This Drives Evolutionists Crazy, but It’s True

Hans Christian Andersen’s classic tale, The Emperor’s New Clothes, is a story about an emperor who becomes blinded enough to believe something that is obviously false. In this video, Calvin Smith shares how evolutionists have made a similar mistake.
To see more content like this, start your 7-day free trial of Answers TV: www.answers.tv/

[@raifcluster]

"Professing to be wise, they became fools," Romans 1:22

[@CBALLEN]

Always learning never coming to the knowledge of the TRUTH.

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

Amen

[@jpd4676]

To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, They have done abominable works, There is none who does good.. Psalm 14:1

[@joshuakohlmann9731]

How telling that scientific textbooks don't contain lists of insults to throw at creationists.

[@craigstevens9351]

@@joshuakohlmann9731 well, they arent scientific textbooks. they are fantasies.

[@GodRock369]

What makes me laugh out loud is the fact that even Darwin put it in his book that if certain criteria were not met, this theory would be wrong. And those criteria have never been met.

[@CBALLEN]

So true.The natural man has come up with such stupidity throughout history to try and get rid of the God they hate.In other words,a natural man can be made to believe anything but the truth.It takes the power of God to change a man from a God hater,to A GOD LOVER!

[@alantasman8273]

True...The cell is immensely complex and transitional animals (links missing because they are mythical) have not been found....

[@CaptainFantastic222]

@@alantasman8273 are you claiming “transitional” fossil have not been discovered?

[@chloemartel9927]

@@CaptainFantastic222 are you claiming there are transitional fossils?

[@CaptainFantastic222]

@@chloemartel9927 Yes, in fact you can go to certain natural science muesems and see them yourself

[@danielb5400]

Most of what drives evolutionists crazy is the truth.

[@alantasman8273]

Their craziness is the result of cognitive dissonance resulting from science exposing their dogma for the myth that it is. They are having difficulty grasping that their house of cards crafted over 150 years is infested with error.

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

The more information that comes out, the more we find out that we have been lied to for years. Evolution is nothing but a big lie.

[@badgerdad5943]

What makes creationists crazy are the facts.

[@inthelightofhisglory9614]

That's why Jesus said he is the truth because all other "truths" simply fade away.

[@inthelightofhisglory9614]

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am lthe way, and mthe truth, and nthe life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

[@Ozzyman200]

All their funding and still creationists can't find a flaw in evolution that creationism can fix. And silence...

[@Ozzyman200]

@@Mario_Sky_521 So, any word on that flaw and how creationism fixes it? I've only had dodges like that so far.

[@Ozzyman200]

@@Mario_Sky_521 Here's your claim: "@But basically, life is too complex to form by itself." You didn't provide the evidence and reasoning to support this claim, so it's just dismissed. That's always the way with creationists. A lot of claims, but that's all. So you didn't demonstrate a flaw, and you didn't even attempt the other half of the challenge to say how creationism fixes it. No creationist has done any better as far as I've seen. At least you tried on the second reply. A lot just keep dodging. "Just add water to rock dust and wait for cells to self assemble." Ah, here's your problem. That's a strawman of evolution. You probably have no problem with evolution, you just don't know what it is. You only studied one side of the argument and never learnt the science. How can you know you don't agree with evolution if you don't know what it is? Christians are the worst skeptics. You really need to look at both sides. I was raised a creationist, so I've been where you are and had just your bias. I can only encourage you to look into why you weren't able to manage the challenge at all and try to approach it with an open mind. If creationists were right why can't they find a flaw? Well, the challenge stands. Can anyone at all find a flaw in evolution that creationism can fix? If you'd like to try again, do some research and please show you know what evolution is. It's not adding water to rock.

[@TheHairyHeathen]

@@Mario_Sky_521 Your ignorance is not an argument against abiogenesis, and because abiogenesis is not yet completely understood does not invalidate biological evolution of life once it did exist. FYI: All five ribonucleotides which comprise DNA and RNA, and eighty-six different amino acids, have all been discovered in meteorites, meaning they can form under natural conditions in space and be brought to earth. It has been discovered that certain common minerals like montmorillonite clay and basaltic glasses can act as biocatalysts in the polymerization of ribonucleotides into RNA forming strands at rates of up to 1cm per day. Also it has been demonstrated that repeated cycles of inundation, drying and exposure to UV light causes amino acids to polymerise into peptides and polypeptides (proteins). Lipids are observed forming naturally around undersea volcanic vents, and their hydrophobic nature quickly forms them into micelles just like cell membranes. There was a lot more than rock, dust, water and wind on the early planet, and mischaracterising abiogenesis as mixing rock dust with water and waiting is simply not being honest. If you value honesty, you would not continue to use this strawman argument.

[@Ozzyman200]

@@Mario_Sky_521 That was a very defensive response with no technical basis. You talk in vague generalities while I'm asking specific questions. You do like to use caps and silly strawmen too, but that's youth for you I suppose. You claimed "life is too complex to form by itself". That's not what I would call technical at all. I challenged you to demonstrate your claim and you dodged again. Why? Why not stand by what you say, as I do? Claiming anyone who wont agree with you or asks you to back up your claims is 'biased' is clearly just a defence mechanism. All you had was a bald claim, which is meaningless. Note that asking someone evidence for their claims or for a little detail is not 'baggage'. Quite the opposite. Evidence is how we get to truth. Why haven't you addressed the second part at all? How would creationism fix the problem even if you could find one? What do you think evolution is? You seem to have confused it with abiogenesis and you have that wrong anyway Again, how can you know if you disagree with evolution if you don't know what it is? Well, the challenge stands, can anyone, anyone at all find a flaw in evolution that creationism can fix? You will need to know what evolution is and provide at least a little detail if you hope to succeed. Only dodging and defence so far.

[@Ozzyman200]

@@Mario_Sky_521 "2nd time I'm telling you your question requires a reply that is too long and involved for KZbin comments." Nonsense. That's just an excuse. You can just say what the issue is and how it's fixed. It'd be easy if you had something. Note I ask for evidence, and you never do. That's how you can tell bias. You have a very youthful closed-mindedness. Evidence is how we eliminate bias. I can't make you research, but you will get exposed when you don't. "I clearly said first life is "foundational" to the theory of evolution. Pull that foundation out and the theory of evolution crumbles. If you don't see that, you haven't thought of it." Indeed you did. And you were wrong. You haven't done the research. Now, demonstrate your claim please. No more dodging. "And why is our world population exactly what is should be for 8 people after the flood otherwise there should be trillions." Please present your working. Show some maths please. Why can you never present any evidence or reasoning, where scientists can? Creationists never seem to be able to. I asked : "What do you think evolution is? " and you were unable to answer. 10 year of research and you didn't get as deep as knowing what evolution is? Not even the definition. Wow. You don't disagree with evolution, you just don't know what it is. You've just been taught to reject it by name only. Well, the challenge stands, can anyone, anyone at all find a flaw in evolution that creationism can fix? You will need to know what evolution is and provide at least a little detail if you hope to succeed. Only dodging and defence so far.

[@stevenbatke2475]

Hey, AiG. Let me give you some free advice, so that the general population will take you more seriously. Stop using these terms: 1. “Evolutionist” 2. “Darwin/Darwinian/Darwinism 3. “Secular Science” People who aren’t creationists, don’t refer to themselves as “evolutionists”. That’s like calling myself a “round-earther”. You keep referring to Darwin, as if he holds a god-like status. Darwin is 200 years ago. He got some things right, he got some things wrong. Let’s try to catch up on what has been discovered since then, okay? Science holds no belief system, so referring it as “secular”, sounds as ridiculous as it is. “Science” helps you make this show possible: the electricity, the lights, the cameras, the internet, KZbin, etc. All done by science, not secular science, or “Christian/biblical Science” (whatever that is?) Hope this helps.

[@johnalexir7634]

Great points, and it does help. Trouble is... the ones who need this help probably won't read it or if they do, won't accept it. But there's only so much one can try to do.

[@keyjam9]

Well done. I am not creationist or a evolutionist. I am a commonsense-ist.

[@michaelatkinson4815]

I am an evolutionist and this does not make me crazy. In fact I love the questions raised. This is science, a problem is raised to your ideas and you explore further.

[@kenlucero3651]

That is a good point. However, I believe what is most important is how one explores their ideas. I further believe that many people put more into the word. Science ! Than what is really there. According to Websters, science merely means knowledge .But that is mans knowledge which cannot hold a candle to the knowledge of an Almighty God . For example: Take two scientists that are studying the universe. One believes in an Almighty God and the other does not. The one that does Believes in God will put his findings under the lens of the Bible. Where as the non believing scientists will develope a theory that he just cannot explain. He then may do 1 of 2 things. He will either become so frustrated that he cannot explain or prove his theories and spend the rest of his life time trying. 2 he will surrender and say. An Almighty Creator is the only thing that I can prove . So it is very important what mindset is applied before one test their ideas. Now I don't know about you. But I would rather consider myself a hand made creation of an Almighty God versus being the product of an Ape! How about you?

[@michaelatkinson4815]

@@kenlucero3651 thanks for the reply. To me science is a method where ideas are put forward that can and should be both questioned and tested. This is why I like evolution because it is an amazing set of ideas that thousands of people have added their ideas to. Questions force scientists to rethink and revisit their ideas.

[@kenlucero3651]

@@michaelatkinson4815 I also am grateful for your reply ! If I may say, I am really enjoying this conversation and again you have made a very good point. As I said. The mindset that one applies to their study is crucial. For example: Darwin did not conduct his studies as a means to learn the origins of man. I believe that He conducted his studies as a means to refute the Bible. This became a dangerous a concept in which the most evilist one uses to deceive people and tear them away from God which is his chief goal. I further believe that an evolutionist begins his study from the bottom up meaning with his finite knowledge of ideas he has at that time. Where as a creationist begins his study from the top down meaning with the knowledge he has of an Almighty God at the time he began his study . I realize this may be a difficult concept to grasp . Now as a Christian I have studied God in my church Bible study and I have found that our human ways are totally opposite of Gods. For example: Some people believe that Archeology proves the Bible, where as I believe the Bible proves Archeology ! So you see it is all about the mindset. And as humans I believe our minds are finite where as Gods is infinite. We have impossibilities where as God does not. I also believe that Jesus IS God in the flesh and He is inviting you to spend eternity with Him. For the alternative to that is condemnation in the pit of hell for all eternity. And as Catholics are taught to believe in a Purgatory that doesn't exist. So I I ask you. Where you like to spend eternity?

[@g.alistar7798]

The purpose of science and the scientific method is never to find the truth rather to find error. Science is ever questioning, ever testing and always challenging the orthodoxy. Those who say “the science is settled” usually political zealots and not true to the fundamental purpose of science.

[@kenlucero3651]

@@g.alistar7798 Well I must give credit where credit is due. That was very eloquently and professionally put. If I were a covetousness person I would wish that I made that I made that comment ! Good job.

[@TroyLeavitt]

This video is based upon a deeply flawed misunderstanding of evolution and genetics. Genes do not code for wings or feathers or anything like that. They code for proteins. That's it. Not whole body parts, not whole organs, not whole systems. That is not how genes work. Instead, different proteins are activated or disabled based upon other surrounding genes as determined by localized chemical signaling during cell replication. So, of course you'll never see a new organ pop into existence via genetics because that would violate not only genetics but evolutionary theory itself. Neither evolution nor genetics suggests such a thing. TLDR version: The video targets what the author incorrectly thinks evolution is. But it isn't that thing. Therefore, it's attacking a strawman and the video is not of any value.

[@kelvinc1205]

Yes, it is more than a simple gene mutation. Entire gene sequences need to be reprogrammed to create new proteins. Plus the developmental gene regulatory network (dGRN) needs to change too. So this means there is much more coordinated change needed to create a new organ and this makes creating new species even more difficult!! PS. Glad you are willing to watch this video and discuss.

[@MusicalRaichu]

Are there any observed instances of new organs evolving?

[@TroyLeavitt]

@@MusicalRaichu Yes. Many. Dawkins Book, "The Blind Watchmaker" is largely about this very topic.

[@MusicalRaichu]

@@globalcoupledances i mean are there instances of a population developing a new organ (including sufficiently changed existing organ to take on new function) that have been directly observed in the wild? like we examine a specimen today to find different anatomy to what had been recorded say a century ago.

[@MusicalRaichu]

@@globalcoupledances i wouldn't mind seeing both actually.

[@jamiefagan9129]

You're not just denying, evolution, but the fact that the earth and Universe are old. There is abundant proof for the age of the Earth and you dont need to be a scientist to see it. I'll happily give you evidence

[@AK-ms5zk]

This video said nothing and was an extreme waist of time, this dudes false logic was totally filling in his own belief which is satanic

[@MistaJG]

The fact anyone could believe nothing caused a massive explosion in the middle of nothing and ended making everything line up perfectly in the universe is crazy lol everything moves and works together too perfectly for there not to be a creator.

[@CaptainFantastic222]

That’s not what mainstream science claims or believes… we don’t know what happened before the Big Bang. You’ve expressed nothing but an argument from ignorance

[@Butchman2000]

...this is exactly what i hear musl/m apologists saying...

[@billcollins6894]

No credible scientist believes that the big bang came from nothing and was caused by nothing. They just do not understand it yet.

[@welredd]

@@Butchman2000 and? They can be right about things. Just because they’re religion is false doesn’t mean they can’t see the clearly obvious conclusion that intelligent design is necessary for life to exist.

[@mikeboettcher9709]

it wasn't an explosion. What is nothing? and what would be the middle of it? What is 'line(d) up perfectly"? what moves and works together so perfectly? everything is as vague as you can get. Btw, arguments from incredulity are about as bad an argument as you can have.

[@PersonPerson-wl4mj]

It's too bad that almost everything put forth in this video is demonstrably false.

[@Metusion]

Go for it. List your arguments..

[@kimsoares3271]

@@Metusion For one: Many mutations are beneficial. That alone brings his whole case crashing down. BTW; there is no god.

[@charlo90952]

You should cite modern research into evolution not Darwin. We've moved on since then. They do have plausible explanations.

[@Lokana]

As someone with a degree in Anthropology, who studied evolutionary biology, this is like listening to someone explain how the Earth can't possibly be round or we'd all roll off of it. This guy does a great job of explaining away something he either doesn't have the slightest understanding of or is purposely being dishonest about. Ok, first off. Darwin didn't understand anything about the biology, the genetics, or the concept of inheritance that made natural selection (part of, but not all of) a viable explanation for evolution. Trying to take the words of someone that didn't understand evolution and use those misunderstandings to disprove a completely different concept of mutation, is incredibly disingenuous. Can a dog grow wings when they don't have feathers? Over the span of tens of thousands of years, yes. How do we know that? Because we have fossil records of feathers developing over the course of thousands of years from scales, then to quills, then to feathers. Over the span of ten thousand life spans, could a dog, through natural selection, select for thicker skin, then scaly skin, then scales, then quills, then feathers, yes. And again, we have fossil records of this exact thing happening. The card analogy, btw, the line, "You might lose cards, but you can't ever select for new ones that don't exist." This is true in cards, but it isn't true in genetics. In genetics, each time a cell splits, there are mutations where the new cell DNA doesn't copy correctly. Why yes, this means new, never seen before "cards" are put in the deck. You don't get a new mole on your back at age 40 because it was in your DNA all along. That's new information. That's a new card. You're only driving evolutionists crazy because you're grossly ignorant of science.

[@TeaMollie11]

It's funny how everybody else here "knows more" than the ones who actually study it.

[@karmar22able]

He’s explaining things in a way that people like you, without a scientific PhD and decades of research experience, can understand. There are many highly respected mathematicians, physicists, biologists, chemists and engineers just like him. Learn something new.

[@charlielewis3261]

14.58 mins of sicense misrepresented followed by only 33 second to explain why the Bible's explanation makes perfect senses. I'm sorry I'm not convinced. Where is the observed evidence or demostrable experiment to prove god exists and that she made the world in only 7 days?

[@ДобрыйВестник]

@Charlie Lewis Where is the observed evidence or demonstrable experiment that evolution made you from amoeba?

[@chrisneuhaus7188]

The moment a person allows doubt and distrust for God to take root in their thinking, is the moment that a chain reaction of all the seeds of evil begin germinating in the mind. The ability to believe what God has made abundantly easy to see and understand leaves a person and the scales of spiritual blindness grow rapidly. Envy and ego, greed and jealousy, shame and pride take over a persons' reasoning and motivations in life. The need to prove ones thoughts and ideas and motives become insatiable. Thanks for sharing this well presented explanation we should all be well grounded in as believers.

[@an9l1c1sm6]

I am an atheist, I don't feel anything taking over - If you personally have an issue with these things, then that is because of your brain chemistry.. You might have a faulty brain.. Like many other people..

[@glennbrooks3449]

I once was a doubter. Back around 1993. I told God just what I was but at the same time prayed every day for months using Jeremiah 33.3 KJV as part of my prayer. Also told him I would go where ever he required regardless of friends or family including my wife. Well that never turned out good but my answer from God changed my life forever. He led me to the right church to be able to understand the bible including the prophecy of Daniel and Revelation. Life has never been the same as I know where this is all going. One more thing to happen worldwide and then the end of time will come rushing. Like it will only be a few years more or so after this ww event takes place. No I do not know the day or hour. Who does say they do are a liar. However this ww event will separate the wheat from the Tares. A big shaking coming in all churches. I have about 20 million more who will agree with me.

[@chrisneuhaus7188]

@@razark9 Thank you for proving my point. All people are evil. Christians are no exception, but they are forgiven of their evil nature and their sins are Passed over by the grace of God through the sacrifice of the Savior. The only difference is we believe what God says and we do not doubt him. Christians are not cut off from God. Unbelievers are cut off from God by their own choice. Unless they humble themselves and utterly yield to God and seek His mercy and His forgiveness, there is no way they can overcome the separation from God. And cut off from God an unbeliever will never comprehend the anything pertaining to God or how He works.

[@chrisneuhaus7188]

@@glennbrooks3449 everyone doubts or does not trust God before they are redeemed by God. God calls people to Him, not the other way around. We respond or refuse God's calling. You weren't hardened in your heart to God's calling, otherwise you wouldn't have been digging for truth. If you were, you would not have been seeking God's help, you wouldn't have been talking to God. The kind of doubt I'm referring to above is when a person is being called by God, when God is opening their eyes to His truth. If a person refuses to believe and trust God once they recognize He is calling them, their heart will harden against Him. God is long suffering beyond anything we can imagine, but if one refuses God, if a person hardens his heart and refuses to trust God, then the things of God become vague and unintelligible to him. The truths of God become nonsense to the person who refuses God. That doesn't mean that God can't knock you to your senses, but those are called trials and you don't want that to be the way He calls you. But hardship is one avenue that does bring some people to their knees before God Almighty begging for redemption. The fact that this world is in for a cataclysmic reckoning has little to do with an individual's salvation. Maintaining your faith in God if you live to see this cataclysmic time is another story. There are thousand upon thousands of Christians living through unimaginable tribulation this very day and they have been living in terror for centuries. Today Christians are hunted and slaughtered for their faith in God in many parts of the world. This has been going on since the beginning of the church. Will it get worse in the end? Yes that is absolutely clear. But millions of Christians have lived in tribulation and died because of their belief in salvation through Jesus Christ's sacrifice. What you are focused on has always been happening to believers.

[@gingerray2188]

Sin is always the issue ie greed, pride, self, jealousy, turning away from, or denying Christ, taking God out of the picture for their own deceitful acheivement and ...PRIDE!

[@justcallmeblah2543]

Naysayers: We are the part of science. Also naysayers: You can be the opposite gender.

[@Newnodrogbob]

You’re trying to pretend that huge masses of people are identical. This is false.

[@jackjones7620]

gender, not sex

[@jan_777]

@@jackjones7620They are working on it, called transitioning. But even after transitioning, trans people know they are not the opposite sex.

[@CADAVRR666]

@@jan_777 of course they know they are the opposite sex. however, they KNOW they are the opposite gender. you are dodging the person replying’s point though. there is a difference between gender and sex, one is strictly biological, and the other is strictly social.

[@justcallmeblah2543]

@@jackjones7620 I know. but I prefer to say gender because to me, the other word is a cuss word.

[@Makai77]

As a Catholic school child, when school was out, I would walk across the street to the public library and wait there for my mom to pick me up. In that public library, there was one of those classic "ape to man" evolutionary images. I recall thinking, 'hmm, that makes sense.' Which is sad considering I was in a Catholic school! Even sadder is the fact that I wasn't learning a biblical world view at the Catholic school. Fast forward to my teen years. My mom becomes born again, and takes me out of the Catholic school. I also become born again and have grown in my faith, mainly because of being plugged in to solid, bible based churches. "In the beginning, God CREATED..."

[@ngabacletus9677]

Are you saying Catholics are not born again?

[@Makai77]

@@ngabacletus9677 No, I'm just saying my mom and I were not.

[@tropicalcocktails4104]

Asking respectfully: Why aren't Catholic churches bible-based?

[@ngabacletus9677]

@@Makai77 ah ok, I get that 🤝

[@SamsExotics]

@@tropicalcocktails4104 I think it it depends on the individual church. There are "protestant" churches that are Bible based too.

[@poliincredible770]

Every shred of evidence used to support Darwinism requires the presumption of evolution.

[@johnschwalb]

I am a Christian, I will tell you the problem I have with a lot of Christians. They will look at a banana and see how it’s similarly shaped to our hands and say “this was intellectually designed to fit in my hand”. Then they will look at a skeleton and be shows the same bones in different species and go “this is not evidence of anything. It doesn’t matter that our hands and monkey hands have the same structure, that’s not a common ancestor that’s just a designer using copy and paste.

[@poliincredible770]

@@johnschwalb you didn't explain what is inherently wrong with that. It is deductive reasoning. BTW, I don't know of anyone who says the fact that a banana can fit in his hand is proof of a creator.

[@johnschwalb]

@@poliincredible770 my point is evolution is real we have recorded in in labs and real world. This does not mean there isn’t a designer who set evolution in motion but we know it is. Like Newton said “Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who sets the planets in motion.”

[@poliincredible770]

@@johnschwalb the only thing that has taken place in labs regarding evolution is bait and switch. Bacteria producing bacteria with a stronger immunity is not evidence that bacteria descended from non-bacteria. It is evidence that bacteria only produce more bacteria just like Genesis 1 says God designed them to. So while observable biology refuses to validate evolution, it obediently confirms scripture every hour of every day. We don't have to account for darwin's lies in order to accept Christ.

[@poliincredible770]

@@johnschwalb the only thing that has been recorded in labs is bacteria producing more bacteria, flies producing more flies, etc. This is not evidence that flies descented from bacteria. It is evidence that Creatures reproduce after their own kind just like Genesis 1 says they were designed to by God.

[@Justinbuhagiar]

Forrest Valkai completely destroys this video and it wasn't even difficult for him to do so.. Religion will eventually die off after it continuously moves the goal posts after every scientific discovery.

[@garyfortenberry5829]

@@arongladden8282 There are none so blind as he who will not see. How ironic.

[@garyfortenberry5829]

@@arongladden8282 I am absolutely talking about you.

[@garyfortenberry5829]

@@arongladden8282 Sure thing.

[@Justinbuhagiar]

@Aron Gladden LOL What??? Ok aron, what was Forrest wrong about in his video? Just give me one thing he is wrong about. Look, just because you don't understand what evolution is, doesn't make it wrong.

[@Justinbuhagiar]

@Aron Gladden Give me an example then of something that would not qualify as evidence when it comes to Forrest's video? You then make a blind observation that you understand evolution better than me, when you don't have any gauge to my knowledge on the subject at all. Why do you do that? It seems like you don't have an argument at all and you are full of straw man points that are completely useless. "He is wrong because I say he is wrong" is a terrible debate strategy. Get back to me when you actually have something of substance to say.

[@matthewstenger6150]

1. 'Evolutionist' is a word you made up 2. Mutations are real and observable 3. Evolution is the non-random selection of random mutations 4. Which ones get selected is entirely determined by the environment and sexual selection processes 5. 'Kind' is a meaningless word. Similarly, 'species' doesn't have a clear definition either. It's merely how we describe different phenotypes, but they are completely man-made constructs to help us classify living things. This video completely ignores the concept of mutation. And although artificial selection can help to understand how genotype manipulation can lead to very different phenotypes, human beings don't have the knowledge to select for genetic material to make a dog grow wings, and such a thing would most likely never evolve through natural selection anyway. Humans don't really know what we're doing when we mess with the genetic code of dogs - look at the poor bulldog. That thing is an abomination with a whole host of problems caused by the humans that created them.

[@thedubwhisperer2157]

1. You are incorrect on this point.

[@matthewstenger6150]

@@thedubwhisperer2157 As are you. Wasn't that constructive?

[@thedubwhisperer2157]

@@matthewstenger6150 No, really, 'evolutionist' is a real word. No offence intended.

[@matthewstenger6150]

@@thedubwhisperer2157 It is a word used by apologists to make it seem that evolution is on the same footing as creationism. Evolution is science, creationism is not. Instead of using that term, insert "rational thinking person who respects scientific consensus and the scientific method." Because "believing" in evolution is like believing in gravity or germs or that the earth is round.

[@thedubwhisperer2157]

@@matthewstenger6150 evolutionist /ˌiːvəˈl(j)uːʃənɪst/ noun a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection. adjective relating to the theories of evolution and natural selection. "an evolutionist model"

[@henniegrobler5164]

God made me and He loves me

[@CaptainFantastic222]

I have to admit I am jealous. To have a personal relationship with a god and the creator of the universe has to feel amazing.

[@chloemartel9927]

@@CaptainFantastic222 you apparently don't want it because you don't have it.

[@chloemartel9927]

@@CaptainFantastic222 you won't find God unless you search for Him. Sitting in a pew doesn't guarantee a relationship with Christ. It is between you and God alone. You didn't try. You went through the worldly motions and the world can never bring you to God.

[@mattjones7101]

Not through faith or works but grace alone.... you can't say he didn't try how dare you.

[@chloemartel9927]

@@mattjones7101 I dare because it is obvious he has not seeked Jesus. He trolls for the devil and supposedly wonders why God is elusive.

[@lhke2012]

Your fundamental misunderstanding of genetic variability is the weakness of your argument. It is not just what is in the gene pool at any given time, but also what genetic mutations can occur at any given time.

[@DavidDeM420]

If you would have finished the video he speaks on that

[@AndySmith4501]

@Keith Ellis You clearly didn't even watch the whole video. Un believable

[@xenseu]

Delusion at its finest.

[@gabe1542]

I’m a Catholic and college graduate with a neuroscience degree. I respect the narrators points, however there are three major problems with this argument. (1) We have not observed any demonstrable evolution simply because evolution in the macro- sense can take tens of millions of years to occur. (2) The narrator is incorrect about mutations. In reality, more than 90% of mutations are neutral; harmless. They are not always bad, there are several examples of mutations actually benefiting your health or providing a genetic advantage to animals in their environment. (3) The narrator states that mutations only subtract from your DNA, and never add. That is objectively false. There are several types of mutations such as one called Single Nucleotide additions. Mutations can delete DNA code, but even more likely mutations add. I simply can’t buy this argument because the narrator is incorrect or misleading on these 3 major points. The deck of cards analogy is visually digestible, but simply not how our genetic code works. It is much more complex than this, and he is incorrect regarding never “adding cards” to the deck. You 100% can and do add mutations all the time.

[@gabe1542]

Furthermore, I’m interested in how the narrator would explain how and why we share 96-99% of our genetic gene pool with chimpanzees? If God created separate gene pools for every species, then why leave only 1% genetic differences between Chimps? Isn’t that a little too close for comfort, because as the narrator states, if mutations are always deleterious and reductionist (which is false) aren’t we only a few mutations away from digressing into chimps?

[@gabe1542]

In my opinion, once you learn about how intricate and beautiful DNA replication and genetic variability can be, you actually learn to appreciate how God-like this mechanism is. It makes you really think, wow, how can all of this be done, it must have been God the creator of everything, to create such a complex and almost perfect way to create new species and allow life to continue to survive in environments for eternity.

[@Seashellsbytheseashore21]

@@gabe1542 your first argument is kinda blah. that's what everyone always says, and it sounds like a cop out. i'd leave that argument out in the future and stick with what you CAN prove, rather than saying "well we can't show that because it would take so long." it just proves the point, ya know? your 3rd comment is how i feel. i feel that God created everything, and that everything is so complex it can ONLY be God to have made it. however, i'm not sold on macro evolution. never have been. and i shouldn't be sold on it, no one should. it's a theory, it's not fact. what is a fact is science is always changing, and 50 years from now they could have a new theory that blows darwin out of the water. who knows. see how it goes, and always try and prove to yourself that you're wrong, rather than try to prove to yourself why you're right, is my motto. cheers

[@amark350]

While I agree with the explanation given in this video, the Achilles’ heel to this theory is the fact that people promoting it say the Earth is only 6 to 10,000 years old.… if you push that as fact, nobody will listen to anything else you have to say. * also that dinosaurs and people lived at the same time… and T-Rex was a vegetarian.

[@ludwigkirchner08]

You need to read Contested Bones. Then you won't be as ignorant. All those bones you call "dinosaur" have pathology. Did you know that? Nope. You didn't. So digging up Andre the Giant, and claiming all humans were 8 feet tall and 600 pounds, is shameful logic.

[@amark350]

@@ludwigkirchner08 so you believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old? If you say yes to that, then nothing else you say on this topic deserves respect.

[@ludwigkirchner08]

@@amark350 You didn't address what I wrote, genius.

[@amark350]

@@ludwigkirchner08 Your fear to answer the question speaks enough to settle if for me... you believe the Earth is 6,000 years old so nothing more to say. Do you believe the Earth is flat? In short, why would I investigate "your evidence" if my mind is already made up. That's like a flat Earther asking me to "review all his evidence"... as if it would somehow change my mind. why would I do it? Or someone that has a bunch of evidence on UFO abduction. Why waste the time?

[@johnhubler5905]

From a "logical" standpoint - if we believe that God can create the universe and everything in it... it isn't that big of a mental leap to believe he could create some things to be older than others. If we, as humans, can produce art, clothing, or media that appears to be older than they actually are - surely God could produce rocks that seem, by all modern testing methods, older than they are.

[@lapin-rouge]

Perhaps the next time you create a video trying to talk about what evolutionary biologists believe, you should bring on a well-respected evolutionary biologist and add their unedited, fully contextual arguments in with your video. Then, you can explain why you believe they’re wrong. This video format doesn’t perform any meaningful debate because it’s just “I will present to you the information I want you to know, then explain why the information I presented is wrong; oh, and I won’t respond when I’m told I didn’t explain things well/give the whole story.” Im all for discourse, just proper discourse.

[@Jewonastick]

A debate between Calvin and someone like Forrest Valkai would be absolutely hilarious

[@thomasjefferson5727]

There's plenty out there

[@fitforlife3168]

@@sonus89you can observe *microevolution* of bacteria and the evolution of traits that scientists consider “analogous to macro evolutionary processes.” But your bacteria remained bacteria at the end of the study didn’t they? So he’s right speciation of entirely new taxonomic groups has never been observed which is clearly his argument in the video.

[@DanielStevens-i6e]

@@fitforlife3168what happens though if let’s say a dog mates with another animal species, wouldn’t that increase the available gene pool? I’m just speculating, but, for example, can a bird egg be fertilized by dog or fish sperm into some kind of new animal species? I think the answer must be no or scientists would have already done it. Anyway, just curious.

[@Locust13]

So you admit the mechanisms of evolution are real, the observations of evolution are real, that speciation has been observed, that evolution has been observed, but them cover your eyes and put your fingers in your ears and claim evolution isn't real? This is sad.

[@wadenovin2479]

The framework of Evolution is the best explanation for the development of complex life on Earth.

[@rtmcdge]

What are you going to use to support this claim. Do, you have evidence to support the mythical common ancestor? What examples of organisms of today can you use to support dinosaur to to bird or land animal to whale, or even ape like to ape and ape man? Your lean, extra lean,, on evidence.

[@wadenovin2479]

@@rtmcdge Yes there is plenty evidence both in the fossil record and the human genome that supports the existence of a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. This would be the Sahelanthropus tchadensis which lived about 7 million years ago. As far as land animal to whale, Cetaceans have a common ancestor with modern-day artiodactyls such as the cow, the pig, the camel, the giraffe and the hippopotamus. There is again ample evidence in the extant genome and the fossil record.

[@rtmcdge]

@@wadenovin2479 No, there isn't. If there was there'd be a whole lot less people who reject evolution. There has probably never been a speculation that has been so accepted but is so still rejected by other scientists. All of what you are claiming is only unsubstantiated speculation. Hundreds of millions of years, STILL NOT SUPPORTED WITH EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. But, there is other evidence disputing this. "Newly Published Analysis Refutes Claims that Sahelant" hropus tchadensis Was Human Ancestor...These claims have led to much disagreement in the paleoanthropology community. Brigitte Senut, of the Natural History Museum in Paris, called Toumai “the skull of a female gorilla,” and co-wrote in Nature, along with Milford H. Wolpoff, Martin Pickford, and John Hawks, that “Sahelanthropus was an ape,” not bipedal, and that many features “link the specimen with chimpanzees, gorillas or both, to the exclusion of hominids.” This debate has continued.More Discovered than Reported It turns out that there was more of Sahelanthropus discovered than was initially reported. At the end of 2020, nearly two decades after the fossil was first reported, the debate was seemingly settled when the femur of Sahelanthropus was finally described. The technical paper, “Nature and relationships of Sahelanthropus tchadensis,” published in the Journal of Human Evolution, confirmed that Sahelanthropus was a quadruped with a chimp-like body plan. New Scientist explained the implications of the new study: The leg bone suggests that Sahelanthropus tchadensis, the earliest species generally regarded as an early human, or hominin, didnʼt walk on two legs, and therefore may not have been a hominin at all, but rather was more closely related to other apes like chimps. As the technical paper put it: A partial left femur (TM 266-01-063) was recovered in July 2001 at Toros-Menalla, Chad, at the same fossiliferous location as the late Miocene holotype of Sahelanthropus tchadensis (the cranium TM 266-01-060-1). … The results of our preliminary functional analysis suggest the TM 266 femoral shaft belongs to an individual that was not habitually bipedal, something that should be taken into account when considering the relationships of S. tchadensis. … In terms of size and shape, the external morphology of the shaft is closer to that of the common chimpanzee than to modern humans, gorillas, or orangutans. … Likewise, the cross-sectional morphology of the TM 266 distal shaft is most similar to that of Pan [chimpanzees]. … Given the results of the comparative analyses in the previous section, the overall morphology of TM 266 appears to be closer to that of common chimpanzees than to that of habitually bipedal modern humans. … Given the broader comparative context of the morphology of the TM 266 femur, there is no compelling evidence that it belongs to a habitual biped, something that would strengthen the case for S. tchadensis being a hominin." Source: evolutionnews.org/2021/02/newly-published-analysis-refutes-claims-that-sahelanthropus-tchadensis-was-human-ancestor/ Come on, if you are going to make claims, at least do some research. I'll point out this. "The technical paper, “Nature and relationships of Sahelanthropus tchadensis,” published in the Journal of Human Evolution, confirmed that Sahelanthropus was a quadruped with a chimp-like body plan. New Scientist explained the implications of the new study: So, now, you see, there is much more to the story that you seem not to be aware of. And your claims of "much more", for this, "Cetaceans have a common ancestor with modern-day artiodactyls such as the cow, the pig, the camel, the giraffe and the hippopotamus. There is again ample evidence in the extant genome and the fossil record." is grossly overstated. The evolutionists have not come into an consensus as to what mythical land animal that was the ancestor of the whale. And all the while, this is contradicted each time it is seen that only whales give birth to baby whales. So, all you have is misinformation and unsubstantiated speculation to rest your beliefs on. NOT SCIENCE.

[@rtmcdge]

@@wadenovin2479 "Articles by Brunet and colleagues in the journal Nature called it “the earliest known hominid ancestor,” or more cautiously proposed it as “close to the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees.” Although Brunet’s technical paper at the time admitted that “There is not yet sufficient information to infer reliably whether Sahelanthropus was a habitual biped,” he and his team proposed that “such an inference would not be unreasonable given the skull’s other basicranial and facial similarities to later fossil hominids that were clearly bipedal.” To this day, the Smithsonian Institution calls it “one of the oldest known species in the human family tree.” These claims have led to much disagreement in the paleoanthropology community. Brigitte Senut, of the Natural History Museum in Paris, called Toumai “the skull of a female gorilla,” and co-wrote in Nature, along with Milford H. Wolpoff, Martin Pickford, and John Hawks, that “Sahelanthropus was an ape,” not bipedal, and that many features “link the specimen with chimpanzees, gorillas or both, to the exclusion of hominids.” This debate has continued. More Discovered than Reported It turns out that there was more of Sahelanthropus discovered than was initially reported. At the end of 2020, nearly two decades after the fossil was first reported, the debate was seemingly settled when the femur of Sahelanthropus was finally described. The technical paper, “Nature and relationships of Sahelanthropus tchadensis,” published in the Journal of Human Evolution, confirmed that Sahelanthropus was a quadruped with a chimp-like body plan. New Scientist explained the implications of the new study: The leg bone suggests that Sahelanthropus tchadensis, the earliest species generally regarded as an early human, or hominin, didnʼt walk on two legs, and therefore may not have been a hominin at all, but rather was more closely related to other apes like chimps. As the technical paper put it: A partial left femur (TM 266-01-063) was recovered in July 2001 at Toros-Menalla, Chad, at the same fossiliferous location as the late Miocene holotype of Sahelanthropus tchadensis (the cranium TM 266-01-060-1). … The results of our preliminary functional analysis suggest the TM 266 femoral shaft belongs to an individual that was not habitually bipedal, something that should be taken into account when considering the relationships of S. tchadensis. … In terms of size and shape, the external morphology of the shaft is closer to that of the common chimpanzee than to modern humans, gorillas, or orangutans. … Likewise, the cross-sectional morphology of the TM 266 distal shaft is most similar to that of Pan [chimpanzees]. … Given the results of the comparative analyses in the previous section, the overall morphology of TM 266 appears to be closer to that of common chimpanzees than to that of habitually bipedal modern humans. … Given the broader comparative context of the morphology of the TM 266 femur, there is no compelling evidence that it belongs to a habitual biped, something that would strengthen the case for S. tchadensis being a hominin. Since “the bone is curved, not straight, typical of apes like chimps,” New Scientist quoted the lead author Roberto Macchiarelli as saying, “There are a lot of indicators which deeply discourage bipedal gait.” Madelaine Böhme at the University of Tübingen in Germany said: “I saw the pictures 10 or 12 years ago, and it was clear to me that itʼs more similar to a chimp than to any other hominin.” Phys.org put the implications bluntly: Sahelanthropus “was not a hominin, and thus was not the earliest known human ancestor.” This evidence forced the researchers to suggest that if Sahelanthropus were a human ancestor then that would mean bipedality is no longer a necessary qualification for status as a hominid - an unorthodox view that would cause great complications for the primate tree. As the recent article in the Journal of Human Evolution concluded: Based on our analyses, the TM 266 partial femur lacks any feature consistent with regular bouts of terrestrial bipedal travel; instead, its gross morphology suggests a derived Pan-like bauplan. Thus, if there is compelling evidence that S. tchadensis is a stem hominin, then bipedalism can no longer be seen as a requirement for inclusion in the hominin clade. Did Rivals Stonewall Publication? New Scientist told one last part of this story that is potentially disturbing, most especially for those who think that the scientific community is always objective. First, New Scientist commented on the circumstances under which it took nearly 20 years for the femur - which apparently contradicts Brunet’s initial view that Sahalenthropus was a bipedal human ancestor - to be described: The researchers found a femur, or thigh bone, along with two ulnas, or forearm bones, that would help clarify the matter, but they published nothing about them for almost two decades, prompting criticism from colleagues. Brunet didnʼt respond to a request for comment from New Scientist. Why did it take so long for the femur to be described? As New Scientist explained, after the femur was discovered in 2004 it was brought to the University of Poitiers. Collaborators wanted to study the femur, but the two lead authors of the present study, Macchiarelli and Aude Bergeret-Medina, opted not to do this “until this could be checked with Brunet and his team.” What happened next was quite strange: Later, Bergeret-Medina was unable to find the femur. Neither she nor Macchiarelli ever saw it again. However, when Brunetʼs team didnʼt describe the femur, she and Macchiarelli prepared a study using her photos and measurements. Source: evolutionnews.org/2021/02/newly-published-analysis-refutes-claims-that-sahelanthropus-tchadensis-was-human-ancestor/ And the rest of your post is just as unsubstantiated.

[@mnpa6154]

@@rtmcdge "If there was [evidence] there'd be a whole lot less people who reject evolution. " But there already AREN'T many people who reject evolution. Putting aside your fallacious reasoning there (that the number of people who reject evolution is a metric for its soundness), your premise is wrong, as it implies there are a large number of people who reject it. The only people who reject it are fundamental christians and muslims. The majority of the world (including virtually 100% of biologists and other natural scientists) already doesn't reject it. And even still, as the first reply pointed out, we have tons of fossil evidence of human evolution ALONE, not to mention the countless other species of plants, animals, fungi, etc. And fossil evidence isn't even the be-all-and-end-all of evidence, as fossilization is hit and miss, so we're actually quite fortunate to have found what we have. More than that, we have incredibly detailed molecular genetic evidence of phylogenetic relationships, in the exact same way as we have DNA evidence of certain people being present at certain crime scenes (unless you'd just like to dismiss all of that as well). So when you ask 'what examples of organisms of today can you use to support your...ape like to ape and ape man' evolution, and the commenter gives a RECENT example -- i.e. a discovery from a few years ago, which, like all scientific papers of import, will be hotly debated for years -- and you simply use the controversy around that SINGLE example to dismiss the entirety of the evidence....is absurd. What about Homo habilis, the earliest known hominin? Or Homo erectus? Or all of the Australopithecus spp.? Sure, it's possible Sahelanthropus tchadensis specifically has been incorrectly classified (the analyses of the coming years will determine that; although, importantly, you have not shown that it IS, you have simply shown that there is not unanimous agreement about it), but those other examples like H. habilis are solidly established for decades. What is your rationale for insisting these AREN'T hominins and hominids?

[@briandeadmarsh7538]

It's kind of amusing to hear someone say that believing in the process of evolution is "believing in something that no one has seen, and then in the next breath refer to a god, which is the ultimate "believing in something that no one has seen". LOL

[@schofrenzy3444]

Many have seen the messiah and rise from the dead he is Yahweh and he has more documents about him then anyone in human history cause he is the way the truth and the life Yahweh 3 in 1 eternal God

[@briandeadmarsh7538]

@@schofrenzy3444 And many claim to have seen Bigfoot.

[@joelrivardguitar]

Wait a minute, even if evolution was wrong how does that make Genesis true? Genesis is a re-working of older Mesopotamian creation and flood stories. Why would it take a revelation to tell people animals come in "kinds"? Genesis also says there is a cosmic ocean that is above and below heaven. Special doors open in the flood story to allow the water to flood the Earth. It's a bunch of ancient guesses at how the world works.

[@caininabel1529]

Nah you’re wrong

[@joelrivardguitar]

@@caininabel1529 Which thing?

[@mattwhite7287]

​@@caininabel1529n Lalalalala my god is stronger than your thinky thing! Gotchya! 🤡

[@bitofwizdomb7266]

I still believe in a book that features talking snakes donkeys eagles and bushes and lots of other absurdities tho . Go Jesus !

[@Kyle22oifer]

I hope you find Jesus! ‪Jesus loves you! Jesus saved my life! From suicidal to SAVED! Read the Bible! Pray! Have Faith! God bless! Repent and follow Christ! Jeremiah 29:11 Psalms 62:1-2✝️🤍💪🙏 Jesus knows your name. Seek Him! ‬

[@bitofwizdomb7266]

@@Kyle22oifer does Jesus love everyone unconditionally ? 🤔

[@donlimoncelli6108]

Why do creationists crave the acceptance of the scientific world? Videos like this present the creation story as if it were scientific. "Believe this because it is scientific and I speak very smoothly." They want the recognition and acceptance without having done the hard work that merits it. If you want to claim the benefits of having something accepted as a legitimate scientific explanation, then you have to do the hard work. - You first have to do formulate a hypothesis (well done so far, AIG!) and then do research that will prove it or disprove it. Scientists do research like this and often find out that they were wrong. Be prepared to face the fact that you could be wrong. - Then you have to write a paper documenting what you were trying to prove with that research, and the results. - Then you have to submit that paper to the world scientific community in a peer-reviewed journal and be prepared to answer the criticism that will come with it. Don't misunderstand: no one is singling you out for shoddy science when you are criticized. EVERY paper in a peer-reviewed journal is subject to the same merciless scrutiny. Only then, after going through the wringer and getting general acceptance, can you produce honest videos in which you can legitimately claim that your claims should be considered a legitimate scientific explanation for thus-and-such phenomenon. That is the price to pay for that stamp of approval. You don't get to claim, "My idea is just as valid as the Theory of Evolution. It deserves as much recognition as this other theory over here" without having done this. That is how you play in the big league. Rather than trying to convince people that your untested theory belongs in the same league as theories that HAVE been tested, it is far better to just be upfront and honest and tell people that your explanation is not there yet, that "It's just my own explanation. It's a story that just has to be taken on faith." A slick video with a honey-voiced narrator does not equal scientific validity.

[@Jewonastick]

I think AIG knows how the process of peer review works but that there's another reason why they don't hand over their research papers

[@an9l1c1sm6]

Sadly a video like this is enough to persuade the common person that has been indoctrinated from birth.

[@travisjazzbo3490]

@@an9l1c1sm6 Yep.... 'There are some issues with what 99% of the scientific community has come to a consensus on, therefore MY GOD'.

[@donlimoncelli6108]

@@Jewonastick I think so, too. The reason no one has turned over any research papers is because they don't have any research papers.

[@davidwalker5274]

I like the pacing of this video. I've seen lecture videos from the Ark encounter, and the lecturers speak so incredibly fast that it is difficult to take in and absorb what's being said. This one was well paced. Good job.

[@nosirrahonline]

Do you want to ask an atheist any questions?

[@roscius6204]

@@nosirrahonline They will happily ask you a million questions. What they won't do is answer any.

[@reverendbarker650]

Although the pace is better then the usual race to cram in as much crap as possible in the allotted time, they still do not have arguments that make ANY sense and which as usual fail to include any credible science. .

[@ianmonk6211]

@@nosirrahonline what questions do you want to be asked

[@ianmonk6211]

@@Moist._Robot if you do it's because Satan deceives you. revelation 12:9

[@peterb2272]

13:37 "Its like saying that scrambling information in a computer programme could result in better software being written by random process". I am going to assume here you have never heard of "Evolved Circuits". This is process by which random 'mutations' of information and artificial selection produces an electronic circuit design to perform a particular job. There is a whole field of study delving into Evolutionary Electronics. This is doing EXACTLY what you deride as clearly ridiculous. 🤷‍♂ Just going to add the point that this evolution of a circuit starts with zero information, and by random mutation and selection, CREATES information. A process which according to you and fellow creationists is clearly impossible.

[@ssaunter9965]

Ughh it’s like he doesn’t actually try to refute the evidence for evolution. He briefly mentions whales but doesn’t consider how whales (classified as mammals) could at the very least challenge his claim here. Also I don’t wanna be that guy but denying the idea of macro evolution because we haven’t physically seen it is an ironic argument for a creationist.

[@aaronmanetta1961]

I see what you are saying, but it's not really ironic considering God can do anything .

[@gewgulkansuhckitt9086]

Supposedly - according to the theory of evolution - mutations provide new genes for changing one species to another. The problem is that no single gene can create a complicated new feature. Small changes from micro-evolution may occur, but they don't add up together to create sophisticated new features like turning legs into wings or developing eyes or things of that nature. Complicated new traits require many new genes. So not only would you need to get a random beneficial mutation, but many such mutations spread many generations apart that are of no value or even harmful separately, but somehow magically persist for hundreds of thousands or millions of years until they all happen to combine in one organism and suddenly a creature has a new feature. Frankly it's more plausible that aliens came to earth and made it all happen. I don't believe that by the way. That's just passing the buck of course as one has to ask, "Okay, so how did the aliens come into existence?" Of course you can nitpick with how you define a species and pick nearly identical creatures like mountain lions and leopards or grizzly bears and brown bears and call them different species and cry, "See, evolution is real!", but that's being specious (hehe - made a little pun there.)

[@inspirobotinspiration4360]

You're oversimplifying greatly by disregarding the functional intermediates in the evolution of complex structures. Wings evolved by modification of pre-existing structures and always involved a gliding intermediate. Bird wings, for example, are derived from the gliding "wings" seen in Microraptor, which are themselves exapted from feathers that covered the bodies of their ancestors for thermoregulation. (Some early dinosaurs had such high metabolisms that they would not have been able to survive without insulating feathers.) Even today there are organisms with functionally intermediate eyes, like the Euglena with simple photosensitive "eyespot" or mollusks with eyes of various structures. Your final point about cats and bears brings the problem with Noah's Ark, which many creationists believe is literally true, to light. If one pair of cats can diversify into 41 extant species in only a few thousand years, and one pair of bears can diversify into eight extant species just as quickly, how can you claim it is impossible, even given just _one_ million years, for major diversification to happen?

[@4eveRFab]

@@inspirobotinspiration4360 Is there not a problem with diversification coming from death vs coming from life?

[@inspirobotinspiration4360]

@@4eveRFab Who said diversification comes from death? Only organisms which _survive_ long enough to reproduce will pass on their genes.

[@patriciabradshaw5319]

I encourage everyone to watch the AIG playlist named "The new history of the human race."

[@alantasman8273]

Yes, an excellent series regarding the genetics of man and his dispersion after the flood.

[@alantasman8273]

@@razark9 What is AIG saying that is not scientifically accurate. Be specific.

[@mark_tapia]

This is an extremely poor argument against evolution. The time frames and concepts he's covering are extremely simplified and easily explained by evolutionists. Check out guys like ProfessorDaveExplains if you're interested in hearing what the other side has to say. The science is quite convincing, in my view, and I'm still a Christian.

[@h.gonyaulax2190]

I can imagine they all call you a pseudo-Christian.

[@mikemakowski9020]

​​@@h.gonyaulax2190we do not. You can be a Believer in God and evolution - at least in the science community. Idk about yours

[@h.gonyaulax2190]

@@mikemakowski9020 Then you are an exception on these portals, because here it is predominantly said: It's in the bible, it's in the bible. And all those who consider evolution to be plausible are generally labeled as atheists.

[@asolomoth1066]

As an "evolutionist," this really doesn't drive me that crazy Conflating and sloppily redefining terms without clear reason What he is arguing against isn't evolution, as he admits it happens in the video. What he is arguing against is universal common descent. He uses the word "kind," as many creationists do, but he never gives explains what a kind is, how to differentiate them, and what limits there are. It appears that his incredulity comes from the belief that numerous small steps cannot add up to major changes. In a sense, he believes you can walk a foot, but not a mile. He also fails to acknowledge mutations such as base insertion and gene duplication as methods for adding genetic information and variability. As for his examples with dog breeders not being able to select what isn't there: How about floppy ears? Wolves have perky ears. They are upright and erect. Many dogs have ears that are floppy and incapable of erecting. How did we get this trait in dogs if the wolves don't have this trait? How do poodles and terriers have curly hair when wolves don't? Where did these traits come from? ...and again, his talk on DNA mutation ignores mutations that add genetic information. And no, not all mutations are harmful. The LRP5V171 mutation causes increased bone desnity, and myostatin-related muscle hypertrophy causes increased muscle mass. He also says micro to macroevolution has never been observed, but it has. Speciation has been observed multiple times. So many times, that we have identified 4 different types of speciation. If anyone would like to engage in discussion, I am open to conversing.

[@elliejohnson2786]

I need to know this: Do you actually believe in evolution or not? Your video makes it clear that you understand basic concepts within it, but then you just... randomly deny other aspects? I can't tell if you're lying about it for publicity, or if you're just in denial.

[@jamiebanks4939]

They are promoting microevolution (evolution within a kind, but not between kinds - which would be macroevolution).

[@elliejohnson2786]

@@jamiebanks4939 but macro evolution is just a series of micro evolutionary stages strung together. You can't have one without the other

[@johnwiltshire8763]

A great Maxim is this “DO NOT learn all you know about evolution from Creationists!” However, as the video demonstrates, you CAN learn something about evolution from Creationists but there’s a catch! If you only listen to Creationists, how can you separate: The correct from the incorrect, The wheat from the chaff, and The truth from the lies and fill in the missing perceptions? It's not easy unless you can see some light. This might help. 1) Note that no mention is made of the possibility that "Beneficial Mutations" can sometimes if rarely, occur and be Naturally Selected. That adds NEW information to the gene pool. 2) Note that no mention is made of "Gene Duplication". This is a significant mechanism via which beneficial mutations can be retained without loss of the original function. That's ADDITION not SUBTRACTION. 3) Remember that the scientific model of reality includes plenty of evidence that the Earth is some 5,000,000,000 years old and not 6,000. No surprise therefore that some very slow evolutionary mechanisms have not been observed in the last 1000 years. 4) Note that whales have vestigial hind legs indicating evolution from land animals. 5) Remember that vaccination works via the natural selection of random mutations to DNA. Consequently, a vaccinated Creationist who denies the possibility of beneficial mutations is a walking contradiction. 6) Remember that the analysis of tell-tale genetic markers in DNA has led to the conclusion that Chimps are our closest relatives and our common ancestor species lived some 6,000,000 years ago. 7) Creationist commentators know all this. Ask yourself why they never mention it.

[@johnwiltshire8763]

@Aron Gladden Check out the evolutionary history of the Covid 19 pandemic. A number of new strains have evolved since 2019 (That's less than a million years :-)). The mutations involved were not beneficial for us but they sure gave the virus many new leases of life. So you are quite wrong. We have seen many "Beneficial" Covid 19 mutations since 2019. Vaccination has saved billions of lives and our modern world would not be possible without them. They work via the natural selection of beneficial mutations to DNA. Perhaps you don't know about "Endogenous retroviral markers". :-) Those markers and the genetic molecular clock are how we know that chimps are our closest relatives and that our common ancestor species lived some 6,000,000 years ago. As for "all scientific evidence" you don't seem to know about the evidence in Geological strata, tree rings, ice cores, radiocarbon dating, Uranium decay dating, the fossil record, and the correlations of all that with the Milancovitch Cycles. Have you been skipping your homework assignments? Evolutionists know all this and so do many Creationists but they don't let on.

[@johnwiltshire8763]

@Aron Gladden The DNA of all of the many covid strains has been fully sequenced. Is it really your view that the DNA of later variants can be found in the DNA of earlier ones? If you are right about that then we could prove it by downloading the DNA files and get ourselves Nobel Prizes! You up for that? I note that you don't deride the significance of the cross-correlation seen between the various dating methods and their correlation with the Milankovitch cycles. Does that mean you don't know about these things. Same goes for the history of smallpox, Polio, and many other nasty diseases that are held in check by vaccination.

[@shuabshungne8043]

This is what I was thinking when I, as a teenager, was sitting in a 700 years old church, listening to the pastor talking about this God who nobody has ever seen or heard of in reality, staring at the altarpiece depicting god as an old bearded man hovering on a cloud looking down on earth. I wanted to shout out loud like the child in the story of "The Emperor's New Clothes" : "there is no god" An early age I figured out that if god really existed believe would not be required.

[@lequsejones5384]

I really struggle with this. I'm a Christian but I find myself not believing the creation account in Genesis. To me, it is allegorical.

[@lequsejones5384]

@@norbertjendruschj9121 I understand that creationism is not a religion, but when preachers "demand" that we who profess Him also believe it, it is difficult to bring the two together.

[@tuckerchisholm1005]

Jesus believed in Adam and Eve. Matthew 19. And Jesus was called the Son of Man (Ben-Adam). Sin entered mankind thru Adam, literally. Romans 5:12-21. Jesus is the new Adam, literally redeeming the human race, being the perfect sacrifice and the firstfruits of the resurrection. 1 Corinthians 15:16-23 So Jesus believed in the account of Genesis literally, Jesus literally believed that He would die for the sins of many. And Jesus atoning for the sins of mankind is only possible in there was a literal Eden and literal Fall. No Fall, then why is Jesus necessary? No forbidden fruit, then why is creation corrupted? And if creation is corrupted by means other than man’s sin, then why does God hold us accountable for our evolutionary nature (horniness, violence, racism- we’re just animals after all)? So I believe in the Bible and do not believe that mankind evolved from any other creatures. I believe that Adam literally sinned and thus brought death, and Jesus literally defeated death and thus brings life. That is what the gospel is all about. If its not true, then Jesus Himself was a liar, and why would you follow a man who either lied, or was delusionally false about human history and God’s existence/plan. Jesus also literally believed in Noah (Matthew 24) and Jonah (Luke 11). So Jesus believes that the entirety of the Bible is true, given how He references the vast majority of the Torah and Prophets. Praying for you, that your ur faith would grow, that the Lord would clarify certain things to you, confirm things for you, and that the Lord would guide you into the fullness of understanding He wants to bestow on you! Be strong, my sibling in Christ, continue to ask, seek, and knock!! You are loved!

[@Florida79578]

​@@lequsejones5384almost like you are in a cult

[@mattwhite7287]

​@@tuckerchisholm1005jesus was a first century, middle eastern cult leader. Nothing more. 😅

[@wofan1000]

​@@lequsejones5384 that's what I belive. The super preachy fundamentalist types only exist in the USA and most Christians around the world belive God made things through evolution. Understanding both would strengthen a person's faith and not the other way around. I recommend checking out channels like InspiringPhilosophy and Biologos.

[@kennethmarshall306]

The deck of cards analogy is totally wrong. New genes can arise by well understood mechanisms

[@pickles224]

Creationists need to give up on what Darwin said. Who cares that Darwin didn’t know what genetics were, or that the body was made of cells? The discovery of those things confirmed the Theory of Evolution by explaining why and how the processes of it happened. It’s like referencing Galileo when trying to debunk our observations about astronomy or physics. He had no idea how gravity or relativity worked, but his ideas totally made sense in the field astronomy as we discovered the processes by which it happens.

[@marcj3682]

PMSL

[@majorhowell1453]

Funny hearing it's a good story from a guy who believes in talking snakes 😅

[@AndreGol1987]

You were a monkey? 🙂 (talkin bout evolution story). really! Insane. Darwinism is a funny joke bro.

[@T_J_]

There's a lot of (wilful) misunderstanding here. On the difference between artificial and natural selection. 5:43 Artificial selection is constrained by time, more so than by genes. Humans haven't been around long enough to affect other species in the way that nature itself has. Natural selection, on the other hand, is less constrained by time. You have to remember that over billions of years new genetic information is brought to the table. This gives natural selection more access to raw material than artificial selection. It's an equivocation fallacy to apply the same constraints to two vastly different modes of evolution. ....... Macroevolution is just microevolution over a longer time period. Disbelieving macroevolution whilst accepting microevolution is equivalent to believing that thousands of dollars can exist but completely denying that billions of dollars can exist. Find better arguments.

[@CenturianCornelious]

But Neil Degras Tyson told me I'm nothing but a walking mud puddle.

[@newguy9554]

Tyson is a self proclaimed COVID expert now as well . A legend in his own mind .

[@alantasman8273]

So you are not something created from nothing as they say we all our?

[@mender722]

(5:36) You say evolutionists are trying to convince people of something no one has ever seen, referring to macroevolution. Well, Religionists are trying to convince people of god, something no one has ever seen. Furthermore, Creationists are always referring back to Darwin, while we have learned SO MUCH MORE, stuff that Darwin had no idea about.

[@rodriguezelfeliz4623]

Thank you for being the voice of reason, I missed normal people so much

[@Seashellsbytheseashore21]

you're confusing having a religious faith with accepting something as scientific fact when it does have gaps and real science is always changing, so a decade from now we could have an entirely new theory.

[@mender722]

@@Seashellsbytheseashore21 Not confused, just making a comparison. Religion claims to have the answer, while Science seeks to question. Science doesn't like faith. Religion doesn't like doubt.

[@WillyWonkenobi]

You certainly used a lot of words but didn't say anything of substance, you completely ignored genetic mutation, this argument only appeals to people who already agree with you

[@thesweatclub]

You have to be a fool to believe random mutation produced all the complex things. I’d suggest taking a class on how mutations work and the mathematical chances of mutations forming anything like a complex brain, consciousness etc

[@jackripper5270]

Exactly .. I believe most mutations are a "copy" in the wrong spot.... and that wouldn't produce all the different forms of life... not even with millions of yrs...

[@thesweatclub]

@@jackripper5270 Exactly. if we just look in the mirror lol, how symmetrical we are. 2 eyes perfectly placed, so much symmetry up and down our whole body from head to feet. Only a fool can think its from "random" mutations

[@thedubwhisperer2157]

How do theists determine which science they want to believe, like medicine/microelectronics/flight/electricity, and those they don't, like evolution?

[@factory_enslavement]

The things you've mentioned don't require a 'belief' because they are provable theories You can't prove me anything on evolution

[@snowcat9308]

​@@factory_enslavement Go look up LTEE and then tell me why 75,000 stored generations of e coli bacteria are insufficient for demonstrating the clear fact that genes change over time.

[@MostlyBuicks]

That is because man and chimps share a common ancestor. We did not evolve from chimps.

[@Sage-cw2hy]

A common ancestor they can't prove. Just like if you look up what a horse evolved from it ends abruptly. They can never show more than the creature itself and never prove the horse not being a horse. Just as this video explains natural selection/adaptations.

[@chimaobibarnabas]

It wasn't a horse until it was. Just like how all vertebrates are just some kind of a fish. Most vertebrates have just become too different from their fish-like ancestors that we can't consider them as fish anymore.

[@chimaobibarnabas]

​@@Sage-cw2hyI'm replying to you

[@Sage-cw2hy]

​@@chimaobibarnabasI do understand that. But, they can't prove what a horse evolved from let alone say where it came from. The horse most definitely didn't just appear, obviously. For example they believe a whale evolved from some four legged hippo like animal. Yet, they have absolutely no bones in between that evolutionary process. And can't prove without a shadow of a doubt that the whale evolved from that creature. I believe these are big claims to say we evolved from other animals when they have not one link between any living animal. They say humanoids lived around 5,000,000 years ago. Your telling me in aaaaalllll that time we lived like beasts and then within the last 2,000-200 years we all of a sudden started making sense. Ancient cave drawings show our intelligence in the past. If we were to somehow survive a million years from this point forward one would think we would be traveling between galaxies. I guess my point here is I don't find it any harder to believe in intelligent design over evolution.

[@Sage-cw2hy]

​@@chimaobibarnabasand one intelligent design concept I like is why couldn't God create the universe with age?

[@capitalb5889]

"A flying dog with wings" - wow - the most stupid thing I've heard.

[@andytaylor2321]

Believing that first man was Adam and Eve is like believing in the tooth fairy

[@Bea_InChrist729]

Tell me you didn't watch the video without telling me you didn't watch the video.

[@lurx2024]

It's hilarious that by voicing your misunderstanding of how evolutionary science operates constitutes the proof that it never happened. It's also funny to see just how the narrator tries to project an attitude of self assurance as he voices his flimsy arguments. the only people who are committed to see something that isn't there are those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, which has been disproven countless times, and not just by evolution alone.

[@Bea_InChrist729]

Most scholars confirm that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, who was crucified, and was seen by many witnesses as being alive after being killed. Since this is true, then the Jews gave you real historical data in their scriptures. Which means yes, yours and mine common ancestor is Adam and Eve.

[@lurx2024]

@@Bea_InChrist729 Actually it was Paul who said he encountered someone in Corinth who claimed to attested to seeing multiple witnesses, which would have been unlikely, and it is, after all, a second hand account. If that's what call "evidence" , then there's no talking you out of it. ----------------------------- Just to be sure, how does evidence of something in the New Testament confirm the inerrancy of the Old?

[@lurx2024]

​@@Bea_InChrist729 The idea of multiple witnesses of Christ's resurrection came from a conversation Paul had with someone from Corinth, which, while being a second hand account, would have also been unlikely. Why would something proven in the New Testament prove the inerrancy of the Old?

[@Ozzyman200]

Well the challenge stands. Can anyone find a flaw in evolution that creationism can fix?

[@boogup]

maybe not as in a direct answer but depending on the doctrine you deem creationism there is observable proof. for instance the existence of Yahuah can be debated but not the actual existence of His said “chosen people” who existed and have a prominent role in world history.

[@Ozzyman200]

@@boogup Well, creation by god, by magic, that sort of thing. Still no one can find a flaw in evolution though. They put so much money into it too.

[@boogup]

@@Ozzyman200 he presented the flaws of evolution in the video

[@Ozzyman200]

@@boogup Great. What's one example then? And how does creationism fix it?

[@boogup]

@@Ozzyman200 darwin believed he saw proof of “evolution” through the form of natural selection , because of the variation he saw in different animals. Natural selection is a process in which the strongest equipped organisms within their species survive due to a more advantageous set of traits and pass those over to their offspring, becoming more adept promoting survival. As well as mutations being random genetic disturbances in an organisms genetic code. But thanks to modern genetics we know there is a limit to the level of variation that can occur within an animal. Darwin thought if people can make dogs and pigeons reproduce and inherit desired genetic traits, then nature could do this on a much larger scale promoting survival to an organism as a whole. But the problem with that is natural selection can’t select for traits that aren’t within a species capability. see where i’m going?

[@jannordling288]

So how do you explain people born with 6 fingers or 2 heads then? It's genetic mutation.

[@uberdonkey9721]

Considering evolution is not true is like saying biological sciences is false. The problem is, Creationism has an a priori assumption about how humans were created, and search for evidence to support that. Science takes a theory and then tried to disprove it, to see how robust it is. Evolution is far more robust than creationism. I think scientists don't even bother discussing with creationists know as they know evidence can't change a creationists mind.

[@chrischeehan2423]

Follow the Science

[@tomgoodwin3629]

Wait, some people don't actually believe evolution? I thought it was a joke.

[@valtersplume3726]

Their numbers seem to be skyrocketing. For the last few weeks, I've been seeing insane religious zealots all over KZbin.

[@peterjansen3846]

Dr George Wald, in his Nobel acceptance speech said that there are only two possibilities for the origins of life, spontaneous generation or divinecreation. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago. But that leaves us with only one alternative, and as we cannot accept that on philosophical grounds, we continue to choose to believe the impossible that life arose by chance from nothing.

[@Jewonastick]

How was spontaneous generation disproved?

[@billy9144]

@@Jewonastick Spontaneous generation is outdated. it's the old hypothesis that life randomly generates on decaying organic material. They used to think that's what maggots were. It was disproved by Pasteur. Sadly, this guy still completely missed the boat because abiogenesis is the slow formation of life over time from its basic components, not the refuted hypothesis from hundreds of years ago.

[@katamas832]

He was simply wrong, this is a false dichotomy. That's not what Abiogenesis is lol.

[@jilskehupkes7729]

Indeed, you can't prove a bigfoot does not exist by pointing to the absence of evidence. Spontaneous generation might be possible under very specific circumstances.

[@HusbandsCoach]

@@Jewonastick Rather, it has never been demonstrated, even in a lab setting. I think scientists have been able to create 1 amino acid in a lab setting... which is a fundamental building block... but the remaining 19 are still a work in progress.

[@happilysecular2323]

My favorite clueless creatard cliche is the pseudoscientific term “kind”. For one, because it’s a painfully obvious way of shifting the goal posts on what to accept as evidence for macro evolution. SPECIATION is macro evolution, which has been observable in American Goatsbeard flowers since the 1950s. The word “kind” is closest to taxonomic families. But guess what? Humans are in the same taxonomic family/kind as gorillas and chimpanzees. Creatards demand to see one “kind” shape-shift into another but they are accidentally accepting the very science that debunks their own holy books. OOPS!

[@michaelwmauser1]

There is "animal kind". Within "animal kind" there is "vertebrate kind" etc. and you get "ape kind" or "dog kind" and lots of other "kinds" of animals. Of course, "human kind" (a subset of "ape kind") is special, because we can conceive of the idea of a creator who made all the different "kinds" of animals and who wants us to enjoy eternity with him, provided we follow his rules.

[@kube572]

As an atheist, it's interesting to me to watch these videos, because while they do have some truth in them, they always leave out a bit of information that's crucial to understanding why they're wrong. In this video, the missing bit is genetic mutations. This is gonna be a long comment, so the TLDR is that genetic mutation is extremely common and if it happens in exactly the right way (which is very likely given the timespans evolution deals with) you can get a 'new gene,' something that this video stressed as being impossible. Genetic mutation is actually extremely common in the form of point mutations, where one DNA pair (DNA is composed of four nucleotides - cytosine, adenine, guanine, and thymine. Adenine will bond with thymine, and cytosine will bond with guanine, and when you stack enough pairs on top of each other, you get the double helix of DNA, where one strand will be made up of all of the respective nucleotides of the other strand - for example, one strand could be ATCG, and the other strand opposite would be TAGC) is somehow messed up in the copying process. It might have been removed, replaced with another pair, or there might even be an extra imposter pair. This is important because of how DNA functions. DNA is a set of instructions to make proteins, and the proteins are made up of amino acids. There are 21 amino acids, but only 4 nucleotides, so when the instructions are being read in the ribosome, it reads 3 nucleotides at a time, and each combination of 3 nucleotides is going to correspond to an amino acid. There are 4 possible nucleotides though, and if you put them in a combination of 3, that's 4^3 possibilities, which is 64 - more than the 21 nucleotides. This means that there are repetitions - AAA and AAG both make lysine, for example. This is a sort of padding, so that some point mutations, such as replacing an A with a G, or vice versa, have no effect on protein production. However, AAC is asparagine, and this would mean that that one section of DNA is gonna make a different protein. What about addition or deletion of pairs, however? Well, that's gonna be even worse - that would shift the ENTIRE DNA strand over one, so if you had a strand that before was AACAAA, which would make asparagine + lysine, and you added a G at the start, you'd be making glutamate + glutamine, and whatever pairs came afterwards would also be shifted by that extra adenine at the end. Sorry if this was all way too complicated, but the idea is that if you have these genetic mutations happening, and you give enough time for them to keep happening, you could in fact get a reptile with wings. This is also pretty obvious just by looking at the fact that some animals that are parts of the same group have genes that the other animals don't, but at the same time they share a ton of other genes which make it obvious that they're part of the same group - flying fish and sharks, for example, couldn't be more different, but they're both fish.

[@kube572]

If it's more intuitive, to use the guy's card dealing analogy, imagine you accidentally rub the paint off of one of the cards - that would mean that whatever decks you make that come from that card might now be blank, and that fold might be bred into, making a whole new deck with all blank cards. It's a weird analogy that obviously doesn't work with dealing cards in real life, but the idea is that you're breeding the cards? Again, its a weird analogy.

[@kube572]

He is right about not technically introducing anything new - its just more combinations of adenine, guanine, thymine, and cytosine. Sorry for replying to my own reply, but im the kind of person that always wants to add more onto their point that was already made 😅

[@MrProsat]

Mutations do not become natural selection of a species. Order doesn't come from chaos.

[@ImVeryWholesome]

Ok but, what about a Whales hip bone…or a snakes shoulder bone….or other organs/structures in the body of creatures that are now seemingly useless

[@kimsoares3271]

They don’t mention those as they want to believe in fairy tales.

[@elguapo2831]

​@@kimsoares3271 Have you ever looked at a painting or a building and was able to recognize who the maker was? Would you think they made themselves too? Of course not. Remember a fairytale about a 🐸 turning into a 🤴 from a kiss? Another one is where a 🐸 turnes into a 🤴 from "Time"

[@Bashbekersjiw]

​@@elguapo2831 they are not living beings darling

[@elguapo2831]

@@Bashbekersjiw Who.

[@SharedPhilosophy]

@@elguapo2831 bro has no understanding of evolution XDD

[@marknieuweboer8099]

Researchers from the University of Montana and the Georgia Institute of Technology have let a unicellular alga evolve into a multicellular organism. This is operational, repeatable science. Macro-evolution from one kind into another is an observable, scientifically verifiable fact.

[@jaydelgado1994]

Researchers from the University of Montana and the Georgia Institute of Technology have let a unicellular alga evolve into a multicellular organism." Nah, you have been Lied To.. Those cells simply form COLONIES to fight off predators.. When the reproductive process starts again.. A single cell creature is always the result...

[@jaydelgado1994]

@@globalcoupledances "That is evolution!" DESPERATE MUCH?

[@justice_7_7_7]

"Nature might select..." Who is Nature? Tell me about this being who has a mind and a will and makes selections.

[@derekkreykes3757]

I love this!

[@poliincredible770]

💯

[@Marsbars-iz3iv]

Dude that is beautiful! God bless y'all in Jesus name Amen ❤️

[@mrshankerbillletmein491]

Ye and who is evolution that decides

[@alantasman8273]

Selection takes intelligence...if we consider man part of nature...yes man breeds and natural selects...creatures in nature also select among size, color, coat, strength, intelligence..yet no new species is formed...just as he said ...the deck is shuffled.

[@pureblood6310]

All I have to do is walk in the woods and I see God! Everything is too complex to have evolved!

[@madddog7]

_"Everything is too complex to have evolved"_ so complex, even god couldn't do it .........

[@Cheryl_Lynn1]

@@madddog7 You can't limit God. You certainly don't understand the concept.

[@Aphex217Twin]

If you can't limit God then it should have been rather easy for him to create a perfect with with no suffering?

[@Cheryl_Lynn1]

@@Aphex217Twin Then we'd be robot's, we have free will. People choose evil, People choose not to help others. It's not God's fault.

[@Aphex217Twin]

aren't we already robots without free will, since God already knew what we're going to do since before he even created the world?

[@donnguyen3795]

Believe in micro evolution but not macro evolution is like believe 1+1=2 but 1+1+….+1 would turn to 100

[@tristanmiltenburg1084]

Not exactly, because sometimes the 1 can be eaten or otherwise destroyed by one eating monsters thus ending the additive process.

[@Janice_Lippincott]

@@tristanmiltenburg1084Give that 1 millions and millions of years, and he might just pull through.

[@tristanmiltenburg1084]

@@Janice_Lippincott time is always the hero of the story and micro evolution has yet to have a certainty of link between macro evolution even with time. It’s a simplistic theory that works of paper but doesn’t provide a full explanation for complex development when considering the nature of some changes. Like wings for example, is more complicated than simply evolving wings because you also need to evolve the supporting structures for wings, hollow bones, diets that are practical for eating smaller lighter meals and the enzymes to support it. The struggle is whether or not even with the time line we have it’s not obvious that much complex change can come from the hypothesis simplistic origins.

[@Janice_Lippincott]

@@tristanmiltenburg1084 Time is important in evolution, but not the main focus. Natural selection, genetic variation, and environmental factors drive evolution. Microevolution and macroevolution are connected, with small changes leading to larger outcomes over time. Evolution is supported by evidence and explains the diversity of life on Earth through mechanisms like natural selection and genetic drift. Complex structures like wings evolve gradually through intermediate stages, with supporting structures and adaptations evolving alongside them. Evolution is a slow process, with small changes accumulating over generations. The fossil record and genetic evidence show the gradual development of complex traits.

[@tristanmiltenburg1084]

@@Janice_Lippincott not entirely true. It shows similarities as possible paths of gradual changes. He have record and likely connections to form the theory of micro evolution convincingly. But the significant changes on a macro scale involves huge gaps in the record with a possible connection theorized from the similarities we have available. It’s the difference between having the necessary stages to be certain of a connection and the best guess we have available with what we have. Take the connection between wolves and whales for example. We see some connections between skeletal structures to form the hypothesis, but not enough for an actual confirmation and the hypothesis is derived from large spaces of unknown information rather than a cohesive chain. This is like the difference between seeing a ford model T and tracing the evolution to a ford focus, vs finding the origin of a chassis and making the hypothesis it is what lead to the first airplane.

[@ashleyhavoc1940]

The 'Emperor's New Clothes' taught me that adults were fake and purposefully ignorant....

[@elguapo2831]

Living in ignore-ance 🙊🙉🙈

[@toldyouso5588]

It taught me beware of grifters selling you something.

[@kathleennorton2228]

It teaches beware of group think which can delude the consensus of people to believe blatant lies.

[@rexlupusetxe8367]

I'm an atheist, I think evolution makes sense. Questions don't drive me crazy. I love questions. How I wished the fossil record was mentioned in this video.

[@kathleennorton7913]

It only makes sense from a very simplistic viewpoint. It's like a toddler thinking that he can build a fire engine from his blocks.

[@seansese]

Fossils and carbon dating is soo underrated😂 useless

[@TheSpacePlaceYT]

@@kathleennorton7913 Can you not be toxic in the comments section?

[@Looofii]

@@TheSpacePlaceYT It's an analogy

[@Night_Crew_Artist]

There are many videos from answers in genesis. They talk a lot about fossil records.

[@PapaGDazzle]

It's so easy to see, unless you're blind. Very sad. May God continue to bless and guide the Answers in Genesis mission.

[@terry9819]

Thought this was a great parody at the start, but very quickly it shows he doesn't know what he is talking about.

[@quantom1827]

Explain your thoughts on why you don't think He knows what He is saying?

[@terry9819]

@@quantom1827 He doesn't mention mutation until the end as a side note. It's like arguing planes can't fly unless you believe in this nonsense about wings. He misses out a fundamental piece of the puzzle, and I hope it wasn't deliberately misleading.

[@murilolinsdacruz4110]

I have a question my friend. Do you have any kind of observable evidence of a change of species ? I'm not talking about mutations within species, but a mutation for example of a Whale to an Elephant. Do you have it ?

[@terry9819]

@@murilolinsdacruz4110 That's not how mutation works. Its small changes over a vast time scale. The eye is a great example, you should research it.

[@Skute09]

@@terry9819 so you are mad that he did not mention mutation before the end of the video? so you would prefer if it was in the start i guess then, i mean does it really matter as long as he metions it?

[@Oberon-lz5sw]

How to create new symbols in your card analogy : From one generation to the next, you don't spread and shuffle card from two decks to a new form one, instead you create copies of your cards and then you use those copies to create the new deck. If the copie isn't perfect, you can create new symbols (such as purple-hearted card). From generation to generation (thousands of years) those copie errors accumulate, creating new species. (I hope my explanations are clear enough, i'm not a native english speaker)

[@mnpa6154]

Yikes. Assuming you aren't being intentionally dishonest, you really should educate yourself on a topic before attempting to discuss it. As they say in computer science and statistical modeling, 'garbage in, garbage out': when you start from an absurd misrepresentation, it is no surprise that your arguments and conclusions are equally absurd. - 'Creatures' do not evolve, populations do. - Most 'creatures' do not suddenly 'gain' new genetic material during their life through magic (an exception is horizontal gene transfer in bacteria), offspring are simply genetically different from their parents because of the fundamental way reproduction works (e.g. meiosis). Otherwise, we would all just be clones of our parents (not colloquially, I mean literally clones, biologically speaking, like identical twins but of a parent). Are you a clone of a parent? If not, then congratulations, new genetic information was introduced to your population with your birth, and is subject to both natural selection and genetic drift. - To say that natural selection has no 'new material' to work with is ignoring one of the most significant pillars of biological reproduction: mutation. Do you not understand its most basic elements? Are you not aware that every time an organism reproduces -- be it asexually, like a bacterium splitting in two, or sexually, like two parents contributing a spermatocyte and oocyte which join to form a zygote -- errors occur during DNA replication and/or recombination (the crossing over of chromosomes during meiosis) that result in various mutations? These mutations can be substitutions (a single nucleotide type is substituted for another) -- which can result in a synonymous mutation (no change in the resultant protein due to the redundancy of the genetic code), a missense mutation (if the protein now contains a different amino acid at the corresponding position, potentially changing its structure and function), or a nonsense mutation (truncating the protein so that only the part of it until the mutation is produced) -- or additions or deletions of one or more nucleotides, which can cause drastic frameshift mutations, where the entire protein after the mutation will be made of different amino acids, or even the duplication or deletion of entire genes. So to say something so idiotic like 'but there is no new information' is either incredibly dishonest or evidence of an impressive level of ignorance. Go back to school bud, a REAL school.

[@ShoestringRacer]

I love the parts of the Bible where God slaughters everyone 🙏❤️🙏❤️🙏

[@an.d.m.a]

But he did it out of love.

[@MegaMerdeux]

I remember reading this story when I was a kid. And always keeping the moral of that story throughout my life when encountering similar situations

[@colin2709]

Colleges all over the world teach Darwinan theory of evolution as a fact - to attempt to deny that is duplicitous. It's no accident that they regard it as fact, no amount of complaining about it because it contradicts what you would like to believe changes that. Go to any major college and argue your case against it, if you have one. Instead of which you peddle your disinformation on youtube; that says a lot about the quality of your arguments and your motives.

[@Domlnlk]

Rarely have I heard so much nonsense

[@alantasman8273]

Yup, evolutionists provide so much nonsense.

[@jamespratt1015]

This video is full of misinformation. I don't understand why people who present themselves are Christians are comfortable lying to millions of people on social platforms. Or maybe he really believes what he is saying and is simply (and profoundly) uninformed, or maybe he believes lying by omission isn't really lying. In any case, everyone involved with this video should be ashamed of themselves for presenting so much misinformation to the public.

[@adrianminjares7310]

On the contrary, this is a great video and everyone should see it. They should be proud that they can think rationally.

[@brianwatson9687]

On the contrary, this video has so much information that I would have laughed all the way through it had it not been so sad and pathetic. @@adrianminjares7310

[@BlackCircle25]

But there is literal evidence for evolution. We share large percentages of our DNA with other species like chimps and shrews. We have uncovered skulls and skeletons of our previous ancestors where changes are very clearly seen. I am open to friendly debates in the reply section.

[@AnimatedLoopHD]

The theory of Evolution is a an indisputable fact of nature. There's more evidence to support the theory of evolution than there is the theory of gravity. The creation myth of Genesis isn't a theory - it's a just a hypothesis.

[@an.d.m.a]

A disproven hypothesis.

[@markfry4304]

Evolution is highly disputable and hardly a fact.

[@WadeWeigle]

Thank you for this clear cut easy to digest take on micro/macro evolution fib that’s being forced on us. God bless you and all you do.

[@maninhat77]

Funny thing is he says natural selection is not evolution. And - he's right. It's not. And I don't think any evolutionists ever said that.

[@alantasman8273]

@@maninhat77 Evolutionist always give natural selection as evidence for evolution...that was the entire premise of Darwin.

[@HS-zk5nn]

there is no direct observational of macro-evolution.

[@joshuakohlmann9731]

@@HS-zk5nn There can't be, by definition. Macroevolution is simply microevolution over a larger time scale.

[@HS-zk5nn]

@@joshuakohlmann9731 that has no direct observational evidence. thus cant be proven by science by definition

[@capitalb5889]

I'm convinced. An invisible man did it, despite all evidence to the contrary.

[@MarkH-cu9zi]

Where was the part that drives evolutionists crazy?

[@h.gonyaulax2190]

It does not exist. Biologists do not care about the video or break out in laughter.

[@johnalexir7634]

Only in the title, as clickbait :) Maybe we both fell for it lol

[@AtamMardes]

"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool." Voltaire

[@h.gonyaulax2190]

This video doesn't drive evolutionists crazy, they just don't care.

[@joeharris2659]

The deck of cards analogy is very helpful because it illustrates a key difference between both camps. AiG proposes that cards from the same deck are shared and mixed together, while evolutionists claim that each generation (or, rather, each member of that generation) is effectively copying - and sometimes mis-copying - genetic information from the previous generation’s deck. This allows for the possibility of mutations, and also doesn’t imply that the parents’ genetic information is used us after they have two children. This ‘copying’ rather than ‘reusing’ theory also explains how the Tarot deck of cards (with different symbols) emerged through the copying of traditional playing cards.

[@rickallen9167]

Yes, the deck of cards analagy is very helpful, especially the Tarot deck. Originally added as a triumphant (trump) suit to traditional cards, they were then much much later attributed (aptly for the purposes here) to divination, the practice of seeking knowledge of the future or the unknown through supernatural means! Or, in other words, adding or replacing plausibility with numinousity. AiG proposes the ideological prime creation of the kingdom of heaven and the earth. While nothing can be substantiated or proven upon the first, it can and has been regarding the earth. If the earth was without form and void, it would have to have been previously with form and sound, but then deteriorated. There would also have been no waters, and certainly no deep. Our planetary system is a solar system, not a terranus system. Night and day exists because our planetary axial rotation exists. And so on, and so forth. Whilst the proposal for any God exists, it exists only through mankind. The ideological man, The explanatory man, The fearful man, And the scripted man.

[@timspiker]

@@rickallen9167 Tarot cards are a satanic practice

[@scottguitar8168]

Around the 12:20 mark he sort of nails what apologists try to hide about evolution, which is "mutations" occur, but the mutations occur on something that already exists leading to a growing branch of the evolutionary tree. This is why big cats are related to small cats or wolves related to dogs, or humans related to other primates. There is no wild production of something completely unrelated to the original gene pool. You don't go from a fish to a human on the next mutation and what determines a new species is when the mutations soon make it impossible to have offspring with the original species who had the mutation. While this mutation often requires thousands of years to directly observe it, there are things that do create new species that are observable in our lifetime. Apologists like to call this micro evolution and of course agree that this exists but claim that because we cannot observe macro evolution, it does not exist. Sort of ironic isn't it considering we cannot physically observe God yet that exists. There is no micro and macro evolution, there is just evolution. While evolution does dispel the Adam and Eve story, it doesn't rule out the existence of Deities, only that evolution could have been their solution to the formation of life in our universe. There are Christians who accept the true science of evolution while still accepting the Christian religion.

[@h.gonyaulax2190]

In Europe and in other parts of the world, the major Christian churches, Protestants as well as the conservative Catholic Church, have no problem with the theory of evolution since decades. Seems to be mainly a problem in the US-America.

[@patrickmuller3248]

The only thing that makes me crazy is the fact that modern people still believe in medieval ideas.

[@Couragethecowardlydog509]

Darwin isn't medieval

[@pavlos712]

At least christianity is much older than the middle ages. You didn't get it right either way.

[@patrickmuller3248]

@@pavlos712 Makes it even worse

[@pavlos712]

@@patrickmuller3248 makes no logical sense.

[@patrickmuller3248]

@@pavlos712 It's funny that a science denier talks about "logical sense"

[@pigzcanfly444]

Exactly genetic entropy is what we are witnessing. Not the addition of new genetic information that creates novel functionality and structures. Every time I bring this up people try to fall back knto ad populum and "multiple fields" which correspond supposedly to corroborate the theory when in reality geomagnetism, astronomy, genetics and virology completely disagree with this notion. It's just that only a few people are actually looking past the indoctrination and asking the questions to get to the heart of the matter. And of course those individuals are treated as outcasts and liars. Such is the world we live in today.

[@krzysztofrudnicki5841]

Oh yeah! Science sucks! I prefer bronze age myths to describe my reality, so I want to watch these kind of videos and feel comfortable in my belief bubble so my ego cannot be hurt. I can put "God" everywhere and I don't need to think anymore. I'm so proud of my brainwashing.

[@kennethd4645]

Sorry but this is a very long strawman argument. Natural selection is only one aspect of evolution. There is plenty of evidence of macro evolution. But this was a very well done presentation for anyone who doesn't understand the science involved and/or doesn't want to accept evolution. Perhaps the fact that over 95% of life on earth became extinct before dinosaurs evolved might be a small problem with the idea that all creatures were created at the same time?

[@alantasman8273]

Please provide this "plenty of evidence for macro evolution"...or the transition of one species to another. I really want to see this evidence. Thank you in advance.

[@kennethd4645]

​@@alantasman8273 Where exactly are the transitions from being far from home, close to home, and almost home?

[@TheObviousRealist]

Yeah - Ahh No, just mental gymnastic fodder. Everything is evolving all the time. You learn - you evolve, the environment changes - life evolves. Roaches now can eat petroleum products , microbes have been developed to degrade plastic which, buy the way, was introduced to the environment by a highly evolve tool using creature. Some guy sitting behind a desk tying together related ideas into a subject is evolution, clearly not a mutation that will survive as it creates a vacuum of obfuscation of the facts ….and….nature abores a vacuum …just like the video was. A whole lot of nothing sucking into an empty space.

[@JustClaude13]

Natural selection isn't the same as evolution. It's only a mechanism that explains the evolution that was already seen before natural selection was offered as a mechanism. If you're using a deck of cards as an explanation for natural selection, you should also include the 200 random mutations, mostly benign, that are found in each individual but not in their parents. So some cards may spontaneously have rounder corners and curved edges. Over time, if such characteristics might have an advantage in shuffling, more cards might develop rounder edges and wider corners until all the decks in that lineage have round cards. Since these cards couldn't be shuffled with rectangular cards, these decks couldn't reproduce with rectangular decks and would be a new species. If you really want to be impressive, try explaining why almost all primates have a damaged gene that prevents them from producing their own vitamin C, why it's an identical error in all primates, and why it's a different error as compared to guinea pigs or bats. Then really crush the evolutionists by explaining why we share so many retroviral insertions in the chromosomes, in the same locations, with other animals. Why do we share more retro-viral debris in the chromosomes the more closely we seem to be related to other animals? The most with chimpanzees, then less so with gorillas, then less in turn with other primates, other mammals and other vertebrates. And why the apparent family tree from that so closely matches the family tree generated from immunology, from the total genetic pattern and from the fossil record.

[@Derkells]

That’s evolution

[@JLTrj00913]

Hey Derek, I think he was being sarcastic

[@JustClaude13]

@@JLTrj00913 No, I was being serious. If you want to disprove evolution you have to disprove the evidence of evolution. Arguments against evolution fall into two categories. Denying the existence of evidence without producing independently verifiable evidence that disproves it or simply declaring that the speaker's interpretation of scripture trumps scientific research without offering independently verifiable evidence for the literal interpretation of scripture. Personally, I believe in God, but if my reading of scripture disagrees with objective reality, then my understanding of scripture is more likely to be wrong than what scientists of all religious convictions agree on.

[@icureyou7965]

The cards are not going to turn into a pair of dice... you missed his point obviously and your attempt at sarcasm is weak. They are all still their kind and have never deviated from their kind. They have continuously reproduced as they should with minimal changes - which evolved first the sperm or the egg?

[@wiwlarue4097]

On the ISS astronaut's bodies start to transform measurably even when only having been upthere for moths. Experience of a changing environment recorded in cell mamory transmitted to the offspring using dna and repetition of this process through endless cycles of generations is what is happening to our physical bodies. Weightlessness and atmosphereless environment has many effects on living tissue. It isn't god that writes our dnas. It's the environment, changing behaviour and habits which is shaping our dnas every moment. We hypothesize if humans had lived in weightless environment for generations they would have transformed to a very serious extent.This is the reason ISS astronauts would not be sent on a mission for much longer than one year. Most of them spends a few months there.

[@TexasScout]

Outstanding analysis, concise, informative, easy to understand. Well done

[@TexasScout]

@@Bomtombadi1 How droll, what you have just posted leaves anyone that reads it dumber as a result.

[@phoebemulube4451]

♦️Only dummies or idiots will believe in evolution! Because they reason or think like apes.

[@denvan3143]

@@Bomtombadi1 when was the last time you saw a liberal comedian? They all became bitter monologuist with daddy issuess. 😖

[@phoebemulube4451]

@@Bomtombadi1 ♦️I believe in Creation, only when it is based on the Word of God. ♦️NB: Jehovah created all things and He made them perfectly. Whatever God made does not need any improvement from man. ♦️Whenever Man tries to improve what God made, he destroys the authenticity of that thing.

[@alanmcnaughton3628]

@@phoebemulube4451 very sad how so many were sucked into believing an injection could "improve" the human genome with UNKNOWN ingredients. THEY always knew what they were doing.

[@Torby4096]

Somehow, I still have trouble seeing a chihuahua as a dog🤔

[@kethib52154]

rat maybe

[@julianmucke2921]

The problem I see with this, is while very reasonable, the arguments fail to factor in 2 Things: that new genes can emerge (super rare, but random mutation can add new gene information) and the unbelievible amount of time Evolution takes. (Sorry for my bad english)

[@kelvinc1205]

If the mutation is large enough to create a new organ (as opposed to a small change), the animal will die in development just as pregnancies end in miscarriages. When evolutionary scientists do mutation experiments they can easily generate mutations in fruit flies, but the babies die.

[@MB-gi8iq]

Do you know of any proof that you can cite, that new gene information emerges?

[@thomasbooth9079]

Exactly and genetic mutations add up over time.

[@TheSpacePlaceYT]

Your worldview essentially says the following. If I had a software that made random bits of code with 1s and 0s, over millions of years, I would eventually make a software that would make the genetic code of humans.

[@goliatghoul7679]

@@TheSpacePlaceYT Your argument lacks two crucial things: 1 I have thousends of the same Code 2 The few of the Code that have some 1s and 0s different, most probably die. This means even if some of Codes get defective, they just die or those random 1s and 0s make the Code a bit better witch then proliferates and makes the alterations more commen in the huge Code community

[@amnobody117]

Nice presentation, thank you!

[@carolkegel7599]

So how do you explain ERVs confirming the relationships between vastly different species? And can someone explain what a "kind" is?

[@danb77777]

The same intelligence is behind all creatures. A kind is a category like "family" or "order" that we use to group similar animals today.

[@zenyattamondatta7757]

What's an ERV? What are you considering "vastly different"?

[@normalisoverrated]

Different KINDS refers to differences in a specific species, ie, Bears. There are several different bears, yet all are of the same "kind".

[@JimWilliams-s8z]

Yes it's such a head scratcher all matter is made of atoms and all life is made from atoms!? And " kind" for exampleis the canine pool. If y9u take a particular canine swimin̈g everyday ( and all it's offspring) til the stars burn out the last one will still be a canine.

[@amandatyler4324]

You’re right, this drives evolutionists crazy, but it’s most definitely not true. It drives them crazy because you have a gross misunderstanding of evolution to begin with, making your points completely invalid. If you’re going to prove evolution wrong with science, at least get your facts right.

[@randyrogers8568]

It's true that evolutionists don't have all the answers. But creationists don't have any of the answers.

[@Aurora666_yt]

🎯💯 Couldn't have said it any better.

[@youreanidiothereswhy]

Nah. You’re just pressed in your fairy tale of fish men that you can’t accept the universe in intelligently designed.