incredulousness does not prove God did it. My reply is usually ' I’d rather be incredulous than to be credulous and believe anything someone told me, And fall for the worst fallacy of all, The argument from authority'.. 'Be more skeptical' I tell them.
The theory of evolution is just a narrative that fits some of the fossil record, But it requires you to believe the absurd.
What do yo think is so absurd about evolution? Scientists do not believe absurd things. They aren't stupid.
@@jockyoung4491some of them do... Take sal Cordova for example😂
@jockyoung Scientists are people too. If the alternative to evolution is God, then they have no choice but to believe in evolution because they won't accept God as an option.
What evidence would you need to believe that God created everything?
@@jockyoung4491Nothing about the claim that a small land dwelling mammal the size of a large dog 'evolved' into a whale strikes you as absurd? You sir will believe anything an authority tells you. You are credulous, something you hypocritically accuse theists of. To my sorrow, many Christians are guilty of the same thing, believing something solely on the word of an authority.
If you can’t understand some phenomenon yourself, don’t claim it as fact until you can.
@@OtterFlys Debates with atheist for 10 years. Have you given them any evidence to back up your claims. You have the burden of proof. All Christians have to do is to give evidence,if you had it there wouldn’t be any atheist
How does "they've not finished finding everything yet" = "so it must be false!!" I'm an avid daily bible reader. You telling me dinosaurs were on the ark in your last video has zero bible evidence. Zero. So where do you get off lecturing others on what level of proof THEY need to have?? Your bar of proof seems to be "if I can think it up, then it must be possible". If anyone reads the garden of eden story as a documentary then I have to assume they've already decided their view before reading it.... Because a tree of life with a fruit giving immortality means it's not in God's hands. You believe a fruit gave Adam and eve immortality and stopping eating it stopped their immortality? The tree has to be a metaphor or else you have to change how God works. Same for a tree of "knowledge". Think through every part of the Adam and eve story and they all have to be metaphors or else god is not god. They are beautiful, useful, helpful, metaphors... But still metaphors. Parables. Something the Bible is absolutely packed with!! But no.... Not for the passages you have decided on apparently ....
Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers? No my friend, Genesis is plainly written in a genre called Hebrew Historical Narrative - it is not written as allegory or metaphor, it's written as actual history including plain unembellished language, lists of kings, battles, and genealogies, the unique wayiqtol form which is characteristic of this genre, and even cited resources like the book referenced in Genesis 5:1 - to attempt to allegorize the "Adam and Eve story" is to misinterpret an entire genre and several books of literature that the author clearly conveyed as history. *All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, without evolution, except as Naturalistic evolution is constantly radically ad-hoc rewriting itself every time it runs into a new problem (because it simply doesn't match reality), a biblical worldview explains all the same evidences - no rewrite required.*
@@michaelg377 its literal? Wow. So you believe a "fruit" gives people immortality? Not god? So there's a cherubim angel guy and a hovering sword (on fire for some reason) currently guarding the tree that gives people immortality in the garden of eden? That's literal?? Boy are they going to be annoyed when the world ends and they find out they've been guarding the tree for 6000 yrs for no reason. Because Eden is invisible. We can't find it. They've guarded a tree no one can find for 6000 yrs. 😬Awkward... So when we die then, God doesn't give us immortality....you believe he lets us back into the garden of eden and we all eat the fruit? How the heck do we go to the garden to eat the fruit to get immortality if we're dead though? Doesn't god have to bring us back to life first, to then take us to eden to eat this immortality fruit? I don't get what you can possibly believe if you think Genesis is literal. Haven't even got to a fruit that gives you knowledge .... So god doesn't give people that either? None of that is a metaphor to you? It's magic fruits that give everything to humans? Not god? He's just a gardener and decides if we have access to the fruit trees or not??
@@picklesadventures With respect, you have some very basic misconceptions about the biblical worldview my friend. No, Genesis is a Historical Narrative - it is history, a polemical narrative, and is not allegory - you're taking it a step further with your "literalist" demands my friend. In the biblical worldview God created human beings already immortal (ie. death was not in the world until sin came, c.f. Romans 5:12), magical "fruit" had nothing to do with it - and when Adam and Eve used their God-given free will to rebel against God by disobeying the one rule that He gave them, they were separated from God - which is what biblical "death" really is, and since then death has been in the world. Eden, the "tree" you're demanding, the angel God posted outside of Eden... *did you know that was all pre-flood...?* Food for thought my friend.
*Why such incredulity against what God said He did?* You're a theistic evolutionist, who denies Jesus' words (Matthew 19:4), allegorizes a Historical Narrative genre of literature in God's Word to which Jesus often refers (Genesis 1-3), you undermine the biblical gospel specifically with death being the product of evolution for no reason rather than result of sin (Romans 5:12), and you're misrepresenting basic facts of the biblical account of creation - referring to magical fruit as if that's the mechanism that caused them to have eternal life (which they already had... demonstrating you don't understand what Scripture says). *As a Christian, is Jesus Christ your Lord and Savior - meaning the ruler over your life, your God, your Creator, and the Savior of your soul?*
Here's why God used this kind of imagery, plainly stated:
*"But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; He chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong"* (1 Corinthians 1:27)
*"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned."* (1 Corinthians 2:14)
Here are some relevant verses that challenge your position, I hope you will re-read the actual accounts yourself my friend:
"After he drove the man out, *he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden* cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life."
...and this was pre-flood, before God destroyed nearly all life on earth, laid down the entire fossil record in the global flood, etc. so it's ridiculous to expect that same Eden to still exist today.
@@michaelg377 😂😂😂 You just made up your own things and answered them. The flood doesn't negate my question. You didn't even attempt to answer the one basic question I asked. "it's not an allegory, it's not literal, it's a Hebrew narrative..." - so... That means you get to pick which bits you...
Ach, you know what, forget it. Any bit that doesn't fit, youll invent a reason why, tell yourself it's true, or just pretend there's not a problem and talk about something else.... Like you just did with my example. 🤦🤦🤦🤦
@@michaelg377 it's "utterly ridiculous" to imagine god could protect the garden of eden during a flood? Sorry. I didn't realise god was that powerless! You seem really strongly convinced that would be impossible for your god? But you see the problem... I dont believe the garden of eden was there at all so I dont need to argue anything about the flood. You're arguing a point I didn't make because you can't answer my actual question. 😂🤦😂🤦😂🤦 YOU assume what the flood can do and where everything is and when it all happened. Show me the Bible verse where it says eden was washed away or that all the fossils were laid down in the flood or anythung... These are all YOUR beliefs. Your wild guesses. You pretending it's got anything to do with scripture. You're not even quoting the correct..... Nevermind. Go tell someone else the beliefs you've invented for yourself.....
The strongest objection is actually Biblical cosmology. The truth
God ,where,when,how nonsense.
No such thing as ''biblical cosmology''.
Yet you can't show it to be true in any scientific way. All you can do is make religious declarations and deny real science.
Bronze-age myths, nothing more.
Animals do evolve, they change over time. How evolution ties in with the creation of life is a theory. Which means a rational speculation.
Evolution is both an empirically observed fact and a scientific theory which explains the fact.
@@sciencerules2825 agree
Change does not equal evolution. Creationists know animals change, they just only change within limits of their own kind.
@@calvinsmith7575 Change is evolution, you just believe that it is restricted evolution.
Trying to equate evolution with atheism does a disservice to both science and Christianity. It also doesn't make any sense.
Actually, the fact that 'evolution' is the only way atheists have to explain our origins without God (!!!) aside, "evolution" historically has a demonstrable atheistic motive. Charles Lyell openly sought to 'separate science from Moses' with his theory of old-earth geology, and Darwin built upon Lyell's work and was heavily influenced by him to the point where he said "it's as if my thoughts came out of Lyell's brain." In other words, evolution is the 2nd step doctrine in the original effort to "separate science from Moses." Theistic evolutionists are attempting to combine one worldview that seeks to "separate science from Moses" (evolution) with "Moses" (Christianity) - that's what doesn't make sense, and they have to compromise aspects of both worldviews in the process.
Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just wait a long enough *time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people by chance?
@@michaelg377nobody cares about a god existing what they care about is immortality
@@michaelg377
I'm sure most atheists don't know enough science to have an opinion on the matter. Most Christians don't either, but they still have an opinion because they think their faith demands it. People have to "compromise" their faith with the real world. If not, then they are going to lose people who go out and actually look at the real world
@@LeonardoPisano-sn2lp
True, but it's hard to have one without the other.
@@michaelg377
I can assure you that NOBODY accepts the science of evolution just because they reject God. If somebody didn't want to believe in God, then they would be atheist. That has nothing to do with science. Besides, accepting evolution does NOT reject God. Millions of Christians accept the science of evolution.
This misinformation and ignorance on the subject is incredible!! The lengths your going to to trick people into believing a fictional story book!!!
I don't usually leave comments, but this video is highly disingenuous. You conveniently left out that Pakicetus' skull was found with characteristics within the inner ear (the auditory bulla being formed from the ectotympanic bone to be exact), a feature only found in modern day cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises). It only takes two minutes of research to learn that, but instead the whole video is spent talking about how "they just decided it was a whale without any evidence". As a Christian I find this sort of thing very disrespectful to the legitimate work done by scientists and only continues to push people away from religion and God's word. Do better
Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers? What you're suggesting here is a common evolutionist logical fallacy that says "A looks like B, therefore A and B are related," when at best in reality you're just looking at two things that were *designed* with some similarities. And actually, there is nothing clearly linking the dog-like Pakicetus with Whales in their ears either - Pakicetus has the "auditory mechanism" of a land animal with no evidence it could hear directly underwater or of vascularization of the middle ear to maintain pressure when diving. I think it's unfair for you to accuse your fellow Christians of "disrespect" and being "disingenuous," as your accusation itself is both - and is in defense of an ideology (evolution) that actually seeks to explain our creation without our Creator by "separating science from Moses" (Lyell - Darwin).
Here is an excerpt from an ICR article related to this that I hope you will find of interest:
"This fossil material was found in fluvial red sediments, or river-produced deposits colored by material leached from iron ores. This formation is thus a terrestrial or continental deposit. The fossil remains associated with Pakicetus are dominated by land mammals. Non-mammalian remains include other terrestrial remains such as snails, fishes (particularly catfish), turtles, and crocodiles. This evidence indicates a fluvial and continental, rather than a marine environment, as would be expected for a whale or whale-like creature. It is highly significant that the auditory mechanism of Pakicetus was that of a land mammal, rather than that of a whale, since there is no evidence that it could hear directly under water, nor is there any evidence of vascularization of the middle ear to maintain pressure during diving. The authors stated that the teeth resemble those of the mesonychids, which possibly fed on carrion, mollusks, or tough vegetable matter. On the basis of this evidence, the idea was challenged that Pakicetus was anything other than a land mammal, with no relationship to marine mammals." ("When is a Whale a Whale?," ICR)
@@michaelg377 what you're saying is a common young earth creationist view of oversimplifying the idea of evolution in order to make it sound more ridiculous. No sane evolutionist has ever said a fish became a philosopher, because that never happened. Rather, it was very small and gradual changes, such as a change in the adaptations of the fin bones which made it possible for an organism to crawl onto land in the case of fish. That would eventually lead to full terrestrial capabilities which from there would eventually lead to us.
You also can't say that "A looks like B, therefore A and B are related". It's once again a disingenuous oversimplification to make things seem more ridiculous. In the case of Pakicetus, the organization of the inner ear bones are only seen in modern day cetaceans, nowhere else. Therefore it makes sense that Pakicetus was connected to cetaceans in some way, no matter how distant.
There are many more examples of this that I could name, from some dinosaurs sharing pubic bone characteristics of birds, where once again you see a gradual change until it practically perfectly represents that of a bird. And there's many more examples of relations I can give.
As for pulling people away from the creator, I don't like that claim at all. I believe it's a much more beautiful idea to be able to study our modern world and see the evidence for what existed before us, in order to greater appreciate God's creation. This is the biggest problem with the religion vs atheism argument, both sides think each are completely incompatible, but that couldn't be further from the truth. Is it not much more of an incredible thought that God engineered everything in a way that over millions of years, organisms would change and evolve, until they become the humans which would go on to inherit the Earth? Personally I find that much more fascinating than "on this day all living things are snapped into existence"
@@jackmorgan1568 What do you mean, do you not believe that humans have fish ancestry?
*"Human Ears Evolved from Ancient Fish Gills"* (Bjorn Carey, Live Science, 2006)
*"We are fish"* (P.Z. Myers, PhD, Associate Professor of Biology, University of Minnesota Morris)
*"That’s because we, and in fact all tetrapods (four-limbed vertebrates, many of which live on land), share a more recent common ancestor with the coelacanth and lungfish than we do with ray-finned fishes."* (evolution berkeley edu)
It's not that the things I pointed out are wrong at all, it's that the evolutionist leans on lots of little steps in between and sciency sounding terminology to obfuscate the mythological and unscientific nature of your belief system - and it also attempts to mask the unscientific efforts to constantly radically ad-hoc rewrite the story of evolution rather than falsifying it as scientific theories should be falsifiable. What you find 'fascinating' has nothing to do with truth my friend - *All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12,* and if you understand science then you understand the implications of a competing explanation.
Let me ask you this... Charles Darwin met the gold standard of science (a methodology) by giving a testable hypothesis for his theory: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex *organ* existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down..." *How did male and female evolve?* Before you answer, consider that these are two separate, yet interdependent, precision tuned sets of organs that all have to be working just right or reproduction, life, and evolution fail.
For example:
The fallopian tubes are lined with millions of these little hairs that all wave the same direction, and their purpose is to guide the egg from the ovaries down into the uterus. If they stood still, laid flat, waved the wrong direction, or didn't exist - the egg would either die or it would implant in the fallopian tube thus killing the mother. Some of these are known medical conditions that prevent pregnancy - "Evolution" had to get these millions of hairs just right.... "by numerous, successive, slight modifications."
*Simultaneously* the sperm has a whip like rotor, a motor encasing, a bushing like material, a nutrient transfer system, and several other components that all have to be working *just right* or the sperm can't find the egg. Reproduction and life fails. "Evolution" had to get the interdependent parts of the sperm "just right" ... "by numerous, successive, slight modifications."
*Then* you have the placenta which does everything for the baby including keeping the mother's and baby's blood separate, the expanding and contracting uterus and cervix, the mechanism which only allows one sperm into the egg, and numerous other components that all had to be *designed* just right, or reproduction and life fails. "Evolution" had to *SIMULTANEOUSLY* get all of these just right "by numerous, successive, slight modifications."
Which gender evolved first, and how did it reproduce while the other hadn't evolved yet? And going backwards in time, which of these critical organs do you gradually reduce first "by numerous, successive, slight modifications" without causing reproduction to fail?
*"“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’"* (Matthew 19:4). Such *specified complexity* looks like the product of an Intelligent engineering mind, not the result of chance fizzing chemicals in a puddle. Puddles don't turn themselves into people no matter how much *time* you add to the mix.
@@michaelg377 Nope not at all, it's just a lot more complicated than "fish becomes human". Remember, the first fish come up around 500 million years ago in the Late Cambrian period, give or take, and proper mammals don't come around until just under 250 million years ago in the Triassic period. It was only a few million years ago that hominids started appearing. So no, fish didn't become humans, they became amphibians which became mammals which became the specific branch of hominids that led to us, along with many small changes in between. A lot of the specifics of this journey have even been discovered and documented.
You might be familiar with an animal known as Tiktaalik. Discovered in the early 2000's and living about 375 million years ago, it was hailed as a missing link in evolution from aquatic fish to terrestrial tetrapods. Why is this? Its leg bones were found to be sturdier than anything that came before it, closely resembling the morphology of land animals. I highly suggest you look into Tiktaalik and the other animals that came before and after it in the lineage. Even if you don't believe it, it's quite fascinating to read.
Now, as for your mentions of the incredible intricacies such as fallopian tubes and placenta, I believe they only prove the existence of a creator beyond just the physical plane that we can observe. If God could snap everything into existence as written in Genesis, I don't think it's much of a stretch that He engineered the evolutionary processes that we observe today. Picture this, a world teeming with strange creatures, over hundreds of millions of years, taking on different forms through the guidance of God, until they begin to resemble what we know today. Eventually, humanity itself arises, and goes on to inherit the Earth as God promised. I believe this argument of the intricacies of nature would be better suited to a discussion relating to the existence of a creator as a whole, as opposed to the inner workings of said creator, which we both believe in.
Lastly, it's important to note, I don't have the answer to everything, neither do scientists. Science is about finding the answers, and new discoveries are made every day that prove or disprove once firmly held beliefs. Imo it's the beauty of it!
@@jackmorgan1568 Well your beliefs contradict those evolutionists above my friend, you're just distancing yourself from an obvious staple doctrine of evolution by saying "it's more complicated" - fish evolve into philosophers in your worldview no matter how many steps in between you use to obfuscate that mythology. Now for your comments on male and female evolution and God - sure, God could have done it a million different ways, but He also told us how He did it: *"Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’"* (Matthew 19:4) - not after billions of years of evolution, but "at the beginning" - *the question is, as a Christian, do you agree with Jesus, or do you disagree with Him?*
Per Darwin, until you can answer that question, evolution is "absolutely break[ing] down..." - this is only a problem for evolution, not for a biblical worldview.
Science is a naturalistic *methodology* that is wonderful for measuring and interacting with natural phenomena - what you're talking about is an *Ideology* when you say things like "Science is about finding the answers, and new discoveries are made every day that prove or disprove once firmly held beliefs," and that Ideology (Naturalism) you are following assumes a priori that the "natural" is all that exists. What you are doing is attempting to combine the Lyellian-Darwinian worldview that seeks to "separate science from Moses" (Evolution) with "Moses" (Christianity) - it's an internally inconsistent worldview and you have to compromise aspects of both in order to sustain your beliefs my friend.
I am generally familiar with the Tiktaalik story pushed by evolutionists, but you are correct - I disagree because in reality the Tiktaalik shows no evidence of evolution, it's just a unique creature - it's the evolutionist's zeal to find evidence for evolution that its similarity to other creatures/features *becomes* evidence for evolution. Appeals to "morphology" to prove evolution is just a logical fallacy that says "A looks like B, therefore A and B must be related" and proceeds to fill the gaps with storytelling - when in reality A and B may just look similar because they have the same Creator - evolution not required. It's an example of evolutionist confirmation bias. The tiktaalik is just a unique creature, and it can be explained by Genesis 1-12 just the same, evolution not required. Here is an excerpt that may help explain it:
"The limbs of tetrapods share similar characteristic features which meet the special demands of walking on land. In addition to a distinctive suite of bones in the limbs proper, there are characteristic bones in the ankle (or wrist) and in the digits (fingers and toes).
In order to support the weight of the body on land, and permit walking, the most proximal bones of the limbs must be securely attached to the rest of the body. The hind limbs in particular have a robust pelvic girdle securely attached to the vertebral column. *This differs radically from that of any fish including Tiktaalik. Essentially all fish (including Tiktaalik) have small pelvic fins relative to their pectoral fins.* The legs of tetrapods are just the opposite: the hind limbs attached to the pelvic girdle are almost always more robust than the fore limbs attached to the pectoral girdle.
*No fish (including Tiktaalik) has true finger or toe bones.*
It is significant that the “earliest” true tetrapods recognized by evolutionists (such as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega) have all of the distinguishing features of tetrapod limbs (and their attachment bones) and were clearly capable of walking and breathing on land. The structural differences between the tetrapod leg and the fish fin is easily understood when we consider that the fish has no need to support its weight in water where it is essentially weightless.
Finally, no fish (including Tiktaalik) has true finger or toe bones. Instead, *fish have slender bony fin rays, which even evolutionists concede are not homologous or related in any way to digits.* While fin rays are ideal for swimming in water, they are unsuited to bear weight on land and thus permit only a slithering and belly-dragging mode of locomotion on land (in certain living species) that can be described as “walking” in only the most trivial sense of the word."
("Tiktaalik and the Fishy Story of Walking Fish," Answers in Genesis)
All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, except as atheistic evolution is Constantly radically ad-hoc rewriting itself every time it runs into new problematic evidence (it has to be rewritten because it simply doesn't match reality), the same evidence can be explained by a biblical worldview - no rewrite required.
Thanks for this valuable explanation.
By the logic of evolution shouldn't it be that the apes evolved from humans. I mean - apes have by far more properties for survival than I do. In comparison a human is a degraded ape, a chihuahua of apes - no strength, no fur, no agility. If it is survival of the fittest - I don't stand a chance compared to apes.
We have lost our survival skills because we don't usually need them. But there is no "should" in evolution. There is just what happened.
Humans currently are still apes. You can never evolve out of a clade of beings. Humans have a selection pressure that focuses on our brain’s strength and social community rather than physical strength. Our cunningness and collectiveness is what elevated our specific species of apes to dominate the world.
If apes decided to annihilate humans, it wouldn't go well for the apes.
If humans decided to annihilate apes, it still wouldn't go well for the apes.
Can you spot the evolutionary advantage we've been given?
I'll give you a hint: use your head.
By using our brains, we have given ourselves VASTLY greater skills for survival. God didn't invent tools for us - we did, with the help of our evolved brain.
Humans are apes. Survival of the fittest just refers to the environment and alot of other factors. It doesnt mean a gladiatorial contest.
Did any of them went to the moon or make fire or built a Kalashnikov , if a chihuahua got a know how to shot a desert eagle e could kill all Pitbull's, not so weak now
So I am confused😶Did the land mamals evolve into whales at the same time the fish evolved into land mamals? 🤔🤔
Exactly. 👍
Do you really want to know or are you just mocking? Because science can answer those questions if you are interested.
@@jockyoung4491 Are you referring to the same 'science' that's unable to say what a woman is?...or what the 'science' that claims what the weather will be in a hundred years from now, yet unable to accurately forecast it beyond a month from from today?
Is that the deity of 'science' we're supposed to submit our rational thinking to?
No. Fish evolved into land animals LOOOOOONGGGGG before the first mammal ever existed.
@@mrgone658
No. The science that understands that climate and weather are two different things. And the gender thing is not a science issue; it's a freedom issue.
Find your evidence and prove evolution to be wrong, I’m happy for you to do that all day long. But once your done you still have the burden of proving it was god. Disproving evolution does not prove gods existence. Let me repeat that, Disproving evolution does not prove gods existence.
Creationists don't like to think ...
Well, without evolution, then how else were you created? Because this isn't just proving evolution to be wrong - by demonstrating that each creature was made according to its kind, that information doesn't create itself from non-information without an intelligent source, evidence of complex precision-tuned engineering in creation... that's evidence for a Creator, an Engineer: God. *"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."* (Romans 1:20) You had to come from somewhere, and if the atheistic 'we're just chemical reactions' version of our origins is ruled out... what else is there?
@@michaelg377 created is a very poor word to use. Saying life was created carries a burden of proof. No one can support creationism, it's not at all factual.
Kind doesn't mean anything... The word you're looking for is species...
You have no clue how science works, you should save yourself the humiliation
@@michaelg377 the only things you can say were created are things made by us animals.
You can't even support your claims.
@@michaelg377 you don't know therefore god... Typical theist unable to use their brain
Thank you! Appreciate this very informative clip.
You mean lies. Do you all even try to fact check this grifter?
Story telling? 😅 says the folks who peddle a book full of actual stories as if they were truth.
All about a people group known as Israel even to this day.
Yes, "science" books are indeed full of misinterpretations and outright lies. Not sure why people put so much faith in science. Weird.
Jesus saves
You are right in that.
Whether Jesus existed and rose from the dead or not is totally irrelevant to biological evolution or an old earth. Evolution is one of the most tested theoies in science, Jesus's resurrection is neither provable or totally unprovable, as far as I am concerned it's a story that I do not personally believe.
Jesus saves from what ?
@@anthonycrumb5753 how evolution is tested experimentally? I mean not physiologically. Can I come to follow the tests?
@@pekde You can, but you'll have to get very, very old to see the results...an essential element of evolution is time, measured in millions of years...
@@tmjcbs well if you have not follow the tests, how do you know that the system has worked at all?
How do you know what has caused all The living things? Why to stick only in one theory?
There is far more evidence of evolution than your god.
Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just wait a long enough *time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people by chance...? All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, without evolution, which says a lot about the "evidence" evolutionists think they have...
Let me ask you this... when all the right chemicals just happened to fizz into all the necessary proteins required for life (already an atheistic miracle), and then programmed themselves with mass quantities of ordered, sequenced, encoded instructions in its DNA (information from non-information without an intelligent source), and then into all the necessary cell components inside of a cell enclosure by chance chemical reactions... *how did it overcome the problem of hydrolysis which inhibits protein formation in water?*
Here are a few examples of what scientists who actually work with this say about it:
*"we've not made the RNA in a prebiotically relevant manner. It hydrolyzes too rapidly."* (Professor Jack Szostak, Chicago, 2021)
[Regarding Abiogenesis] *"Chemistry is actually hard to get to work. The molecules precipitate. The molecules hydrolyze. The molecules decompose. And so it's very much a constraint that you have to deal with.. it's one g-d problem after another."* (Steve Benner, former Harvard Professor, Director of Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution, 2019)
"Even a single protein could not arrive at its native structure in biological real time because conformational space is far too vast": ~10^95 possible conformations for a chain of 100 residues, so that *"even a small protein that initiated folding by random search at the time of the big bang would still be thrashing about today."* (Peter Tompa and George D. Rose, "The Levinthal Paradox of the Interactome," Protein Science 20 (2011): 2074.)
Minimum requirements for a simpler cell:
*"The minimal gene set* included genes for: DNA replication, repair, restriction, and modification; a basic transcription machinery; aminoacyl-tRNA synthesis; tRNA maturation and modification; ribosomal proteins; ribosome function, maturation, and modification; translation factors; RNA degradation; protein processing, folding, and secretion; cellular division; transport; energetic and intermediary metabolism (glycosis, proton motive force generation, pentose phosphate pathway, lipid metabolism, and biosynthesis of nucleotides and cofactors)." (Joana C. Xavier, Kiran Raosaheb Pahl, Isabel Rocha, *"Systems Biology Perspectives on Minimal and Simpler Cells,"* Microbiol Mol Biol Rev, 2014 Sep 76(3): 487-509).
@@joefriday2275keep lying Joe Joe
@@michaelg377there’s the copy paste pure blatant dishonesty and disrespect Michael!!! Still showing the world why you don’t deserve any respect.
@@joefriday2275 I could do a google search and post a bunch of links, but you can do that as well. Perhaps you should open your mind and read one of the thousands of textbooks on evolutionary biology that explain how it works and what evidence supports the theory (fossil record, differences in isolated species, etc.), instead of an ancient book with science based on the thoughts of Aristotle, an ancient Greek philosopher who got just about everything wrong. Evidence based science is always willing to improve when new evidence is presented and tested; do you have any evidence that there are any errors in evolutionary theory? If you do, you should present it and prove to the world that you are a brilliant scholar.
@@vernbrown9504 Science is a methodology, what you're talking about is an Ideology - that's not 'science,' that's something else. All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, without evolution - and if you understand "science" then you understand the implications of a competing explanation.
*Scientific Theories are supposed to be Falsifiable, Religions are Not: Given its extensive history of radically ad-hoc readjusting itself every time it runs into problematic evidence, what would it take to "Falsify" the Theory of Evolution today?*
In 1982 a federal court ruled that Creation can't be taught in schools because "it is not falsifiable." Evolution has a long history of radically rewriting itself as it runs into more and more problems - what would it take to "falsify" Naturalistic Evolution? Over 500 Living Fossils? Debunked "Junk" DNA? Finding a 70M+ year extinct *evolutionary transitional form alive, unevolved, with no evidence of it ever evolving?* Discovering that many "vestigial" (leftover) organs actually have a normal function, like the appendix? Finding "millions of years" old creatures with no signs of evolution? Fully developed vertebrate creatures in the Cambrian explosion? An Ankylosaurus fossil found where it's not supposed to be buried among sea creatures? Whale fossils deep inland in the United States? Trilobites found appearing suddenly and fully developed with complex eyes in the Cambrian - and in every fossil layer indicating they were buried rapidly? Maybe measurably young tissues in dinosaur fossils that look similar to 4000 year old mummies or the Tyrolean Ice Man? Early jawed placoderm fossils showing fully developed complex jaws - causing evolutionists to claim that they must have evolved, de-evolved, and then re-evolved those jaws to maintain their story of shark evolution? *What if scientists admitted that Human-Ape DNA is down from 99% "similar" to only 84% "similar" and admitted their bias in "humanizing" the ape genome?*
...or should we just reinterpret all of these problematic evidences to keep the belief in Atheistic/Naturalistic evolution alive, and why? We are all *uncritically indoctrinated* into this Atheistic-Naturalist religion of evolution in our public education system today... Should Evolution be held to the same standard as Creation?
All of the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, and if you understand "science" then you understand the implications of a competing explanation.
*"The evidence of God... has been clearly seen since the beginning in all that has been created, so they will have no excuse"* (Romans 1:20)
Because the book of fairy tales and story telling should be our only source of information. Speculation and asking questions is science.
Very informative video, however, you may want to reconsider saying circumstantial evidence is of little importance, I think Christian Apologist J Warner Wallace would disagree with you since he build his entire case for Christianity purly on circumstantial evidence. 😂
Nonetheless great video that I will be sending to my atheist friends and family.
Wrong. No wicked one af all will understand.
The whale is a perfect example of evolution. A land animal gradually evolving to return to live in water. Whales are mammals no question.
Actually their "biggest problem" is the LAKE OF FIRE:" ALL UNBELIEVERS SHALL have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone which is the second death" - Revelation 21:8
The lake of fire symbolizes eternal destruction, not eternal suffering.
"For the living know that they will die,
but the dead know nothing;
they have no further reward,
and even their name is forgotten.
6 Their love, their hate
and their jealousy have long since vanished;
never again will they have a part
in anything that happens under the sun." (Ecclesiastes 9:5 and 6)
@@s.unosson Eternal destruction was described clearly by Jesus in the Gospels. He spoke of hell more than heaven. Hell is also described as a place created for the Devil and his angels.
@@wesleydahar7797 Jesus spoke of the death as, well, "death, sheol in Hebrew, hell is not a biblical word, it is a wrong translation. He spoke also of Gehenna or Ge-Hinnom, a valley outside Jerusalem where garbage was thrown and burned, that has been translated as "hell fire".
@@s.unosson You're taking one interpretation and applying it in preference to hundreds of others. Why would you try and deceive yourself and others into thinking that hell isn't real? You need to give the "correct" interpretation of EVERY passage that speaks of hell before you try to take one out of context to make your argument.
@@wesleydahar7797 How do you explain that a loving God has created the hell and punishes persons who have sinned during maybe 40 years with eternal hell? That does not sound like love at all. One cannot interpret a text in the Bible without taking into consideration what the rest of the Bible says.
To the People taking Gavin Ortlund seriously. This is for you.
He knows how to insult people in a nice way, but I see through it every time.
I respect him because at least he’s reasonable enough to see through the Noachian flood
If only modern evolutionists could be as honest as their mentor...
The platypus is that animal, still alive and its Genome proves beyond doubt evolution is truth and middle eastern myths set in ink are indeed children's tales
"Evolutionists" on average is more honest than every single creationist.
@@razark9Care to demonstrate your claim?
@@Barri-rj9vt Pretty easy. First of, there's no such thing as an ''evolutionist''. That's a creationist lie. There are people who understand/accept science and then there are creationists and flat earthers. Secondly, I urge you to fact check every sentence from Calvin's mouth. You'll find more often than not he's deliberately misrepresenting things and twisting them around. Creationists don't do science, so they have to lie about science and the people who practice it and/or accept the overwhelming consensus. One good example is the constant complaining about Darwin as though science hasn't progressed at all in 150 years and making him out to be this ''prophet'' almost. In short, the reason for this is creationists need science to be a religion. This is a constant for creationists.
@@razark9 What specifically in this video did the creationist get wrong? Basically, the claim is there is a level of inference used to justify macroevolution that can be seen as "religious".
Another set of great story tellers is geologists. The whole story of how the mountains were formed and how long it took for the continents to move to where they are today is hilarious. I can easily see how things happened because of the Flood. I know it would be impossible to make a living as a geologist if you stuck to the Biblical six days. I wonder how many are creationists but are playing the game to make a living?
If they were young-earthers they wouldn't be able to make any money because none of their predictions would be accurate. Instead, they use the knowledge of Earth's history to make accurate predictions for many industries who pay them for their accuracy, and not what they believe
Exactly ZERO.
Andrew Snelling probably does the opposite. As a failed geologist, he can still pick up a salary from AIG.