Exposing the Absurd LACK of Scientific Evidence for Evolution

From its inception, the scientific “proofs” offered to support evolution have been riddled with holes. For example, many of the so-called “ape-man” fossils have been proven to be completely fake. In this video, Calvin Smith exposes the lack of scientific evidence for evolution.
This video is part of a series titled Freakshow. You can watch the rest of the series here: www.Answers.TV/freakshow
This video was originally published on the Answers in Genesis-Canada channel:
/ @answerscanada
========
Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (Christianity-defending) ministry dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ effectively.
On our KZbin channel, you’ll find answers to your most pressing questions about key issues like creation, evolution, science, the age of the earth, and social issues. We desire to train believers to develop a worldview based on the Bible and expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas and their implications.
You’ll hear from top teachers such as Ken Ham, Bryan Osborne, Dr. Georgia Purdom, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, Tim Chaffey, Bodie Hodge, Dr. Gabriela Haynes, Dr. Terry Mortenson, and more.
Please help us continue to share the gospel around the world: AnswersinGenesis.org/give

[@michelemcneill3652]

Even before becoming a Christian and learning the Bible, I knew we didn't come from apes.

[@celestialsatheist1535]

We are apes

[@jackstrawfromwichita9369]

@@celestialsatheist1535 No. We're not. Dr. Charles Oxnard completed the most sophisticated computer analysis of australopithecine fossils ever undertaken, and concluded that the australopithecines have nothing to do with the ancestry of man whatsoever, and are simply an extinct form of ape (Fossils, Teeth and Sex: New Perspectives on Human Evolution, University of Washington Press, 1987).

[@jackstrawfromwichita9369]

@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 Nice fairytale. Dr. Charles Oxnard completed the most sophisticated computer analysis of australopithecine fossils ever undertaken, and concluded that the australopithecines have nothing to do with the ancestry of man whatsoever, and are simply an extinct form of ape (Fossils, Teeth and Sex: New Perspectives on Human Evolution, University of Washington Press, 1987).

[@davidandthatotherguy1369]

​@@celestialsatheist1535 That's racist

[@davidandthatotherguy1369]

​@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 That's racist.

[@JanSwan]

Only having 13% of "Lucy's" actual skull means they had to 'imagine' the remaining 87%!!!! Just how is that much 'Imagination' scientific, logical or even reasonably believable!!!??? Blind leading the blind!

[@GabeDev]

​@@electricspark5271 what are you talking about? Lets's think about who's making up a story for money Is it the man who lives in a giant gilded palace in the Vatican surrounded by sycophantic devotees and armies of servants and pedophilic priests, a man who tells you to literally give him money to get into heaven and demands obedience and devotion for your entire life? Or is it scientists who don't stand to make much money unless they sell out to a corporation or win a Nobel prize? Scientists who stand to gain nothing from lying about the reality of evolution.

[@notnotiron]

The error in reconstructing a few particular specimen from parts of their fossils is mathematically inadequate to disprove the theory of evolution as it does not explain the DNA evidence or the existence of other fossils. I am not saying that evolution is true, but that this video does not do anything to disprove it logically

[@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440]

They had a sufficient amount of data to work on, and were able to prove that Lucy was a hominind.

[@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440]

@@electricspark5271 Do you really think they fabricated the evidence for money? Do you think that's what science is about?

[@corybrockman1865]

what evidence of christ do you have?

[@enlightenedtrucker739]

When Einstein's theories are proven wrong he won't turn in his grave he will smile. That's the cool thing about science. It's true whether or not you believe in it.

[@Reasonable_action]

Lol

[@little_lord_tam]

I think Einstein will do a Jesus move and return once someone finds a way to connect the theory of relativity with quantum mechanics

[@RUMPLEforeskin25]

@@little_lord_tam Einstein plagorized the majority of his work.

[@punkabooiscool1111]

For uh - religion- there is only really trust- with science there's physical proof- knowing it exists with proof would hold more then "just trust me on this" right?

[@campbellsjournal6537]

Source?

[@torenicolaifjelldal]

The moment a video arguing against evolution chooses to mention the Piltdown man we know it’s not trying to contribute with useful data and knowledge

[@tobias4411]

Bringing up a fraud that happened over a century ago seems like a desperate attempt to disprove something...

[@mattperotti6433]

At least since the 1960s, Evolutionists have always maintained their stranglehold on education not through evidence or fact-based defense of their theory, but solely by arguing "separation of church and state" . . . even though there has long been a large amount of credible scientific evidence and research in support of creation theory.

[@MichaelWilliams-eq4kt]

All the key people behind naturalist philosophy and its propagation were occultists and Freemasons. Naturalism is the set up for deceiving the masses into practising the satanic ideology of do what thou wilt and love under will.

[@notnotiron]

There is no evidence of the creation theory, if there is than please state it.

[@filetmignon9978]

@@notnotiron that is the topic that this channel/organization specializes in. If you want some answers or more info, browse their videos or website articles

[@Buzz-rh4dz]

​@NotNotIronBoy lol, ShOw Me DuH eViDenCe. While on a channel replete with it.

[@christophercoupe5006]

@@notnotiron Spoken like an atheist! Funny how atheists don't need any real science to 'prove' evolution! If you have any evidence to contradict this video please share it!

[@zedhiro6131]

Every generation thinks that it is better than the previous generation. As is the case were the pharisees in the time of Christ thought they were much better than the people in the time of Moses. There is nothing new under the sun.

[@tup4443]

no, the generation is not better, but thery are more cientific advances so it isn't the generation thats better, its the time.

[@mr.battle20]

Yep, it's called "presentism". The erroneous belief that your generation is far more civilized and circumscribed than your forebears. Looking at society nowadays, we can see quite clearly that isn't the case.

[@micheleh5269]

@@tup4443 Except that we do not have the technology to replicate the Shroud of Turin. Linen cloth with stable, superficial photo negative image. Or the Pyramid of Giza for that matter

[@DARamosYT]

I like to consider this. It's not man that evolves, but merely his methods of preserving information/knowledge/science. This has left the future generations with greater tools to improve upon, but with these better tools comes greater arrogance as greater accomplishments are achieved. Without history, we would forget the men who got us here in the first place. Evolution presents a strong disdain for ancient men, touting them as primitive bronze age peoples or barbarians only capable of violence. But comparing to the current generation, there can be found people of lower reasoning and more diabolical imaginations of tormenting their peers. We have hardly changed in anything but efficiency and appearance.

[@mr.battle20]

@@DARamosYT Michael Knowles from the Daily Wire put it succinctly in a debate with a leftist college student. "You're standing on the shoulders of giants and you think you're flying."

[@ruby_240]

People(mostly americans💀) still don't understand that darwin said that apes and humans have a common ancestor, not that humans descended from apes

[@typhoonmichael7742]

(Christian here) Evolution isn't a lie 💀

[@jellymayhem0]

@@typhoonmichael7742What do you mean? Do you believe in the old earth theory?

[@Acecool444]

"humans have a common ancestor" still implies Evolution. (U.S. Citizen)

[@TheMickeymental]

@@typhoonmichael7742 Yet you are living a lie. How can you prover yourself a Christian?

[@Tyrant_Boi]

Yay one of us correct evolutionists! I have a religious friend who does believes evolution.

[@tibodeclercq2131]

A few questions, if you don't mind: Why do human embryos have gills at early stages? Why do we get goosebumps? Why are some humans born with rare conditons like dry skin (burned looking), with a tail or with colorblindness? Why do we share 99% of our DNA with Chimpanzees? Why do we get hernias? Why do women carry babys for 9 months and is childbirth (without modern pharmaceuticals) so painful + why do our kids remain so helpless for many years compared to most species? Why does our skin have glands that secrete oil to keep our skin hydrated & why do reptiles not have it? Why do humans & mammals have a specific bite and why don't we regrow our teeth after one falls out (yet why do reptiles)? Why do humans have a pretty louzy sense of smell, but the same tima a unique wide range of color vision? Is the answer this: "Because god wants it that way"? Or are there tons of universities & researchers (who also answer these questions) just making jokes and deliberately fabricating stuff in their work?

[@Tyrant_Boi]

Also what kind of god would make a universe with so much suffering?

[@earth-6163]

Even with all this facts accurately explained, there are those who will cling on to denial because living in a lie is easier than living in the truth.

[@notnotiron]

This video states the mistake in interpreting a few fossils how does it explain the misinterpretation of other fossils/ transitory species that still exist today/ the possibility of genome variation, etc? If you can disprove them I will willingly listen.

[@InMemphisJohn]

@@notnotiron Please provide an example that you believe has NOT been discredited.

[@susanmoncrief9433]

​)

[@TheBlackxice]

It’s Bigfoot’s evolution not ours lol

[@jrstf]

One need only look at current US politics to see that truth is of no interest to many.

[@John777Revelation]

A person does Not need to have a Phd (or even an undergraduate degree) to question the validity of the Abiogenesis Hypothesis, or any hypothesis. As long as people have an understanding of basic scientific principles, common sense, and open mindedness to seek the truth, they can come to a more accurate conclusion for themselves. Basic Science 101: Wikipedia 2021, *_“A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the Scientific Method requires that one can Test It … Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is Not the same as a scientific theory.”_* Hypothesis is also referred to as a Hypothetical or Educated Guess. Wikipedia 2021, *_"In evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life (OoL),is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. While the details of this process Are Still Unknown, the prevailing scientific Hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities was not a single event [i.e. spontaneous generation]... There are several principles and Hypothesis for how abiogenesis Could Have occurred."_* One of the reasons that abiogensis is merely a "hypothesis" and has not advanced to the status of being a "scientific theory", is that abiogenesis hypotheses still lack the experimental data required by the scientific method. Abiogenesis Hypothesis has passed the scientific method process zero (0) times.

[@lizadowning4389]

Clueless, as usual. Abiogenesis isn't discussed here.

[@andycole5957]

THAT is the Dunning Kruger effect perfectly stated. You were doing great, no you don't need a Phd to question anything; however, stating that an understanding of basic scientific principles can get you to "more accurate conclusion" is just absurd. That sounds like the guy who takes his car to the mechanic and says they know what's wrong, despite having no training or experience, only a basic understanding of how cars work! Sure, that basic understanding can be helpful, especially in preventing being ripped off; however, it does not mean you can more accurately diagnose a car problem than the ASC certified mechanic with years of experience.

[@gilmarjunior7700]

​@@lizadowning4389In evolution there's a thing called primordial soup

[@lizadowning4389]

@@gilmarjunior7700 The 'primordial soup' is an idiom that refers to the conditions on early Earth out of which life arose. As such, it has nothing to do with evolution which is a biological concept that posits that populations of living organisms change (evolve). Even in high school, the concept of the primordial soup is discussed in abiogenesis, not in biological evolution.

[@alexandrabeskrovnaya5327]

While this video correctly points out cases where scientific understanding has evolved or where errors have been made, it fails to acknowledge that these are not evidence against evolution, but rather examples of how science improves and refines its theories over time. The script also appears to conflate science with belief systems, implying that acceptance of evolution equates to disbelief in a god or higher power. However, science doesn’t claim to disprove the existence of God. Many people find ways to reconcile their religious beliefs with the scientific understanding of the world, including the theory of evolution. Lastly, the video could be more explicit in communicating that the study of human evolution involves ongoing research and discoveries, and it’s normal for understanding to change as new data becomes available. Missteps, while they do occur, do not invalidate the substantial body of evidence supporting human evolution.

[@zt2max]

Alex I appreciate your post is at least a rational one, however you use the word, "substantial" evidence for human evolution. But really the evidence they put forward is scant, really the bones wouldn't add up to a very small population of a town of people. Recently there was a study showing that pithecines are their own distinct group away from both modern apes and humans. when you consider that both apes, monkeys and humans as well as extinct apes like pithecines, all have a primate body plan with collar bone, arms, forward vision, then is it really unlikely since these are the organisms with a body plan most similar to ours, that we would find coarse similarity that might portray a circumstantial and misleading case for human evolution? But the scientists would never consider then null hypothesis, they simply never consider the possibility that evolution did not happen. So even if we do not even talk about creation or God, that doesn't change the fact that scientists never consider even the possibility they could be wrong, which seems much more dogmatic than scientific considering the fact there are no repeatable experimental data to test the claims of macro evolution. In fact it is all inferred from circumstantial evidence. The problem is that to believe every design on the planet designed itself by evolution is to believe in an extraordinary claim without extraordinary proof. Phantasticus axioma. For example, imagine if I claimed a ferrari designed itself, don't you think my evidence would have to be extraordinary? So then why isn't evolution held to the same standard given the design in life is so much greater of that of a ferrari? Think about it.

[@anthonyolvera5916]

Any honest biologist will tell you there were other hominids besides homo sapien and modern man is a hybrid of these hominids it doesn't mean there isn't a God

[@med2904]

Because there's no extraordinary evidence for creationism either. There's no scientific evidence for it whatsoever. In science, we accept the theory that has the most evidence. Not the one that's absolutely perfect. Now we know that Newtonian physics were wrong. We know the break down at extreme scales and don't describe correctly our observations. But until we had better scientific theories, this was the best one. It worked for our everyday lives. Just because it wasn't completely right, doesn't mean it was useless and that we should've said "It's the God that creates gravity and makes the sun rise!". Because that's nonsense that has zero evidence. Some evidence is always better than zero evidence. Some logical explanation is always better than a completely illogical one.

[@med2904]

@michael baba "ferrari has made itself" sounds ridiculous because you KNOW FOR A FACT that it was made in a factory. You can go to the factory and see with your own eyes engineers designing it, and workers and machines creating it. But you CAN'T see the God creating living beings. You have zero evidence for that. So a better comparison would be a ferrari that a caveman sees for the first time. And this ferrari can somehow change its colors, the size and shape of its wheels, etc. in order to adapt to its environment. So a logical conclusion for the caveman would be that the ferrari assembled itself. It's not logical for the caveman to throw his hands in the air and say "I don't know exactly how this works! Therefore it must've been God who created it!". Or maybe not God, but fairies. Or demons. Or pagan spirits. Or ascended Buddha who can control the reality. Would you accept these other spiritual or religious explanations? Nope. Because now they have no evidence for you. But if it's an explanation without evidence that agrees with your religion, then it's suddenly the most logical one for you.

[@zt2max]

@@med2904 Med2904, that's incorrect. The ferrari is just an example of an extraordinary claim, the point I was making was that evolution and it's ancestor of all life, which has no cause and therefore is science-fiction, is a fantastic claim. It wasn't meant to be a comparison between life's design and a ferrari. The evidence God designed life is staggering because like the ferrari all of life's forms has specified complexity, information code, correct materials, contingency planning, integrated systems and astounding inventiveness. But don't believe me, instead believe a non-theist science-field called, "biomimetics". so Med, no offence but I was looking for rational discourse with that other poster, not the usual sophistry you get thrown at you by the standard average IQ atheist that uses the LAME and vague, "religous comparison" game. So you question-beg Buddha and pagan spirits because what you have done there is called the fallacy of false equivalence, where instead of showing these claims equal to God, you just lump God in with them because you haven't the intellectual ability to see that each claim is judged on it's own merit. Anyone can play that game. For example you believe in natural magic, where cells assemble themselves for no reason whatsoever that just happen to be more intelligent by design than anything we can come up with. LOL. So keep burying your head in the sand by pretending there is only evidence of evolution and none for God for that lame and false binary propaganda is all the feeble minds of atheism can come up with.In fact evidence for God is qualified by logical rules such as using the consequent in a modus ponen (aka Popper), so we can intellectually qualify evidence using logical rules, not using aggressive atheist opinions. LOL

[@Herzankerkreuz67]

The recent past certainly has shown more than enough what to think about 'follow the science'. My trust remains in the Almighty.

[@adamnesico]

Almighty? Christian doctrinr is the product of men more corruptible than scientists.

[@Woopor]

“Follow the church”

[@canozer5084]

Lool wht u god did for u?

[@ramigilneas9274]

Would have been a great opportunity to appear and provide a cure for Covid.😂

[@Stevewilldoit96]

Men can become women if they cut off their genitals, Trust the science! -Rational Reddit atheist/skeptic

[@revelation8199]

I would love to see an evolutionary biologist react to this video.

[@Jewonastick]

Me too! It will demonstrate how retarded the video is

[@notnotiron]

Mathematically speaking, this video does not prove or disprove anything.

[@kamixakadio2441]

@@notnotiron Mathematically speaking, no Evolutionist has proven evolution.

[@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440]

@@kamixakadio2441 Realistically speaking, evolution has been proven thousands of times over.

[@Flagrum3]

@@notnotiron "Mathematically" proven though, is that life could not have come about by chance, simply an impossible task. Also evolution, the hypothesis, has zero evidence whatsoever, just assertions, speculations, pipedreams and downright lies.

[@donaldscholand4617]

G.K. Chesterton had fun mocking darwinians in a early chapter of his book, The Everlasting Man. He pointed out that skillful artists drew finely detailed portraits of the Piltdown man, with wistful, thoughtful expressions. Talented writers created whole biographies for him, describing his habits and preferences. The public never realized that they were viewing the portrait and reading the biography of a piece of a cranium, part of a jaw bone, and a tooth!

[@jockyoung4491]

Piltdown man was exposed as a hoax BY scientists.

[@vanguard1103_pS]

ah yes. because some people drew and wrote some stuff 2000 odd years ago, the universe was created by an all-powerful being and we have to worship him or something

[@christiansaint716]

@@vanguard1103_pS Much of that written stuff is happening now! Read it and find out.

[@Nsinger998]

@@vanguard1103_pS Which disproves OP how?

[@smokingcrab2290]

@Nexus corporation, you're swimming in denial bud.

[@scorpion2245]

The thing is, neanderthals are very close to homo sapiens in evolution. But we have a lot of older skeletons from other more distant species.

[@roberttrough6439]

Did Neanderthals really exist. Did science make up stories with bones from different dead people like have done so many times. And you believe that propaganda. Ok if that works for you. Hahaha 🤣

[@Tyrant_Boi]

@@roberttrough6439 Its not propaganda. Its science. Neanderthals did exist. You should not laugh at peoples beliefs. You should instead come up with reasonably structured arguments against them. You are probably evolving into a less intelligent grass eating creature as we speak. I would not even expect you to reply back due to the rate of evolution you are experiencing.

[@richardlew3667]

Creation: It is written. Evolution: It is re-written. It is re-written. It is re-written.

[@sanserof7]

Yes because the whole idea of the scientific process is getting closer to the truth with each iteration

[@33jamesds]

And that rewriting is how we ended up with planes, the internet, smartphones, and big dumb blockbuster movies lol. Didn't you learn in school that rewriting and revising always make your work stronger?

[@qwaurk985]

@@sanserof7 So how can it be trusted as true today if it can be false tomorrow?

[@richardlew3667]

@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 Creation never had to change because it remains constant and all the evidences keep pointing to it.

[@sanserof7]

@@qwaurk985 It's not true, it's as close as possible to true

[@jasoncook7378]

"I didn't come from no ape! That's degrading! I came from dirt."

[@stevepierce6467]

My greatest advance regret is that they won't let me be buried untreated under a tree, to return to the dirt from whence I came and provide food for a new tree.

[@gorgo4910]

I think you meant to say: I came from the hand of God. 🙂

[@jasoncook7378]

@@gorgo4910 Sorry...I'm not in a cult like you are. LOL.

[@wendigo53]

@@gorgo4910 ... maybe via apes?

[@gorgo4910]

@@wendigo53 I didn’t come from no ape! That’s degrading!

[@colinsmith1288]

A person is no longer allowed to challenge evolution without being mocked and ridiculed. Strange times we live.

[@colinsmith1288]

@Gyrate Actually some creationists do. But as evolutionary scientists call all the shots in education and accepting or dismissing peer review papers is at any wonder evolution is not properly challenged.

[@paulgarrett4474]

​@Colin Smith you are welcome to challenge evolution. But, if you challenge it without understanding it in the first place, like your average creationist, your challenge will fail. If you challenge it by being dishonest about published science, your challenge will also fail. If you challenge it by waving a demonstrably false book about humans being made by dirt, magic and incest, then claim it happened 6000 years ago, your challenge will fail (and people will probably laugh at you).

[@ShowMeYoBoob]

@@colinsmith1288 if u dont believe in evolution then explain why tigers meow sound exactly the same as cats when you make it high pitched, why some cat breeds have the same dot patterns on their body as tigers, leopards, cheetas etc... why dogs and wolfs howl the same way, why zebras look like horses and donkeys and theres also a zebra breed whose head look like giraffe, why hedgehogs look like a mixture of pigs and rats, why hairless chimpanzees have the same muscle shapes as humans and share 98% the same dna and they can live up to 60 years and why on youtube u can only find chimpanzees that can walk on 2 and not other animals. Is all of this (and much more that i havent thought about) coincidence? i dont think so

[@colinsmith1288]

@@ShowMeYoBoob Actually l have no problem with evolution. Bears can walk perfectly fine on two legs,even climb trees with them better than we can. Hedgehogs look nothing like you describe however. Plenty of other animals use camouflage too as do some insects,birds and sealife. Octopusses seeming the masters of it. But l have also seen some powerful arguments aswell. The concept of evolution has been around a long time,the ancients greeks were quite aware of it .

[@randomusername3873]

The arguments the moron in the video are literal proof that people can easily challenge science and be taken seriously All of the video is about science changing based on new evidence

[@SalvableRuin]

I found a dead squirrel in the forest. 1000 kilometres away I found a book lying on the ground. I can't be sure if the squirrel wrote the book or if it was just reading it, but this is nonetheless evidence that squirrels are literate, and are far more human than previously thought.

[@pup1008]

It's a great story but I'm not even sure what side of the debate you are on with that?

[@gracebenedict]

@@pup1008i’m pretty certain it is sarcasm and meant to show how absurd the evolutionist arguments are

[@pup1008]

@@gracebenedict You may be right. Bit of a waste of time though when no one has a clue what you are going on about...

[@gracebenedict]

@@pup1008 i knew exactly the comparison they were making the first time i read it. i don’t think it’s a waste of time it shows just how absurd their arguments are

[@slingslang2934]

​@@gracebenedict of course, obviously the 2 are connected despite the 600miles

[@pharmagator]

It is interesting that scientists so often find exactly what they are looking for!

[@Redeemer_80]

Scientism in full effect, and the scam hasn’t changed. Modern day equivalent is the PCR test and viruses.

[@vanguard1103_pS]

it is interesting that the religious often find exactly what they're looking for in a book! an argument that can be used against both sides of an issue is not a good argument

[@HS-zk5nn]

@@LordMathious unfortunately there is no direct observational evidence for macroevolution. those who think they do are the true anti-sciencers

[@katamas832]

Almost like they know what they are doing and the theories make accurate predictions

[@HS-zk5nn]

@@katamas832 except that they are wrong more than 90% of the time

[@timhaley3459]

Noted evolutionist Richard Dawkins (now 82 years old, and published "The God Delusion" in 2006) said over 30 years ago: "If you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane.” Similarly, Professor René Dubos (1901-82 C.E.) once said: “Most enlightened persons now accept as a fact that everything in the cosmos-from heavenly bodies to human beings-has developed and continues to develop through evolutionary processes." For example, by the late 1800’s, some 20 years after Charles Darwin published his Origin of the Species in 1859, the American public was already becoming convinced that science (and not the Bible) could improve every aspect of human life, and in which all the major universities had said yes to the theory of evolution. In modern times, some have propounded the belief that it was about 350,000 years ago that humans started evolving, other say 2 million years ago when humans came on the scene, while in an article by the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History entitled "Introduction to Human Evolution", dated July 11, 2022, it said that "people originated from apelike ancestors and evolved over a period of approximately six million years", so there is NO consensus, and should cause a sincere person to realize the inconsistency and flaws of human views, even from scientific sources, such as "research papers". To show how gullible even the most astute scientific minds are, consider the case of the Piltdown Man in 1912 supposedly an evolutionary link found at Piltdown Village in Sussex, England. Many are quick to accept what scientists, paleontologists or even politicians say about a certain fossil without carefully verifying their words, so in their desire to find evidence of “ape-men,” some scientists had been taken in by outright fraud, as the Piltdown man was found to be. For about 40 years it was accepted as genuine by most of the evolutionary community. Finally, in 1953, the hoax was uncovered when modern techniques revealed that human and ape bones had been put together and artificially aged and perpetrated by A. C. Hinton, a former curator of zoology at London’s Natural History Museum, who died in 1961. In another instance, an apelike “missing link” was drawn up and presented in the press. But it was later acknowledged that the “evidence” consisted of only one tooth that belonged to an extinct form of pig.(Missing Links, by John Reader, 1981, pgs 109, 110) Or the "Man of Orce" that was "found" near Orce, Spain in southern Spain (Andalusia) and jumped to national headlines in 1983 and was based on an 8 cm (about 3 1/2 inches) wide skullcap fragment.(article "A fistful of fossils: The rise and fall of the Orce Man and the politics of paleoanthropological science", Journal of Human Evolution, April 2022) Prominent Spanish, French and British scientists had already vouched for its authenticity. However, on May 12, 1984, two weeks before an international seminar on the subject was to occur, serious doubts arose as to the fragment's origin. After the meticulous removal of calcareous deposits from the interior part of the skull, paleontologists found a disconcerting or "unusual crest". Human skulls do not have such a crest. The seminar was quickly postponed. Despite the fossil’s meager proportions, the “Man of Orce” was hailed as “the greatest paleontological find of recent years, as well as the missing link between the typical African man (Homo habilis) and the oldest man of the Eurasian continent (Homo erectus).” Fertile imagination and not-so-scientific guesswork sufficed to fill in the details about the appearance and way of life of the “Man of Orce.” Finally, in 1987, a scientific paper written by Jordi Agusti and Salvador Moya' , two paleontologists involved in the original discovery, said that x-ray analysis had indeed confirmed that the fossil belonged to a kind of horse, not a man.(the latest information says that it "was most likely a skull fragment from a four-month-old donkey") So, where does this put noted evolutionists with their "theory (or speculation, hypothesis, conjecture, personal view) of evolution" ? As something NOT to be trusted, but looked upon with doubt. Proverbs 14:15 in the Bible states: "The naive person believes every word ("its in a research or scientific paper, so it must be true"), but the shrewd one ponders each step."

[@RealHooksy]

If you don’t even understand what a scientific theory means, I’m not surprised that you don’t understand the theory itself 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@paulthompson9668]

@@RealHooksy You need to get on your hands and knees and pray for the Holy Spirit to fill you up.

[@RealHooksy]

@@paulthompson9668 like an alter boy?

[@paulthompson9668]

@@RealHooksy If you pray hard enough, then when you look back, you'll see Jesus penetrate you from behind and come inside you.

[@timhaley3459]

@@RealHooksy I understand that a fact is a truth, well established as something a person can accept, while a "scientific theory" is just that, someone's hypothesis, speculation, conjecture on a matter, and NOT established as a FACT. It is like playing the stock market, whereby a person can never be sure of whether they will gain or "lose their shirt". So many use the words "maybe", "possibility", "could", of a matter happening, but they cannot say CONCLUSIVELY that such an event or matter will happen or has happened. Being gullible is everywhere, but having EMPIRICAL (or proven) evidence (that can physically established) puts a matter as a fact. As astrophysicist Guillermo Gonzales, a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, once stated: "My work, in part, deals with astrobiology from an astronomers viewpoint. I simply follow the empirical evidence wherever it will lead me, and I try not to let philosophical preconceptions color my interpretations". So, the WISE person does NOT accept anything based on speculation, conjecture, hypothesis, on a "hunch", on a theory. It is as a Bible proverb states: "The naive person believes every word, but the shrewd one ponders each step."(Prov 14:15) A "shrewd" person can see when something is a fact and when it is NOT a fact, when it is someone's personal view or interpretation, in which you and I both know that personal views and interpretations are just that, personal and NOT necessarily factual. Here is a list of some theories that were proven as wrong (in which the list could go on and on) (1) Pon's Nuclear fusion or "cold fusion", (2) that mass is destroyed in nuclear reactions, (3) Einstein's static or stationary universe, proven wrong by Edwin Hubble in 1929 C.E. (4) spontaneous generation, proven wrong by Louis Pasteur in 1859 C.E.(5) that the earth is the center of the universe, known as the geocentricism, proven wrong by Galileo in 1610 C.E.(6) luminiferous aether, that a "medium" of aether pervaded the universe and is the carrier of light waves, but was proven wrong in 1887 by the Mickelson-Morley experiment. So, if you want to be gullible, go right ahead, but the wise person will NEVER accept a theory as fact, until proven by empirical evidence, beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is as New York banker David Hannum said in 1868, that "there's a sucker born every minute", speaking about "The Cardiff Giant", in which about 50 percent said it was a fake, while the other 50 percent thought it was a fossilized human giant, and in the end, it proved to be a hoax. With the Bible (an accurate Bible), this never presents a theory, "only the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth".

[@T.G.B.T.G]

"In early times, it was easier to control a million people than to kill a million. Today, it is infinitely easier to to kill a million people than to control a million." - Zbigniew Brzezinski

[@lordmavbmp]

you must not have seen when the tv said go in the house till we say so and everybody did it.

[@kyleangelo8502]

@cosmicskeptic, your thoughts on this?

[@mr.commonsense]

he would reply: Cool story, but when did you last see your dad per chance?

[@DaneStolthed]

As a creationist I’m astounded at how much faith atheists have in evolution.

[@chrisrendon461]

Its a basically a fact

[@chrisrendon461]

Why stop here why not go after gravity theres are tons of holes in the theory of gravity

[@Jewonastick]

As someone who lives in the 21st century I'm saddened that people choose bronze age mythology over the most well substantiated scientific theory there is.

[@henryknox4511]

@@chrisrendon461 That's why it's still called a theory right turdburger?

[@henryknox4511]

@@Jewonastick "unproven for 175 years"

[@82raptor]

The father of lies prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. My fellow Christians, stand up against these lies and fight for your rights in our public schools. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.

[@gweilospur5877]

Yes, kids need to be taught to believe in the magical invisible friend in the sky and that they will burn in a lake of fire forever if they don’t.

[@s3v3n3]

@@gweilospur5877 He's not just a friend, He's THE Father, THE creator of the universe, and He sets the terms, not us. If you're wondering why there is a hell and heaven is because there is ultimately good and evil, if there isn't, life has no purpose and there are no morals or values at all, besides what the elites who run this world want to push on us. I could go rogue and kill people if I wanted to and wouldn't have to worry if I died in the process, because there is no punishment right? Nihilism is destructive, God hates that destructiveness and shows us His righteous punishment of all sinners. The reality is there is a punishment if we don't repent and recognize Yeshua Hamachish as the savior of the world, and He wants to be our savior. Death is nothing more than an appointment with The Creator. *[Hebrews 9:27]* If you choose to reject Him, that's your choice because we all have free will, but that still means you have to know the consequences of rejecting God, He will give you what you want. It's not coercion to believe in Him, it's just the standard He made, if you don't want Him, He will give you what you want and cast you into outer darkness like the Atheists want, but you will still experience eternity without God. *[Romans 1:18-32]* It's nothing harsh, we do get to choose at the end which is the love of God, the love of God also showed Himself crucified on a cross so we don't have to be cast into outer darkness, where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth, where the worms never die and the fire isn't quenched, but that is only through repentance and becoming born again. God doesn't hate you, He wants to have a relationship with you.

[@t-radical99]

@@gweilospur5877 That's the beauty of your free will. You can chose to deny God if you want to! I don't know you but I love you with all my heart. Hope you respond to the Lord's calling for your life today and experience his love for you. I was lost without a clue and tried everything to sustain my happiness but I was left empty every time. Jesus changed my life. I can say without a doubt that He is more real than you and me. "If there is anything that is gracious, generous, kind, and tender, yea lavish and superabundant in love, you always find it in Him." -Charles Spurgeon

[@lisabaltzer4190]

Better yet, keep your children out of the public schools entirely.

[@gweilospur5877]

@@t-radical99 I guess that why the Bible supports slavery, advocates stoning people to death for eating shrimp or for wearing linen, and celebrates god for orchestrating genocide.

[@catherinetownshend6613]

We are part of the Great Ape family, with a common ancestor. Science develops as new fossils are found, and now we know there were a number of different human-like apes, all branches from the same tree. Trying to debunk these facts by saying science proceeds by theory which is then proven or disproven - and therefore makes errors - is simply misunderstanding the nature of science and substituting superstition for it.

[@carlocastillo2537]

That's not his point. He argues that the theory has evolved from evolutionary biases and hoaxes. He provides the evidence for these falsifications that led many to believe the scientific theory. One thing is sure, neanderthals were human.

[@tijn0236]

You say that neanderthals were never subhuman. That is indeed correct, but they were not humans like us. They coexisted and even mingled with us.

[@luckyson7594]

How do we know this is true? • It's part of a historical progression of discoveries in which successive testable young-earth creation predictions keep working

[@Monitice]

@@luckyson7594 Cause we have traces of their DNA within our own, actually.

[@AlphaAchilles]

@@Moniticethat is simply not true. We always hear this DNA explanation from people who don’t really understand DNA to the degree they need to. The complexity of DNA variants and where they are found have dismantled that thought of some kind of evolutionary process or relation.

[@vloggingshow2580]

​@@AlphaAchilles literally 99% of scientist that study the DNA agree that we have traces in our DNA from the Neanderthals.

[@checkmycatz]

​@luckyson7594 you make no sense

[@samrotman7503]

My Husband visited the Neanderthal Museum in the Neander Valley, Germany which was named after Joachim Neander. He wrote the great hymn, “Praise to the Lord, the Almighty, the King of CREATION”. That was the hymn that was being played when my husband toured the museum. Obviously, the museum curators weren’t familiar with Joachim Neander!

[@henno3889]

it was named after the Neander river, you plonker.

[@enigmavariations3809]

@@henno3889 But the river was named after Joachim Neander, you plonker.

[@ChrisTian-rm7zm]

@@henno3889 the Valley was named after Joachim Neander, the writer of the famous hymn "Lobet den Herren, den mächtigen König der Ehren", as already mentioned above. There is no river called Neander. The river running through the Neander Valley is called Düssel, which gave Düsseldorf ("Düssel Village") its name.

[@Mr.Baboon641]

I’m telling you this video was only made for Christian’s to complain

[@jimh4375]

When you hear people talk about "The missing link" it gives the impression that there is just one piece of the puzzle missing, and when they find that "one piece" evolution will go from theory to fact.

[@Flagrum3]

Evolution though is not a theory but an hypothesis, since a theory requires some factual evidence.

[@drunknmarxist]

In scripture's it clearly says God created us in his image!

[@therosses5]

And there a probably millions of missing links for all the kinds that supposedly evolved. Where are the fossil records showing fish to reptiles? Reptiles to birds? Mice to bats? NOWHERE. God created the platypus to confound the wise!!!

[@aeropteryx900]

yeah that's why biologists don't talk about "the missing link", but pretty much only about intermediary species.

[@gweilospur5877]

Evolution is a continuous change so there are an infinite number of “missing links”. We have thousands of fossils and they are all transitional species, but no matter how many we line up the creationists will ask where are the infinite number of others.

[@Tenchi707]

It's like denying gravity, electromagnetism

[@AnonymousCommentor_]

Terrible comparison, since proof of evolution in humans is not all around us.

[@MrSucho-vl7ih]

@@AnonymousCommentor_ Not only is it in our genome but we also have an outstanding amount of transitional fossils.

[@AnonymousCommentor_]

@@MrSucho-vl7ih Read my comment again, and then read yours. I don't think you realize how much of a fool you're sounding.

[@jacobyakunt4675]

Meanwhile COVID 19 evolves into many different strains.

[@beverlyball8722]

I knew and never bought into the lie,l still don't,And those that have,you can't tell them any different.

[@niklaswikstrom78]

I know, right? There is no reason to believe anything the liars in the video say. They are dishonest and misrepresent everything they are attacking.

[@PteranoLiv]

Which lie? That the world was made in 7 days?

[@wadenovin2479]

No Creationist has ever shown any inaccuracies in the Theory of Evolution. It was scientists that ferreted out errors and refined the theory.

[@macias7125]

yes they have, just look at a bunny skeleton, it's so easy to confuse it with an opossum skeleton

[@Stevewilldoit96]

The entire theory is inaccurate. It’s not observable or replicable in a lab that’s science. You can’t show one species of animals producing a new speices of animals. It’s religion.

[@leroyjennings5842]

Honestly it goes beyond ape like creatures. They say we descend from a fish like creature. So it's even more insane.

[@Flagrum3]

And worse that we descend from some unknown primordial goo. ; )

[@01ARA]

​​@@Flagrum3 which came from rocks!

[@tup4443]

i would like to know how you think evolution works, i realy want to.

[@Flagrum3]

@@tup4443 We'd like to know how you believe evolution works. We really want to.

[@Mannwhich]

@@tup4443 Simple, it doesn't. Time to move on from that lie.

[@kathleennorton7913]

I remember as a child wondering how they could possibly know altogether how something looked by having just a tooth or a few small bones. It didn't make sense.

[@paulgarrett4474]

Your lack of comprehension is not a refutation of the science.

[@stevebert2936]

"I don't understand something , therefore all the scientists are frauds" - AIG and their goons

[@pablito-e]

The funny part is that nobody actually knows what animals with minimal fossils look like and have to make educated guesses

[@pablito-e]

@@LordMathious Nothing, I just thought it was funny because by the looks of it Kathleen (commenter) had that problem

[@stevebert2936]

@@pablito-e that's very wrong

[@rclrd1]

How do creationists actually envision the origin of species? Genesis descibes the creation of the first two humans Adam and Eve. Before this _supposed_ unique event there were, _allegedly,_ no humans at all. Do creationists imagine a similar unique event for each of the seventy million known species: the creation of the first two earthworms, the first two mosquitoes, the first two octopuses, the first two elephants, and so on and on and on for each of the millions of “kinds”?? The mind boggles!

[@gmoevallejo]

It is not evidence of evolution that different ethnicities have different skin color, or eye color or eye shape or abundant skin hair?. Bible tells the story of Noah's son Ham which was cursed for having black skin and this story was used to justify slavery of black people. I had an acquaintance that stated that black people did not belong to the human race, and I said to him that it was my understanding that 2 different species could not have an offspring and that there were many children born from parents from different ethnicities, so that means that all ethnicities have a common ancestor which asserts that human evolution is a fact, regardless of any discussion about discovery of bones.

[@russelllowry1061]

takes a lot more faith to believe in evolution than creation.

[@pugdomination]

I think we agree then that the less faith used the better

[@asunder6797]

Ok, show me a photo of God.

[@maranatha9924]

@@asunder6797 You can experience God and see Him in every life He changes.

[@CR-yd4qe]

Oh no it doesn’t!!!

[@czgibson3086]

@@maranatha9924 Let's see a photo of him then.

[@TickedOffPriest]

When you do not have the evidence, you have to make it up.

[@gweilospur5877]

That’s a definition of religion.

[@TheThirdNight]

You’re taking about creationism right?

[@HS-zk5nn]

@@gweilospur5877 ie the one about magic mud puddles giving life

[@TickedOffPriest]

@@gweilospur5877 Just like the religion of evolution.

[@gweilospur5877]

@@TickedOffPriest And the religion of gravity.

[@lukeaaron5588]

I'm amazed how many people get this stuff confused, especially religious types. 'Evolution' is the thing that is occurring all the time and from generation to generation, it's passed through the mother. 'Creation' is what you were at the the beginning, before Evolution occurred or what you were before merging with the egg in your mother... a 'sperm' or 'perfectly balanced being' sort of...

[@gmoevallejo]

It is not evidence of evolution that different ethnicities have different skin color, or eye color or eye shape or abundant skin hair?. Bible tells the story of Noah's son Ham which was cursed for having black skin and this story was used to justify slavery of black people. I had an acquaintance that stated that black people did not belong to the human race, and I said to him that it was my understanding that 2 different species could not have an offspring and that there were many children born from parents from different ethnicities, so that means that all ethnicities have a common ancestor which asserts that human evolution is a fact, regardless of any discussion about discovery of bones.

[@Sofakingdom420]

I am not missing the irony of this video. So great! 😊

[@carllossa8114]

Where's the irony, maybe I can help

[@Forsakenruler]

@@carllossa8114everything

[@citrous]

​@@carllossa8114thumbnail and title for a start...

[@SpaceEagle93]

Wishing our fellow Christians in Canada the best, you seem to have a tough time coming. Stay with God, love you

[@highroller-jq3ix]

That's so sweet that you're concerned about Canadian orgasms while screaming, "Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, goddddddddddddddd!"

[@SpaceEagle93]

@@highroller-jq3ix uhhh ohhh found one Lolol

[@highroller-jq3ix]

@@SpaceEagle93 What did you find, freak show, an unmonitored child?

[@SpaceEagle93]

@@highroller-jq3ix a person seeking God, lol you’ll find him if you want to don’t have to get on the internet and be rude to people to feel alive my friend

[@highroller-jq3ix]

@@SpaceEagle93 Great lol bomb, goofball. Yes, if I want to find a fantasy god, like so many gullible imbeciles, I will. Instead, I want to use the rational capacity of my mind and maintain an intelligent, valid world view. You don't need a god fantasy to live out your humanity, random creeper who shouldn't be desperately throwing around terms of endearment on the internet.

[@geoffreybrockmeier3765]

I was challenged by a creationist to attend a lecture on why evolution and spontaneous abiogenesis is bogus. I scoffed, but accepted. I was completely shocked. My faith in Darwinian theory was obliterated. I was angry and confused and bitter. I couldn’t believe how I was lied to for so many years. edit: Wow, this comment blew up. I want to clarify a few things: First, I should have added that mostly what I felt was complete shell-shock. My whole belief-structure about life was totally shattered. I walked back to my car after the lecture in a daze. Second, I want to add that I did not immediately become a creationist or Christian. In fact I was so distraught about the whole thing that I refused to even think about the topic for years.

[@crunchybroll4731]

Me too

[@kgeo2686]

Well you are clearly humble. And humility is required to learn grow and adapt. Thanks for sharing.

[@ianshand6094]

Thank you for being honest and humble Geoff. Evolution is not the only thing we've intentionally been lied to about. If you assume everything the mainstream media tells you is true is false, then you won't be far from the truth.

[@cbdwarfer9492]

I'm intrigued, could you please elaborate? For example who gave the lecture and what specifically disproved evolution?

[@ferratilis]

I use to believe in evolution too, until I looked deeper into it and saw that it's all based on imaginary claims, with no evidence to support it. I'm pretty upset myself that I fell for such foolishness.

[@MrAndywear]

Scientists keep improving on science (knowledge). Shocking!

[@HS-zk5nn]

And it aligns more and more with the Bible. Awesome!

[@Fabifabiguden]

@@HS-zk5nn no

[@HS-zk5nn]

@@Fabifabiguden nose

[@Fabifabiguden]

@@HS-zk5nndogs are proof of evolution

[@HS-zk5nn]

@@Fabifabiguden not really

[@josetorresestrada3468]

The scientific illiteracy is strong on this one

[@Tyrant_Boi]

Like why can't they just adapt? There were less creationists in the 1960's than now. People are so gullible now.

[@Gremllion]

We're somewhere in the middle to the end of Matthew 24 where Jesus said watch and deception would be rampant so as a follower of Christ we need to be warning people The Wiles of the wicked one which are getting stronger by the day

[@jockyoung4491]

Do you really think all scientists are "wicked"? Really?

[@Gremllion]

Brothers and sisters what I am saying is we are in the end times oh, they are not coming they are here so in the name of Jesus Christ please wake up and that's soldier that God calls us to be. The Bible is clear this is a military organization not a social club or a debating Club. It's best to read and find that out now then at the last minute when you could lose your very salvation. May God bless you all and your families with the truth the life and the way and may you be ready to lose your life and sacrifice everything for him as the first church did Jesus our lord will return for nothing less than the church he left. That would be a a church meeting in the homes and small groups on the ground persecuted and on the Run not these big pseudo Christian organizations we see in buildings today as those buildings are owned by the bank and will be taken away or targeted as enemies of the state. Get your small groups and me and homes now now not later as you will regret waiting until the last minute because you could lose yourself ation and Jesus said he could blot you out of the book. He also said few find the Narrow Path leading to eternal life and few can endure until the end. That puts the fear of the Lord into me in a healthy way and causes me to be more serious about Christ everyday. I may lose my bank accounts everything I own but I will serve him with my head on on my head off. Problem is we think we're different from the first believers. That's brothers and sisters is a very grave mistake. Again God bless you with the truth the life and the way Jesus Christ Alone Hallelujah God bless you all

[@Flagrum3]

@@jockyoung4491 I don't think he is talking scientists alone, but the world in general.

[@The_Lord_has_it]

It's all accelerating too. Jesus likened it to birth pains.

[@Flagrum3]

@@perfectblindguy By denying John you deny the Holy Spirit, as he spoke of Him and His words. You have just condemned yourself. There will be no forgiveness.

[@LinksQuest]

This doesn’t disprove a thing, if a con man crafted a fake emerald and then passed it off as one, then later it was discovered not to be an emerald, that wouldn’t really be an argument of how emeralds are not real.

[@wendigo53]

Yes. It is a flawed argument. Like if I faked discovering the ark, that doesn't make the story of the ark a false story.

[@itscrab9124]

​@@wendigo53 Exactly! Instead, we have evidence of plant life, wildlife, and civilizations unbothered through the time period of the flood to help point us in the right direction with that one 👍🏻

[@johnwhoissavedbygrace9975]

Yet if he had the only emerald out there, and it was actually found to be another common green stone, then it would be exactly the same

[@LinksQuest]

@@johnwhoissavedbygrace9975 right, but there is mounds of other evidence for evolution

[@LinksQuest]

@Bob Berger one of the broader goals of the video is to call evolution itself into question and I disagree with your premise

[@prschuster]

Bringing up Piltdown man is scraping the bottom of the barrel. No scientifically literate person is going to be gullible enough to swallow this recycled insult to science.

[@candycane618]

People think evolution has the answer to the origin of life. I thought they had hope and an answer. But that was until an evolutionist came to me saying "Evolution doesn't claim to hold the origin of life at all. It says how life changed through stages."

[@candycane618]

So truly they are still left with the question: What is the origin of life?

[@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440]

@@candycane618 It's called abiogenesis.

[@danbeaulieu2130]

Nobody thinks this. Anyone who understands evolution, knows that evolution is a process that only begins once life is already established. There is no such thing as a "evolutionist".

[@candycane618]

@@weltschmerzistofthaufig2440 um no.

[@candycane618]

@@danbeaulieu2130 exactly. except for that last part.

[@glorytogodhomestead3495]

I would love to see more debates from answers in Genesis.

[@Alien1375]

I aprove. The woman from the Gutsick Gibbon channel would be my first choice.

[@Alfalfable999]

@@Alien1375 she's awesome, isn't she?

[@YoungEarthCreation]

@@Alien1375 except she won’t debate anymore. After her three consecutive losses against our team she runs from debates. Most people never even knows she debated us because she never put them on her channel. Just imagine how badly she would lose to a scientist from AIG. Nothing is stopping her from debating any of them either, but her and her team are far to afraid. We remind them all the time, why not submit to a written debate then if you are so scared to open mic debate ? They are even more afraid of that because then it’s written down for everyone to see forever and posted on AIG s website. At least YT debates they can hide from much easier. Anytime you think she has a good point against AIG tell her to submit to a written debate or else it’s nothing but a bunch of hot air to an atheist audience who doesn’t understand anything she is saying anyway

[@Alien1375]

@@YoungEarthCreation 🤡

[@Alien1375]

@Soldier Are you his dad?

[@DuXQaK]

Not surprisingly another apologist is comfortably familiar with committing hoaxes, cons and fraud

[@jarsa4099]

Nebraska man ? Pilttdown? Jajajaja celecanto? Jajajajajajaj

[@deathmetalchili6902]

Just came here for the comments. Was not disappointed. Hahahahahahaha

[@MatthewJ.Francis]

We came from algae then? In a prehistoric soup? That makes sense 😬

[@elhombredevitruvian]

@@MatthewJ.Francis we don't clam something like creationists , we have theories.

[@MatthewJ.Francis]

@@elhombredevitruvian you have rescuing devices.

[@user-ch8mx1vz9u]

@@MatthewJ.Francis bra come from algae... ok i'm out

[@Tyrant_Boi]

@@MatthewJ.Francis small changes over time. Over billions of years. We did not come from algae, we came from a single cell.

[@margeebechyne8642]

I've always thought archaeologists and anthropologists used an excess of imagination to come up with the stories they tell, from so few artifacts.

[@margeebechyne8642]

@@LordMathious This is one of the reasons this group makes me happy. I truly enjoy sharing my thoughts and opinions with like-minded Christians.

[@futureisyours3016]

80% of all dinosaurs are plaster of paris made in daddy's garage by wannabe paleontologists who want to get their name in the science journal and fund for their museum. Just one big tooth and they created the meglodon fron head to tail. Just one jaw and they built the apeman. I can do better. Ever heard of tricked-u-saurus.

[@lizadowning4389]

Yet you seem to love archeologists when they dig up some fragments of your precious bilblical manuscripts. Double standards?

[@miscamisca6775]

" Yet you seem to love archeologists when they dig up some fragments of your precious bilblical manuscripts. Double standards? " Smiles, that was funny

[@tone9358]

@@margeebechyne8642 So you have an actual inquiry about what methods anthropologist use to come to their conclusions, but instead of actually looking into it, you interact with other creationist who have motivation to bastardize what they actually do, because it reaffirms your belief.

[@cs2528]

7:21 If I remember correctly, a child visiting the museum is the one who pointed out the skull was fraudulent.

[@danbeaulieu2130]

You remember incorrectly. It was a German paleontology student, who was later killed at Verdun. That student pointed out the Piltdown man was impossible, because it contradicted the predictions of the theory of evolution. But because he was German, the clergy of England rallied around Piltdown Man, as the true ancestor of all good and loyal Englishmen. As a result, religion and politics, forced science to conform to patriotic pressure. To question Piltdown, was unpatriotic. And unchristian. So it was until after WW2, when new technology let scientists finally test the age of the skull. The tests confirmed what scientists had been whispering for years.

[@Stevewilldoit96]

@@danbeaulieu2130explain the 20 other “early human ancestors” that have been debunked. Evolution is religion just like communism was a religion to atheist Stalin and Mao and Marx was their God. Or how Social Darwanism was a religion to atheist Hitler. Without God people develop their own religion.

[@danbeaulieu2130]

@@Stevewilldoit96 What is "atheist Hitler"? A fantasy? And what "20 other"?

[@ethancorsmeier1110]

​@@danbeaulieu2130essentially hitler said he was christian but didn't often speak about it and devoted his life to eugenics and creating the "Aryan race". These are not the actions of a person who believes in God but rather believes himself to be a god or believes he has the power of a god. And stalin was basically the same way how they both sort of worshipped their work and objectives despite it being in a different way from what we think of as religion.

[@danbeaulieu2130]

@@ethancorsmeier1110 Adolf Hitler remained a christian, that is a person who believes the core doctrines of christianity, all his life. Playing with the definition to posthumously exclude him, is dishonest at best. The man was baptized into the faith, and never renounced his faith. Hitler was a christian. None of his ideas were unique to him. All were traceable to earlier christian figures, including Luther. Especialy Luther.

[@robertnewton4304]

I am a mathematician and physicist, and I am afraid to tell everyone that evolution is a simple statistical side effect of our universe if you accept the following three axioms: (1) Information can propagate, (2) information can vary in its propagation and (3) information can be selected for (or filtered) by some criteria. I don't think any reasonable person can deny these 3 axioms because we observe them everyday. In classical evolution theory that you are taught in high school: (1) information propagates as DNA or 'the form of living things' reproducing itself, (2) information varies by mutation (traditionally thought to be random but new physical models reveal that particular mutations are more likely due to quantum physics) and (3) favourable mutations propagate more than unfavourable mutations (i.e. are selected for) by predation, sexual selection and other selection mechanisms. While I will comment and give creationists credit that I don't think classical evolution theory captures the full picture, this is simply because it does not take into account all the dimensions that carry information that behave according to the aforementioned axioms. In reality, living things seem to evolve on multiple DNA dimensions (cellular, mitochondrial, poly-morphical) , several cultural and social dimensions, physical dimensions and mental dimensions. Taking all this into account, evolution is indubitably as fundamental to the universe as entropy is.

[@Pwanx0w]

Ouch, the amount of incredibly ignorant stuff found in this comment section says a lot about the US education system.

[@natec4133]

There are actually billions of “missing links” across the biosphere. Not a single organism observed today has any kind of evolutionary chain in evidence. There are however almost innumerable examples of adaptation within ‘kinds’ observed which are touted as “evolution”. Even Darwin’s finches we’re all finches, they just had adapted beaks built from pre existent genomic information. Variation of phenotype is not evidence of generation of novel genotype. Just observe the life cycle of the butterfly for a profound example of such.

[@EarthForces]

This. I find it baffling the Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian theories still has its power. I guess the corruption within academia is so immense to the point of criminal.

[@duckman554]

actually there are thousands of filled in links, for example the evolution of the horse and whale respectively are extremely well documented

[@duckman554]

@@EarthForces Darwins theories are that the fittest survive, its supported because you can clearly see these things in ancient fossils like ancient primates having larger molars chew more fiber, or Darwin's finches.

[@mrchoon2010]

"I don't want to read about it, so it doesn't exist"

[@natec4133]

@@duckman554 They’re actually significantly lacking in actual evidence. The whale story is lacking in the transitional forms and the horse story is comprised of contemporaneous phenotypic examples presented as gradual change.

[@traeucity6087]

We need a similar takedown of the 'ancient aliens' nonsense.

[@sinclairj7492]

I think that theory is more for entertainment than taken seriously.

[@grandfathernurgle2840]

It's actually more believable than anything in the bible; or anything religious for that matter.

[@grandfathernurgle2840]

@@sinclairj7492 Wish the same could be said for religion.

[@HS-zk5nn]

@@grandfathernurgle2840 why?

[@sinclairj7492]

@@grandfathernurgle2840 It’s more believable if your 5 yrs old. Space aliens flying through space in their spaceships huh

[@dI9ESTIVES123]

The ignorance displayed in this comment section is astounding. I’ve found myself on the dark side of KZbin again.

[@coast_gaurd]

Oh yes, enlightened one. Please educate the comment section with your amazing knowledge.

[@patmalloy3569]

Is there a video like this talknf about the various dsting methods and or about the various ages contained in the earths crust

[@paulgarrett4474]

A video of religiously motivated lies about radiometric dating? Probably lots of them.

[@jonathanjkemp]

This channel is on fire.

[@roberttrough6439]

🔥 🔥 fire 🔥 🔥! Yes 👍 speaking about 🔥 fire amazing how 🔥 fire burns in a vacuum of space the third heaven 🔥 fire 🔥 the astronauts said space itself smells like a burnt odor. 🔥 heat it up Lord God in Heaven 🔥 their now science touches the very throne of GOD. Thanks for the reminder!

[@jockyoung4491]

Pants on fire, maybe

[@TurinTuramber]

Like a flaming dumpster.

[@roberttrough6439]

@@TurinTuramber another hard time Charlie. I’m done with you!

[@TurinTuramber]

@@roberttrough6439 ....ok

[@lusoluso6312]

Great video,im not a Christian or religious at all and have always questioned evolution it always made no sense to me.

[@clarkthompson8094]

Then learn more. It makes perfect sense.

[@PennySmart]

Great for you!

[@Benjaminbumblebee]

@@clarkthompson8094 learn more???😄please. Science is about finding truth. Not learning dogma

[@helpmechangetheworld2928]

@@Benjaminbumblebee the only dogma christianity presents is that sin separates us from god’s righteousness and through christ you are brought back to gods love.

[@JoeThornFreedom]

Either god created the world in six days or the universe did with a big bang, both cases we are living with faith.

[@InMemphisJohn]

@steveg1961: Continued from my part 1: "For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any apes of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours?" InMemphisJohn: I'm glad you brought up Australopithecus afarensis. Although discovered by Donald Johanson, who contends that this creature (known as “Lucy”) is the direct ancestor of man (see Johanson, 1981), numerous evolutionists strongly disagree. Lord Solly Zuckerman, the famous British anatomist, published his views in his book, Beyond the Ivory Tower. He studied the australopithecines for more than 15 years and concluded that if man descended from an apelike ancestor, he did so without leaving a single trace in the fossil record (1970, p. 64). Some might say, “But Zuckerman’s work was done before Lucy was discovered.” True, but that misses the point. Zuckerman’s research-which established conclusively that the australopithecines were nothing but knuckle-walking apes-was performed on fossils younger (i.e., closer to man) than Lucy! If more recent finds are nothing but apes, how could an older specimen be “more human”? Charles Oxnard, while at the University of Chicago, reported his multivariate computer analysis, which documented that the australopithecines were nothing but knuckle-walking apes (1975, pp. 389-395). Then, in the April 1979 issue of National Geographic, Mary Leakey reported finding footprints-dated even older than Lucy at 3.6-3.8 million years-that she admitted were “remarkably similar to those of modern man” (p. 446). If Lucy gave rise to humans, then how could humans have existed more than 500,000 years before her to make such footprints? [See Lubenow, 1992, pp. 45-58 for a detailed refutation of Lucy.] steveg1961: "...I learned that one should think carefully about candor in argument (in publications, lectures, or correspondence) in case one was furnishing creationist campaigners with ammunition in the form of 'quotable quotes', often taken out of context." - Colin Patterson (Evolution, Cornell University Press, 1999, p. 122) InMemphisJohn: So, Patterson didn't seem to think it was fair to use his words against him. If his words were true and NOT out of context, anything he said should be quotable. If you think I've taken anything he said out of context, I challenge you to prove it! So far, you have not done so. steveg1961: You wrote, "So clear is the lack of evidence of evolutionary transition in the fossil record that evolutionary zoologist of Oxford University Mark Ridley went so far as to say, '[N]o real evolutionist, whether gradualistic or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.' Why? Because the fossil record does not support evolution; it supports Creation." Did Ridley say what you here falsely pretend he is saying. Of course not. Those are your words - and they're your words based on not having a clue what else Ridley said, because all you're doing is regurgitating quote-mines you're picked up from other young earth creationists equally ignorant of the science... "So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the 'fossil evidence,' that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy." "These three are the clearest arguments for the mutability of species. Other defences of the theory of evolution could be made, not the least of which is the absence of a coherent alternative. Darwin's theory is also uniquely able to account for both the presence of design, and the absence of design (vestigial organs), in nature." - Mark Ridley ("Who doubts evolution?", New Scientist, Jun. 1981) Now, you said that Ridley was saying that the fossil record supports creationism. But Ridley never said that. He said that creationists get punctuated equilibrium wrong. (Gould said the same thing. Patterson said the same thing. Creationists always get the science wrong.) End of Part 2

[@hambam7533]

man will do anything to talk himself out of heaven ,self deception is very powerful ,you will believe anything that makes you feel better

[@PteranoLiv]

Yeah like this video

[@Monitice]

Yeah like this video

[@theundefeatedavatar1738]

Believe anything that makes you feel better- coming from people who think a man can split a ocean in half

[@rand49er]

People who want to limit what God can do and what He can't do amaze me. Because these people can't themselves imagine things greater than themselves, they want to put God in a box and confine Him to being capable of only certain powers and concepts. I am indeed amazed.

[@PteranoLiv]

God made the earth in a long and vast process of creation in which evolution took hold of, he witnessed it in a glimpse of a second

[@Woopor]

So why did god limit himself? Why did he make the universe in 7 whole days? Why did he make Noah build a boat to store the animals instead of just magicking them into stasis while the flood happened? Why have a flood at all instead of just magically eliminating the “bad” people? Those are limitations that religious people themselves have set their god tox

[@dominikivankovic63]

Good proof of evolution is looking at the evolution in the microbial life, since they generate a new generation in 20 mins, unlike humans who generate a new generation in 20-30 years, so in the time it took for a 1 new generation of humans, some microbe could have gone through 500.000, making it much easier for us humans to observe changes. For example bacterias over relatively short time gain immunity on certain antibiotics and that is a good example for natural selection where those bacteria which mutated the immunity will reproduce more and more and push out those that didn't grow the immunity. Its simmilar with viruses (covid and all its strains over time which it evolved).

[@christophercoupe5006]

No matter how long these micro organisms are studied they are still bacteria and viruses not some higher form of life. What you described is variability within a species not evolution!!!

[@pomtubes1205]

"But microbes don't exist! It's not in the bahhble!"

[@dominikivankovic63]

Tbh that's a very good point, never looked at it that way. Thank you for shoving me the truth.

[@ralphnavidad0909]

What Bible Version did you use?

[@PortmanRd]

Does it matter?

[@ralphnavidad0909]

@@PortmanRd Yes because there is difference between the translations of the bible when it comes to doctrinal teaching if you will pay attention to the words that are used.

[@PortmanRd]

This is probably why there are around 45,000 different denominations of Christianity worldwide, with each claiming to preach the true gospels and some even denouncing other sects as heretical.

[@ralphnavidad0909]

@@PortmanRd I probably think so.

[@boldisordorin9010]

You know that we literally commonly use evolution as a tool right? We genetically modify plants and animals in order to make them better for us which is using evolution

[@Shakiahjprod]

You mean adaptations like making a fruit more resistant? Evolution would be making a strawberry into a whole new fruit that looks entirely different with a new way to work

[@boldisordorin9010]

@@Shakiahjprod No? For example dogs evolved from wild dogs, that is 2 species who are very similar, not entirely different from each other in terms of appearance and functionallity. And adapting to the enviroment and becoming more resistant is literally what evolution entails

[@paulgarrett4474]

​@@Shakiahjprod you not understanding evolution does not refute evolution.

[@grayokay]

@@boldisordorin9010 No dogs came from wolves but we slowly domesticated over thousends of years

[@boldisordorin9010]

@@grayokay you did not understand my point. Fine let's say they came from wolves, domestic dogs and wolves afe not entirely different creatures that function entirely differently, they are very similar. That guy who responded to me said that if strawberries evolved they would be entirely different and function in a whole different way, but nobody claimed evolution makes creatures change so much like he said, for example wolves evolved but did not change so drastically

[@PageCreations]

Excellent video. Back in High School we were to have a debate in science class. One side for Evolution the other for Creationism. We were told we had to debate Creation as a theory because if we didn't there would be backlash. A lot of us were not pleased at the time about this because you got the feel that the Evolution side was portrayed as rather matter of fact. It was finally agreed that if we were going to have a fair debate the opposing view has to also argue as a theory as well. We did have a teacher that was fair in that regard. I'm pleased to say after a lot of healthy debate many people had a change of heart about all this Evolution nonsense. 🥰

[@jockyoung4491]

Yeah, because high school students know everything, right? Debates about science should be among scientists, not people purposely closing their eyes against science.

[@wingedhussar1453]

What evidence did u have for creation

[@mattbatcher802]

@@wingedhussar1453 open your eyes. What do you see? I don’t know what is in front of you but I think it did not create itself.

[@mattbatcher802]

@@jockyoung4491 forreal? The debate is over, ever heard of Descartes? Not that he’s a lynchpin but a good place to start.

[@debravictoria7452]

@@jockyoung4491 They will conclude whatever has the funding.

[@oscarion5105]

Today, we know that blood letting is in fact dangerous and isn't a good way to cure diseased. But back then, physicians didn't know, and so many died. If only they had read the scriptures. Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you on the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul.

[@roberttrough6439]

Amen! Amazing how NASA is searching the Scriptures and finding answers. Hahaha 🤣

[@dropdmacrossaint4039]

@@roberttrough6439 good one😂

[@patrickian8843]

@@roberttrough6439 Now they’re going to have to rewrite the evolutionary processes of the entire universe. Thank you James-Webb!

[@bartsimpson5281]

I’m not an atheist unless you consider me not (to the Bible’s extent) believing in Christianity or Catholicism to be one, but I do believe there are a lot of other things that interfere with evolutions theory. One thing I definitely believe is that humanity has existed way before we thought and have just been wiped out multiple times and have just had to slowly come back to a humanistic way of life.

[@chrisbrooks4032]

How could humanity be wiped out but then reappear? This is retarded, son. Evolution by natural selection is indeed a fact of life

[@rogueproductions9011]

Your intuition and free thinking are impressive. Never stop doing this. And your thinking aligns with the Biblical flood which wiped out creation

[@lanzelot28]

Romans 1:22 : “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools”

[@jonathanallard2128]

O know! The irony that it's on the bible, of all places, right? THE book that claims to be the word of god.

[@lanzelot28]

@@jonathanallard2128 thats exactly why i Like this quote here, it works both ways. At the end of the day arrogance is the humans downfall.

[@jonathanallard2128]

@@lanzelot28 We can agree.

[@lanzelot28]

@@jonathanallard2128 that's great. Have a nice day!

[@tone9358]

1:15 the irony in this statement is palpable

[@notnotiron]

Yeah you are right. These people are denying all evidence by saying how a particular fossil was differently interpreted by different scientists

[@siddharthrai1626]

Ikr

[@GH-cp9wc]

All you need do is walk around a crowd and notice the different skull and facial structures to know that one or even two old skulls do not prove anything, let alone Evolution.

[@lizadowning4389]

We have far more than "two odd skulls" you nitwit.

[@andycole5957]

Absolutely true... However, there are thousands from dozens of different species, not just the couple that were hoaxes. 1 baboon bone out "Lucy" does not disqualify the over 100 good bones, let alone the dozens of other skeletons we've found from her species since.

[@marcywilson207]

They wouldn't feel the need to deny God's existence if God didn't hold people to moral standards. Most Christians say they are saved by grace through faith and adhering to moral standards is working your way to heaven. These people are just pretending to be Christians, because they say they believe in keeping 9 out of 10 of the commandments, but if you keep the 4th one that tells you NOT TO WORK on God's holy day, you are WORKING your way to heaven. That is a worse deception than evolution. The problem is that they confuse grace with mercy and forgiveness. Mercy is forgiveness of sins that are past. The GRACE of the gospel of Christ is the POWER of God unto salvation. Christ living in you His moral life. I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. That includes keeping all 10 of His commandments. I do not keep that law in my strength, but the Holy Spirit living the law through me. Read Revelation 2 and 3. Over and over it tells who will get the eternal reward. It is the one who overcomes through the blood of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Overcomes what? Matthew 1:21 says, "Jesus shall save His people FROM their SINS."

[@nathandixon9371]

Y’all know that you can be a Christian and still believe in evolution right? It’s not one or the other.

[@shanebell2514]

How can that be?

[@sebastiannolte1201]

@@shanebell2514 Ask the millions of Christian out there in the world who have no problme with evolution. BTW, you also can be a Christian and still believe in the heliocentric model.

[@shanebell2514]

@@sebastiannolte1201 a Christian evolutionist is an oxymoron.

[@sebastiannolte1201]

@@shanebell2514 Ok, then there not so many Christians out there. Especially in Europe.

[@lucashagen4240]

There’s an absurd lack of scientific evidence to the whole inter-dimensional creation man claim you made at the end, got any missing links for that one?

[@cdmcintyre1854]

Anyone who believes in a God that created everything has a LOT of FAITH, but if you believe in random chance evolved into everything I conclude that those people have a major problem with fantasy OR a complete insane refusal to Believe in GOD!

[@JiraiyaSama86]

Their staple line is often that there is no way to verify. Essentially, if I can't see it physically with my own two eyes, then it's false, or whatever the equivalent of that is. I question what's the point of them having friends and other forms of connections.

[@notnotiron]

I'm sorry but you are quite wrong there

[@christophercoupe5006]

A person doesn't need to have a lot of faith to believe God created everything. Just common sense and some understanding of the science. All the matter in the universe didn't just appear out of nothing, it was created by God!

[@roberttrough6439]

Try a scientific experiment yourself. Put the parts in a shoe box. Put a lid on said box. Shock it! Shake it! Put water in it! In your life time see if you can have it evolve into the object the parts were designed for? It’s never going to happen for you! And you started out with all the designed parts. Hahaha 🤣

[@tup4443]

@@JiraiyaSama86 not that its false but probably not true also, I have friends beacuse they're a source of company confort, and fun.

[@taytay4458]

Challenge: Make a video demonstrating that you know nothing about science in 20 minutes or less Answers in Genesis: “Hold my beer”

[@Spielkalb-von-Sparta]

Why should this be a challenge, he already did it here in 16:23 minutes?

[@zarouelbatata460]

can you prove any changing in the dna of humans?

[@Spielkalb-von-Sparta]

@@zarouelbatata460Most probably every time you compare a child's genome to their Parent's.

[@lucasbastosrodrigues140]

The best ones to win this challeng are atheists😅 Man they are horrible on racional and science stuff

[@Tyrant_Boi]

No, he did it with just the title.

[@charlesholzer2526]

By 1:31 they have inadvertently debunked themselves.

[@Drakemiser]

When I was a child ion school, I was taught--through highschool and college--that neanderthal was able to harness 1 chemical reaction, that being fire. Now, because the archeology doesn't lie--mainly from caves found in South-Eastern Europe--neanderthal was now, apparently, able to ferment, including beer, meats and other alcoholic drinks.

[@jonedwards2107]

Typical redneck

[@med2904]

So what? It's just a proof that science isn't a religion or an ideology. The conclusions and theories can change over time as more evidence is found to prove otherwise. What do you expect? Scientists to say that any new evidence can't be real because their initial conclusions have to be absolutely correct? Or maybe archeologists correctly predicting everything about the lives of neanderthals before they can start collecting physical evidence? If your argument is "all science is wrong because it's not always making correct predictions", then creationists can't make ANY predictions. Can you predict when God will create another new species of animal and show it pop up into existence? Do you have any explanation why God created so many hominid species that homo sapiens had to compete with, when according to the Bible God has created just one type of human and to rule over Earth?

[@askjake2426]

Congratulations, you've learned that science changes as our understandings change!

[@Drakemiser]

@@askjake2426 Truth doesn't change.

[@askjake2426]

@@Drakemiser there are no truths regarding gods existence, you have 0 proof which means you should not believe God, ever heard of old testament vs new testament? Oh wait, because he's god he's allowed to change his understandings and teaching but we can't? Yeah, you're just brainwashed. Science doesn't change truths it changes understandings, you not understanding the difference makes perfect sense to me considering.

[@ruthsnyder4315]

I hope people share these videos, there are a lot of people who are brainwashed to believe we came from the goo to the zoo, to you.

[@33jamesds]

The people who believe in the goo zoo also invented your phone, and the internet, and your tv, and your car, and the medicine that will probably keep you alive past 30 lol. You know, before modern science, the childhood mortality rate was close to 50%? Thanks to modern science and medicine, more than half of all people live past their 5th birthday. Thank you vaccines and modern birthing procedures. Sorry Ruth, but if you wanted to make a baby for the lord 200 years ago, there was at least a 50% chance you would have died. No C-sections. You are backing the wrong team here. A team that is literally comparing modern science to science from the 1800s lol. Like Darwin didn't have the internet or even high quality microscopes. Any modern scientist will freely say "Darwin made a lot of mistakes and was limited by his time in history." The Origin of Species is not our bible lol. We know as scientists that that book was a good starting point, but unlike the bible, science doesn't just stop with one book. Science never stops discovering new things, and that's why you are able to disagree with science right now on the internet lol.

[@aeropteryx900]

well it's more backed in evidence than any sort of creation tho

[@HS-zk5nn]

@@aeropteryx900 you can believe in magic mud puddles all you want.

[@aeropteryx900]

@@HS-zk5nn nothing funnier than christians telling people who actually listen to science that they believe in magic

[@highroller-jq3ix]

I don't know of anyone who believes that infantile, inane, batshit fundie chant.

[@tijn0236]

Funny how all of this stems from a sense of superiority against the rest of life. We are not special

[@coast_gaurd]

"We're not special" You're typing on a phone or computer to thousands of people across the globe 😂 something is special about us compared to the rest of nature

[@tijn0236]

@@coast_gaurd nature is more complex than you would think, I agree that we have achieved special things, but complexity within animals is greater than what we have made

[@vampirella6983]

Yeah this really bolsters the argument for the imaginary man in the clouds 😂

[@potatoxgaming9466]

I mean our body is full of intentions and intention can only be created by a intellectual being or a creator. Even evolution need a guide and a start like how can we sense light, vibration, taste and touch before evolving to sense them or how can we reproduce before evolving to reproduce. Evolution clearly has a goal because there is no reason to evolve without evolution and evolution to exist without a creator a cause. Evolution: "a mutation occurs, then if it is beneficial it is more likely to be passed to offspring" It seems like evolution are intended.

[@little_lord_tam]

I love how Christians think disproving science also means proving christianity. Thats some serious mental gymnastics. ,,Hey your answer is partially wrong or unreliable, so mine must be right! Not the other thousands of answers, no, no. Just mine! "

[@potatoxgaming9466]

@@little_lord_tam disproving science? There is no science without GOD. The reason why we can trace the law of our environment because its design. Science is the prove of GOD.

[@NCWoodlandRoamer]

@@little_lord_tamexactly!

[@John_Gillman]

@@little_lord_tam even funnier is that they say they believe in the right god because he said that he is the right one, the logic is so backwards since any god could say that

[@johndoe-ln4oi]

Regarding Lucy walking upright, I don't think that is correct. A "scientist" at Indiana University had to take an electric sander to her pelvic bone sockets in order to make the femurs appear to fit correctly for an upright, humanlike stance.

[@jockyoung4491]

It is clear from the anatomy that Lucy "walked upright". That does NOT mean she had a "humanlike stance." No scientist has ever claimed she did.

[@johndoe-ln4oi]

@@jockyoung4491 No, it isn't clear from the anatomy that she walked upright. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The IU "scientist"having to "help the science" aside, she had long curved fingers, long arms, a funnel-shaped chest and her hand bones show that she knuckle-walked like modern apes. You are extraordinarily poorly-informed on the position to which you are clinging. Take care.

[@jockyoung4491]

@@johndoe-ln4oi You are free to believe anything you want to, but don't lie about science. Why did you believe the "IU scientist lie anyway? because you head it from creationists and it fit what you already wanted to believe. ALL experts on hominid agree that Lucy could walk upright, although she could also still climb in trees. But even if she couldn't, that wouldn't refute anythind about evolution. What about the other 20 species of transitional hominids, most of which could obviously walk upright? They show a progression of changes between Lucy and modern humans. Why would that be? All you have is "I bet it's not." Sorry, you are not going to bring down 150 years of biology that way

[@nervamerc]

I always thought looking for 'evidence of walking' was just stupid. Finding something thousands of years old with WRITING on it, showing an obvious LANGUAGE, is more reasonable. I don't hear anyone talking about how all the 'lucy's' walked all the way northeast to Mesopotamia. How could anyone claim how much walking a fossil would do, moment to moment? I've seen bears walk, poodles walk, and when they're not swimming, all penguins ever do is walk around. Why isn't their walking changing them into something different? 'ok, here we found LUCY and she could walk, so walking equals Darwin' I'm almost 50, anymore I just hate all things Darwin. They need to dig him up and get him away from Newton

[@HansBezemer]

@@johndoe-ln4oi Can you cite the DOI paper where this is stated? Or did you just make that up? That's how science work. You back up your claims with (documented) evidence - not popular apologist rumors.

[@HansZarkovPhD]

Basic question, which is more likely 1.. creatures slowly changed over millions of years to produce the curent iteration of man or 2..an invisible omnipotent being magicked a sentient creature out of nothing, just as it is now.

[@nathanwhite704]

Logically both are possible, plus there's nothing that disproves God in any way.

[@HansZarkovPhD]

@@nathanwhite704 your logic is flawed

[@nathanwhite704]

@@HansZarkovPhD No it isn't.

[@HansZarkovPhD]

Yes, it is.

[@nathanwhite704]

@@HansZarkovPhD Explain how.

[@RyanRodriguez-ie8xh]

This is an interesting video. One question however, I thought the scientific community agrees that Neanderthals are humans since they reside within the genus "Homo" like we do. They are "Homo neanderthalensis" and we are "Homo sapiens". Therefore, we are both "human" but different species of human. This was my understanding.

[@paulgarrett4474]

Your understanding is correct, what the professional liar in this video is trying to make out is that they are the same species.

[@jeffreyk5734]

The Christian Science Community really needs to start listening to Roger Spurr and support his movement to get the evidence he has uncovered out to the masses. It would be highly beneficial to both camps and Damning to Main-Stream Darwin worshippers.

[@philipbaker6567]

Their lies come straight from the Father of lies

[@tup4443]

ironic that god is comonly caled "father" isn't it?

[@notnotiron]

@@tup4443 God did not lie, this people are hypocrites by denying truth. The bible stories are also probably made up by them. But the ethics of Jesus weren't.

[@HS-zk5nn]

@@tup4443 ironic that so is the male that helped give you birth

[@tup4443]

@@HS-zk5nn and so did yours

[@HS-zk5nn]

@@tup4443 isnt that ironic

[@rebeccab1064]

So your argument is....that science is iterative, that it makes mistakes sometimes because it works based on predictions from a developing body of evidence, and corrects itself when new evidence emerges to falsify its hypotheses? That's literally the whole point of science.

[@calvinsmith7575]

Nope, that is not my argument...

[@DARamosYT]

The archaic term of science is "knowledge of any kind". This is not limited to having false information. Truth, however, is something that isn't supposed to change. Our understanding of it - our science - will change over time. This principle of acquiring more understanding applies both to evolution and creationism. There is a truth both worldviews are striving to understand, and the understanding of individuals will update over time, whether toward truth, or away from it. The issue is that there can be only one truth, and our finite capacity to know things leaves us with a leap of faith to cover that incapacity.

[@HS-zk5nn]

so how can you tell if it is right currently?

[@patrickian8843]

Science, for all the good and the bad it has unleashed, has never come close to proving the theory of evolution.

[@ram0166]

I remember that Paul Harvey like to use Nebraska Man as a perfect example of how evolutionist immediately turn anything they come across into imaginary pre-human creatures.

[@andrenal3609]

Any creature is pre-human, because we’re all family all the animals

[@ram0166]

@@andrenal3609 No actually we’re not

[@duckman554]

@@andrenal3609 no, we co evolved with all modern species

[@andrenal3609]

@@duckman554 i meant that we all came from a single common ancestor and it came out pretty wrong lol...

[@suda_lifts]

@@andrenal3609if that’s the case then all life wouldn’t be pre human, because all life span and diverged into its own groups that aren’t human

[@81trevorj]

Past: Evolve to think for one's self Future: Evolve to not think per computers

[@crunchybroll4731]

Thank you for uploading. Im struggling with my faith and i need answers

[@Minifliek]

Don't look for them here, only lies can be found here.

[@margeebechyne8642]

@@Minifliek Yes. YOU are here. But why?

[@Minifliek]

@@margeebechyne8642 I am here indeed, yet i'm not the one lying.

[@margeebechyne8642]

@@Minifliek You take the time to come to this Christian group . Why? Do you even listen to the video, or just look for people to spew on? Again, why?

[@youdbeinspired]

@@Minifliek ⚰️

[@ronjones2266]

There’s people alive today whose skulls would look like these.

[@electricspark5271]

I guarantee the actor "The Great Khali" would look exactly like this.

[@notnotiron]

@@electricspark5271 No it wouldn't. It has more to do with fat and muscles distribution rather than skull shape

[@zerofallen059]

​@Electric Spark what a profoundly ignorant and stupid thing to say. So you're saying he looks like a caveman? How would you know what his skull looks like without an x-ray? I guarantee you wouldn't say that to his face too

[@ShowMeYoBoob]

@@notnotiron what a ridiculous cope

[@notnotiron]

@@ShowMeYoBoob maybe

[@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou]

How is this video not completely misleading? No evolutionary scientist in their right mind would use any of these examples as evidence for evolution(Outside of Lucy, which the video completely misrepresents). Even if you take out Lucy, there have been tons of other fossils found of proposed transitional forms. Where is the mention of those?

[@zanesady8084]

In order for humans to evolve from apes their would have to be millions of transitional skeletons between them museums should be stocked full of these examples not a few supposed examples here and there

[@reedplaysgames]

I think the fossil examples given in this video aren’t meant to be comprehensive, but instead to demonstrate a pattern of misleading evidence historically used to support evolution. You could say “cherry-picking,” but whether all fossil evidence falls into this category or not is the crux of the debate, and the video doesn’t really get much into that.

[@anonymoose2474]

It isn't arguing against evolution in general, just against the evidence of human evolution. It would be easier to name the evidence, then what you said

[@reubenmcmurray4377]

People will do mental gymnastics to make the world Fit the narrative they want. Genesis is not only silly, its basically impossible and doesnt make sense in the context of the Universe.

[@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou]

@@reedplaysgames I agree. But why does AiG care about a select few times where some random evolutionists made false claims? That would be like pointing to false claims made by only young earth creationists and then saying “aha the evidence for YEC is terrible!” How is it news to anyone that people do immoral things some time? What about the 30 other times where the proposed ape to man fossils aren’t fake? (That doesn’t mean we should conclude that evolution is true. The point is that no evolutionists today use what was mentioned in the video as evidence) The title of the video implies that the things mentioned in the video are the only reasons to believe in evolution which as noted in my above comment, is the farthest from truth. There are tons of people that only listen to videos like this from AiG and then go to college and lose their faith because they realize that they were misled by videos like this. For many, that puts people on a track to doubting everything they were ever taught which eventually ends in people not being Christians anymore.

[@oscarion5105]

Before modern Science came on the scene..... rotation, dinosaur, the earths position, the shape of the earth, tribes and nations, even human, were mentioned in the bible

[@czgibson3086]

Where are dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible?

[@electricspark5271]

​@@czgibson3086 answers in Genesis explain that in a couple of their videos. You should watch

[@czgibson3086]

@@electricspark5271 Yes, I suppose I could spend hours searching through their videos, subjecting my mind to cringeworthy levels of ignorance, or alternatively you could tell me where dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible.

[@electricspark5271]

@@czgibson3086 or you could stop making excuses and spend 3 minutes in their video list and watch them. Stop being lazy

[@czgibson3086]

@@electricspark5271 So you can't tell me where dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible. Fine. I didn't for a moment think you could.

[@CR-yd4qe]

To reply to the “sucker born every minute” crack. I’d postulate there’s not only one born every minute, but that they’ve been born every minute for the last 2023 years.

[@notnotiron]

Not for the last 2023 years but ever since human population grew

[@Alfalfable999]

The number increased exponentially with the introduction of organized religion, too. So sad...

[@CR-yd4qe]

@@Alfalfable999 and social media 😂

[@Alfalfable999]

@@CR-yd4qe yeah social media is a double edged sword. For one, it had made access to information much easier, but it also gave access to misinformation like this KZbin channel

[@roberttrough6439]

Every time you breathe inhaling and exhaling you’re saying the name of GOD! So hold your breath! Hahaha 🤣 you can’t do that either! Hahaha 🤣 that’s creation at work! Not being mean exposing you to truth.

[@heavensfield494]

Next: Exposing the absurd lack of scientific evidence for religion

[@thephoneandtechman]

sorry but you can't directly prove Gods existence since he is super natural and is therfore hard to directly proof with logic

[@heavensfield494]

@@thephoneandtechman I can’t prove that god isn’t real but I can prove that the claims that god is real are wrong, and why we shouldn’t make real life rules out of theory. Making rules out of theory is like research a medicine and immediately published it on people

[@labative]

what are you on

[@netguy888]

anybody who has actully spent time with apes knows that we are pretty much the same thing. They have the same morals as we do, they talk like we do, they have emotion, they hurt, they greave, they fight, they love, they cry, they forgive, they have families and love each other. Being around silverbacks is the same thing as being around an overprotective father and its a shame that Christans will use the Bible for historical teachings even though the book is an anonymously wrote drama about mans conciseness. Part of the reason why Chirstanity is a joke is because in other religions like Islam or Buddhism can understand this validity of other ideas outside their beliefs even if they don't agree with them. An Ape is not just a creature that screams and eats bannas they are essentially simpflied and super super physically strong humans. Though id consider myself a Neo Chisrtan the faith as a whole is filled with a lot of close minded group think rather then any actual thought or consideration based on what we don't know.

[@netguy888]

@@EstebanDelgado-qc5lz "we have a sense of justice, we can love and correct each other" and so is true for apes. Wacth a Gorilla or Cimp documentary or read any book by Frans De Waal and you will find that man and ape are one in the same. All things were created in the image of God but because other animals do not need to pray or to read the bible to live happy and fuflled lives they don't know that themselves and neither do we that God created all life in his image. Gods image does not refer to the appearance of God and man but rather the fact that God is a being who is Conscious not just alive but Conscious. Ape and man are one in the same the only real difference is that apes are FAR stronger but humans are FAR smarter.

[@kellyjohns6612]

I could listen to Calvin all day and not get bored

[@martintekula]

calming lies are the most successful

[@Jewonastick]

Correction; "never learn anything"

[@electricspark5271]

The early 2000 edge lords are responding 😅

[@roberttrough6439]

Which Calvin? The French Theologian? Pastor and reformer of Geneva during the reformation? Or some nut job?

[@martintekula]

@Soldier i was refering to religion in general not just this liar ...

[@2027Judah]

Keep up the good work!

[@iidentifyasadoctor]

He comments on all Christian videos to endorse satanism 😂 most likely a bot, tranny, or demon person 🤣

[@J.i.M.9604]

​@@jerrylong6238 go ahead and refute every single claim

[@jackstrawfromwichita9369]

@@jerrylong6238 Where's the evolution? Oops. "None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another…Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic [e.g., bacterial] to eukaryotic [e.g., plant and animal] cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. - Alan Linton, phd bacteriologist

[@kevinburke1325]

​@jerrylong6238 whatever John Balnis.

[@anthonyb27]

@@jerrylong6238 Please point out the specific lie(s) so we can discuss, thanks.