Atheists Will HATE This Video (Ken Ham)

[@ericbeightol3214]

In older times, farmers used to bury Maple block in blue clay. After 4 months, the wood became petrified and was used as a hone stone.

[@joanneg7646]

That's super cool.. how did u come by this info?

[@plumberman19]

enoch news or the Dailywire lol@@joanneg7646

[@JB-yb4wn]

No they didn't, and the wood cannot be petrified because it takes millions of years to actually do that.

[@joanneg7646]

@@JB-yb4wn like coal or diamonds that they can now make in months

[@maxeclan3430]

Right, the massive lie of millions of years to create a fossil is just that. Plus the only way to create a fossil is by rapid burial. What could bury a fish with another fish halfway down its throat. Only a huge wave of sediment from a huge flood.

[@chris0429]

As a former nihilist who neglected existence and disobey all morals, I am truly grateful for this inevitable information, this video humbled my heart and changed my stubborn soul. Most of the people who reject the existence of God is through pride, we really cannot offer our lives to Jesus if we boast about our knowledge and ego, even Lucifer was cast out and banished because of his pride, honestly (Proverbs 16:18) is one of the reason I stopped doubting God, because no matter how many evidence the bible gives some people are just too prideful to care, we will really never know and understand God no matter what unless the Holy Spirit shows us, faith takes a lifetime experience. I just wanna say to those who lost all their hope, life will get better even if you don't see it so don't end it, even if you suffer remember that our Almighty God will reward you in heaven, God bless everyone and Merry Christmas:).

[@richardgregory3684]

_no matter how many evidence the bible gives_ Except it doesn;t give any. At all. The bible is just a collection of fairy tales. Many of which can be proven beyond reasonable doubt to be false. Genesis and Exodus, for example, they can both be thrown out as nonsense.

[@michaelg377]

@@richardgregory3684 That's because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, puddles of chemicals can fizz into people if you just add *Time,* and you are literally related to that banana you're eating. You have your own fairy tales my friend. *"Time is in fact the hero of the plot. . . . What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the “impossible” becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles"* (George Wald). Charles Darwin gave a testable hypothesis for the validity of his theory, saying "if an organ were discovered which could not possibly be explained by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down..." and he didn't have access to the fields of genetics or microbiology when he made up his theory. *If evolution is true, then how did male and female evolve?* *"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"* (Romans 3:23) *"But God is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish, but for all to reach repentance"* (2 Peter 3:9)

[@michaelg377]

@@Oldtinear "the first life-forms which developed this feature *left no trace of themselves* 2 billion years ago." (Oldtinear, 30 September 2023) ""We can speculate [regarding early evolution], but *any speculations could not be tested, so we will never know"* (Oldtinear, 30 September 2023) *"If you cannot test it, it ain't science."* (Oldtinear, 20 December 2023). Thank you for those powerful arguments against Evolution - now you can know, *from your own words,* that your own belief system *"...is not testable - it is nothing to do with science. It is a fundamentalist religious belief."* (Oldtinear, 20 December 2023) Charles Darwin gave a testable hypothesis for the validity of his theory, saying *"if an organ were discovered which could not possibly be explained by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down..."* and he didn't have access to the fields of genetics or microbiology when he made up his theory. *If evolution is true, then how did male and female evolve?* *"Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap."* (Galatians 6:7) *"It is appointed for a man to die once, then comes Judgment"* (Hebrews 9:27)

[@michaelg377]

@@Oldtinear There is nothing of substance in anything you just said - yet those quotes from you, your own words, are pretty clear. You also didn't answer my question: Again, Charles Darwin gave a testable hypothesis for the validity of his theory, saying *"if an organ were discovered which could not possibly be explained by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down..."* and he didn't have access to the fields of genetics or microbiology when he made up his theory. If evolution is true, then *how did male and female evolve?* Per Darwin, until you do, evolution is "breaking down"... *which gender evolved first,* and how did it reproduce while the other hadn't evolved yet? *"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them."* (Romans 1:18-19) Going backwards in time, which of these critical organs do you gradually reduce first "by numerous, successive, slight modifications" - keeping in mind that women today literally can't get pregnant from known medical issues with these organs? *"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"* (Romans 3:23) Here's a reminder of a few of the *organs* that need to be explained "by numerous, successive, slight modifications," for your convenience: The fallopian tubes are lined with millions of these little hairs that all wave the same direction, and their purpose is to guide the egg from the ovaries down into the uterus. If they stood still, laid flat, waved the wrong direction, or didn't exist - the egg would either die or it would implant in the fallopian tube thus killing the mother. Some of these are known medical conditions that prevent pregnancy - "Evolution" had to get these millions of hairs just right.... "by numerous, successive, slight modifications." *Simultaneously* the sperm has a whip like rotor, a motor encasing, a bushing like material, a nutrient transfer system, and several other components that all have to be working *just right* or the sperm can't find the egg. Reproduction and life fails. "Evolution" had to get the interdependent parts of the sperm "just right" ... "by numerous, successive, slight modifications." *Then* you have the placenta which does everything for the baby including keeping the mother's and baby's blood separate, the expanding and contracting uterus and cervix, the mechanism which only allows one sperm into the egg, and numerous other components that all had to be *designed* just right, or reproduction and life fails. "Evolution" had to *SIMULTANEOUSLY* get all of these just right "by numerous, successive, slight modifications."

[@Ez-ij7pe]

@@michaelg377 that's a very gross misinterpretation and blatantly stupid oversimplification of science; these things do not happen out of the blue like your fairy tales... they have empirical and experimental data; what do you have? A silly little child's wish and the clasping of hands and neurons? What will that procure besides delusions.

[@jasonschwab4308]

It goes pretty fast. I'm going to have to watch 2 or 3 times to fully digest all the info. It's one of the the best arguments for God I've ever seen.

[@adamokornrajh3874]

We do not affirm His existence because we have doubt, just like you did affirm the existence of your friends because you doubt they exist, but because you are grateful they do. Did you ever tell your friend "I am so glad you are here." So do you have doubt they exist?

[@adamokornrajh3874]

Besides what makes you think that if such a creature exist everyone would believe in it? Especially since he gave us free will.

[@AmbientVibesASMR]

@@adamokornrajh3874 we were given free will but we already know from Christian Doctrine that we will be divided, we will not stand in unity. Which is exactly why our different races were created by us. There is only one race, the Human race. God made us unique because why would we want to look like every other person? That would be pretty bleak. Going back to my original point, different religions, teachings that contradict the Bible are designed to separate and confuse us. As finite beings we can’t comprehend something outside of our own world. We can’t comprehend time nor space which does not exist. Yet we still create our own time…

[@adamokornrajh3874]

@@AmbientVibesASMR I agree with you on the fact that other religions were created by satan to confuse and divide us, but I don't understand what you mean by creating our own time?

[@AmbientVibesASMR]

@@adamokornrajh3874 Time does not exist. The explanation won’t be short but I hope you understand! Humans everywhere use spatial metaphors to think about time, but the specifics differ from culture to culture. Even alone in our thoughts, we think of time as space, leaning on brain areas known to play a role in spatial understanding. Culture plays a large role in determining which metaphors we use. The direction of the written word has an especially strong influence. In the 19th century, the physicist Ludwig Boltzmann wrote: “For the universe, the two directions of time are indistinguishable, just as in space there is no up and down.” Boltzmann’s view departed from time as an absolute in itself, a constant of the natural order of the universe. He implied that there is no objective direction of time, and that we invent it according to our perception, just as we call the direction towards the centre of the earth “down.” TIME AS AN ILLUSION The great revolution in our idea of time began with Albert Einstein.( A Religious Non-Believer) In his general relativity he included time as another dimension in the deformable fabric of the universe that explains gravity, and in special relativity time also became elastic, dependent on the position and velocity of the observer, so that the concept of “now” became meaningless. Decades later, in a letter of condolence to the family of his friend Michele Besso, who had died shortly before, Einstein wrote that for physicists “the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”

[@anthonymongelli5567]

Live by Faith and not by sight for Faith is evidence of things that are unseen, things that are hoped for!!! Blessed are those who believe without doubt or seeing HALLELUJAH!!!

[@HarryShagnasty-sc9zd]

Faith is a voluntary exclusion of reasonable thinking!

[@user-ex2cc7hw6g]

@@HarryShagnasty-sc9zdit is evidence that leads to faith

[@JohnKoenig-db8lk]

Faith is the reason you give for believing something when you don't have a good reason.

[@grahamthomas6381]

😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@boyar1978]

that is a foolish comment. You are basically telling people to disregard what they see for something that might not exist. One should only believe things that they can see as that is a fact.

[@douglasbair5647]

What a beautiful explanation of skin shade, so color of skin shouldn’t matter at all! What does matter is the quality of the persons standards, the morality of each individual. As believers in Jesus we should be most concerned about those two things, and how we as individuals keep his commandments! Love to all!

[@Quartz512_]

You're talking about this like you're mind blown by the idea of not being racist

[@DWpHotography3705]

Sorry to comment so late after the post. Always been strong Christian (so I think), recently had a couple questions. You answered them with your words exactly.

[@AlbertPaulMontini-nk6wh]

God bless you 🎉

[@paspep]

What were these questions ?

[@canadiankewldude]

*_God Bless_*

[@markogrbovic9083]

​@Tbone I always find it funny when people who are not religious comment on these videos. You that bored or are you trying to convince yourself of something?

[@VattiVonSlatti]

@Tbone You came to this exact video just to comment a nonsense claim. My brotha, there is a God and His name is Lord Jesus!

[@CanI...]

Great lecture. Can't wait until my daughter is old enough to watch it and understand. Not only is it a great Biblical teaching but makes science learning so much easier and accurate.

[@AlbertPaulMontini-nk6wh]

God bless you with lots of good health and happiness 🎉

[@judyswiderski2682]

How wonderful that you will teach your daughter the truth! Andy Stanley has thrown out the Old Testament. He has brought himself under God's curse. Revelation 22:18-19. We are not to change God's eternal word. Yet many honor modern bibles which lie, change who God is, and continually challenge God and His word!!! by asking, Did God say? Come on, really? God said He preserved His word. Psalm 12:6-7. Most modern bibles do not. In other words they are not admitting that God has a standard, His inspired word. His word is quick (alive) and quickens (gives life). His word is eternal. Most of the modern bibles have at least one out and out lie. NKJB lies in Exodus 6:3. They began to call on the name of the Lord in Genesis 4:26. Others quote Jesus telling his brothers, i am not going to the feast. John 7:8. (Is he saying he is going to break the law of Moses?) He waits and then goes. Liar! BLASPHEMY . Jesus simply said, not going now, not yet. He waits and then goes. No problem, no lie. And blatantly they mock Jesus and unashamedly, constantly, with each change ask, Did God say? "All things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that was made. " John 1:3. Clearly He is the Creator. Their Jesus was but a vessel. "Made through him." Did God say Mark 11:26? Absolutely. It is an essential part of our walk with God. A verse that makes us tremble was added????? Did God say? Acts 15:34? It shows God's divine providence. Silas was there when Paul needed him for a journey. Obviously Silas remained there. BRAZENLY, they change or remove a word that gives the believers true power! Matthew 12:31 and Mark 9:29! Some spiritual warfare needs prayer and fasting! Did God say eleven (11) times in the New Testament the word damnation, eternal burning? Yes. But not in theirs! Did God say? Did God give three witnesses to that truth? Mark 9:44, 46, 48. They however only have v48. The other two they ask, Did God say? This is important because we need to know the truth and those who preach Annialism, we cease to exist, are easily proven wrong with these verses. Jesus is God and Jesus is Man. Hebrews supports this with four verses, 3:3, 7:24, 8:3 and 10:12: "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sin for ever, sat down at rhe right hand of God; v10:12. They do not use the clarifying words 'this man' at all. Again, Did God say? Every change they make is an insult to God and His word. God said He would curse those who add to or take from His word. Revelation 22:18-19. In the Old Testament those who honored a false prophet received the reward of that prophet. So the Alexandrian translators, the bible societies the publishers, the promoters, sellers and those who teach from them (showing those ear tickling bibles as God's word) or honor them will be held responsible. If done ignorantly, repent. God will not be mocked. This happened when the inspired Antioch manuscripts called the Textus Receptus were replaced by the Alexandrian manuscripts called the Codex B or the Vaticanus from the Vatican basement, and the Sianiticus from a monestary. They do not agree with each other and the latter has about 30 changes per page. Obviously inspired by their spiritual father who brings conflict, frustration, despair and DOUBT. King James Bible online Helpful tool: Noah Webster 1828 Dictionary online: This dictionary has civil and spiritual definitions. Look up: Repent, Regeneration, Believe, Faith Redemption, Perfect Conversation, Prevent, Propitiation, Suppliers: Churchkjb.com Localchurchbiblepublishers.com Sources: Adullum Films -Tares Among the Wheat Sequel video. Books: The Revision Revised and The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, both by William Burgon. Dean Burgon lived during the time of Wescott and Hort. Book: Look What's Missing by David Daniels Chick.com. If interested an old video called The Forbidden Book video. It has some American History also.

[@sadistksuffring1537]

You have a lot more learning to do if you think they accurately represent science. They use inductive reasoning, which is where you have your answer and you look for evidence to support it and omit the rest. Science doesn't like that because it's not a good way for finding out what is true. You need deductive reasoning. You look at the evidence and see where it leads you, then double check and have others double check for peer review. They got a lot of stuff false just within the first few min and when you start with false information, it will only lead to false information.

[@CanI...]

@@sadistksuffring1537 instead of criticizing, why don't you point out what is false? Your "science" uses inductive reasoning as well, just take a look at how many assumptions have to be made in order for c-14, dendocronology, archeomagnetic dating and so on. If we pick up the most famous one, carbon 14 for instance, why can't we date a dinosaur fossil using this technique when there are still carbon in the bones?

[@greg8938]

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence from multiple fields of science, including genetics, paleontology, embryology, and comparative anatomy. The similarities in DNA sequences and developmental patterns between different species provide strong evidence for common ancestry and the gradual process of evolution over millions of years. Additionally, the observation of natural selection in action, as well as the numerous documented instances of speciation, provide further evidence for evolution. For example, the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria and development of new species of animals on isolated islands, have been well documented. But hey, let’s instead believe some illiterate and superstitious goat herders who, over 2000 years ago, had a higher level of understanding of our world and universe than we do today. I don't believe God would want you to be that naive. You have been given free will, please use it to educate yourself.

[@suheylaa1769]

I am a strong believer ✝️ but we all have our doubts ... Now that I'm in astrobiology class, there's no way that God didn't create the Earth. Every other sentence in the book is, "we're not sure." ( Edit: for all confused...this is not astrology. astrobiology includes chemistry, geology, astronomy, physics, high-level math, astrophysics, etc.) Ty have a nice day.

[@Rahkvyo]

@@EwayPtownwhat are you even talking about. Show me in the Bible where it says you can not doubt. Does doubting and asking questions not lead to having stronger faith when you come to the realization you are referring to. The Bible does not ask for blind faith as in don’t use your brain. Just listen and accept

[@EnvyMe-_-305]

@@EwayPtown Chill boss we are only saved by Jesus sacrifice, our faith in him and by his Grace lukewarm or not the debt has been paid. Leave the judgment to the father cause EVERYONE has sinned and deserves the same.

[@espresso21357]

😂😂😂

[@Rahkvyo]

@@christianalberticranio and I see you can’t read as to whom I responded

[@Rahkvyo]

@@christianalberticranio all good. After I looked I assumed that’s what happened.

[@charlesjohnson253]

I have a question In modern terms we consider " a day" a 24 hr period that the earth on its axis, with respect to the sun. The Sun , Moon, and stars were not created until the 4th day. But in the beginning, there was " light , that was called day, and " Darkness that was called "night"How can " A 24/7 period be determined? I do not doubt the creation simply confused about the timeline.

[@gamermanzeake]

There is no confusion. God set the timeline of a day then. The same day we've always used is the same day He created. How is this known? Even the aborigine people in the middle of the bush who can't speak and know no other, know how long a day is. God ingrained this information into our beings. The creation only took the time the Bible claims. In order for it to have a moveable meaning behind those words used, God would have to be lying. God cannot tell a lie. Let God be true and every man a liar. You see, the devil Is as a ROARING LION IN YOUR EARS! Whereas God is a still small voice in the heart of the saved man. Confusion and doubt are what the devil always desires us to have. God is not the author of confusion. The folks who have an issue with God creating all things in an instant (even though He's all-powerful, all-knowing, ever-capable so on and so forth) have a serious issue with coming to terms with the Word of God. Read the Authorized Word and believe it.

[@angelamccrackin5243]

A thousand years on earth is a day with the Lord. It isn't twenty four hours. Don't let anyone tell you different...

[@artax7664]

⁠@@angelamccrackin5243I don’t think it’s responsible or productive to tell someone not to let anyone tell them anything, without actually knowing, especially coming from a believer about God. The only reliable person (or any person) who was there was God and although sometimes He does speak to us in parables and poetry, He also doesn’t lie. You have to jump through some serious hoops to say that what the Bible teaches is not a week worth of days of creation. I’d never give that advice to myself. I’d never say to myself “never let anyone tell you anything different than you already think”. It’s just bad advice. Instead, anything anyone is trying to tell you, ask them to justify it. “Why do you believe that”, and “why should I believe that” are good starting points.

[@angelamccrackin5243]

@@artax7664 i thought about what you said and you are correct. I dont know these things for sure and I made a mistake in declaring it to be truth. I dont want anyone to get frustrated with not knowing and turn away....

[@artax7664]

@@angelamccrackin5243 such a rare and humble response brother. May God bless you and be glorified by you.

[@franknilson180]

Thanks for a very informative view, using basic understandable language and logic to describe the comparisons between science and Christianity. which at the end proves the existence of God and the work of His hands and that the evolution and other theories are just theories and nothing else. Thanks for a great video.

[@YerdauitYerlanuly]

do you know what does theory mean?

[@artax7664]

@@YerdauitYerlanulya theory is an interpretation of facts to form a conclusion. That’s why theories change, and can be wrong. We can interpret the facts incorrectly or we can discover new data that changes the picture. It’s the same reason we can get wildly different politics when interpreting data incorrectly or not getting the full picture. The addition of data changes theories rapidly. For example, recently the JWT found that galaxies and heavy elements are found fully formed far further than we ever could have predicted they could be according to the conclusions and theories that we currently understood. This wildly changes the possibilities of the Big Bang, the process of the creation of our universe, and the timeline associated with it.

[@Quartz512_]

Understandable language and logic are important, but do you knwo what else is important? Sources. He has not proven that God was a witness to anything, he has not proven that God is capable of inspiring anyone and that he did. We know the history of the eiffel tower, because we have primary sources of people who left physical evidence with blueprints, and newspapers.

[@franknilson180]

@@Quartz512_ So, you believe only in that you can see and obtain information from blueprints? Well, I have news for you, there is a blueprint for the existence of God namely the bible. If you take the time to understand the building of the Eifel tower, you might find it more interesting to read the blueprint of God, the bibile KJV. You, are His creation. Look around you at nature, and not man-made structures, and you will realize the power of God. He alone has the power to life and existence, and He created it.There is only one God and His Son, Jesus Christ. Trust and believe in them and you might be with Them when Jesus comes collect the saved. It is not to late for you to confess and repent of your sins and accept Jesus Christ into your life.

[@michaelg377]

@@Quartz512_ Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers? Throughout Scripture we have 66 books written by 40 authors, including 27 books written by 8 of them plus their amanuenses which all corroborate the same claims - that's enough eyewitness/secondary witness evidence to sink a modern court case. We also have demonstrable proof of supernatural phenomena through fulfilled prophecy documented in the Bible, such as the prophecy in Daniel 9 which accurately predicted the rebuilding of Jerusalem, coming of someone meeting all the qualifications of the Jewish Messiah, execution of said Messiah in a specifically curse-worthy manner, and then destruction of the 2nd temple and Jerusalem (AD 70), all in that order and on a specific timeline that just happens to line up with the year that Jesus was crucified. *Fulfilled Prophecy in the Biblical Texts* Among other things. *Accurately telling the future with such precise detail is either extremely incredible chance, or it's a supernatural phenomenon. This is evidence of God's divine intervention in mankind through Scripture, and is therefore evidence that supports His inspiration of this text.* These specific prophecies came to be because God is sovereign over all of it, and His prophecies are always accurate. BTW we can prove this prophecy above was made hundreds of years before this specific timeline of events occurred based on tangible manuscript evidence that we have in hand that predates Jesus' time on earth (Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint, etc.). *Science in the Bible* Also consider the many hints of scientific truths throughout, yet undiscovered by secular man at the time they were written. The human authors wrote that God put the stars in the Heavens, and Scripture goes on to say that they are countless (Jeremiah 33:22, etc.) while Ptolemy only catalogued 1100 observable stars in his time. Likewise, years before Pythagoras is attributed with discovering a round earth, and while the rest of the world believed it was flat and/or on the back of an animal with wind blowing from four corners, Isaiah suspiciously wrote that God "sits above the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22) and Job wrote that God "hangs the earth on nothing" (Job 26:7) both showing signs of countercultural and 3-dimensional thought. *It's almost like these prophets of God suspiciously had glimpses of a scientific truth we didn't figure out for centuries.* Then of course there's how Matthew Maury discovered ocean currents based on his understanding of Psalm 8:8, the Bible's descriptions matching the hydrologic cycle which we didn't figure out until relatively recently (Amos 9:6, Ecclesiastes 1:7, Psalm 135:7, Ecclesiastes 11:3, etc.), that blood is the source of life (Leviticus 17:11) while other cultures were practicing bloodletting to try to stop disease, hygiene laws requiring running water (Leviticus 15:13) while even up to the 1800s doctors would wash their hands in a still basin of water leaving invisible germs and causing countless infections and deaths as a result... Among countless other examples. These hints at modern scientific truths throughout Scripture make sense if they were revealed to us from the all-knowing God who created the entire universe including the laws of nature (Jeremiah 33:25) and time, space, and matter themselves (Genesis 1:1). *They make sense if Scripture was inspired by God - literally "God-breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16).* But if the Bible is false, then it's very odd that all these prophets seem to have gotten modern science right on so many points millennia before modern science figured these things out. *"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"* (2 Timothy 3:16)

[@imlijc7588]

I have been really blessed with this teaching. explained all the doubts i had about my own concern regarding the history of mankind and the creation of the world. And most importantly the existence of our living God the Father.

[@cathyreddy6297]

Don't billion doubts. Truth

[@jasonwiley798]

Then yiu don't doubt much. Gode xplains nothing.

[@edwardcopeland5069]

If you were a common person 500yr ago, then you never read a Bible because there were no Bible! Therefore you wasn't going around having these stupid arguments. Good night.

[@davidandthatotherguy1369]

@@jasonwiley798 Well done on winning the spelling bee.

[@brianl7535]

This guy never showed anything about science that proved the bible was right, he just poked a bunch of holes in science which is totally reasonable as science is just theory based upon earlier theories, no scientist knows 100% of anything but the point is to continue to explore and understand.

[@leighatkins22]

I have deeply studied all of this over 4 decades and even tried to disprove it, but i have come to the exact same conclusions that this man has. He has expressed perfectly, what i have also discovered and that is that thru logic, what we are taught in the instititions makes no sense, but the bible actually does. I remember drilling thru all this stuff and even using dogs to explain how breeds are created and how our genes are distributed, and then how race came about thru isolation and inbreeding after the confusing of the languages, and then telling others about it. They listened like someone had blown their brains out!!! And now here it is for others to finally hear and understand for themselves. Someone else took it and dressed it up for mass understanding. This happens ALOT to me and it gives me such a thrill to know that God has used me in this way... It never gets tired... ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

[@michaelg377]

As Darwin was preaching that certain races were less evolved than other races (an unfortunate logical consequence of atheistic evolution), Scripture has always said that all human beings descended from the same Adam and Eve, and there is only one "race" - the human "race," and all are created equally as image bearers of God. The concept of "race" as we use it today didn't even exist until relatively recently in history when European landlords wanted to distinguish between their farm hands based on physical appearance - it's a completely arbitrary concept, not real "science." Race is best described as the product of gene-pooling and environmental adaptation among isolated people groups, not particles to man evolution.

[@JB-yb4wn]

Well obviously you have wasted your life over 4 decades.

[@listeningministry]

​@@JB-yb4wnnice Dragon. But might I suggest Jesus? 😊

[@JB-yb4wn]

@@listeningministry Oh sure, this the guy who's dad wiped out the planet for some stupid reason?

[@listeningministry]

@@JB-yb4wn life is much better when you are enlightened to truth. There is peace in no longer having to search endlessly. No amount of pseudo intellectual, smarty pants, clever bone, sarcasm. Nor any amount of sexual gratification, wealth, or mind bending psychedelic. Or ancient knowledge or teaching. Can come close knowing God. You just have to be brave enough, to ask. And if you do. Well. That's the real red pill.

[@ErnestWilber]

Might also be good to add that not only could the voulcanos done this but today if you pour hot steel into way it explodes upwards and for that reason the molds at steel factory’s are inspected before use so no one dies

[@keir0830]

10:50 - "We have never seen matter produce one bit of brand new information that ever previously existed" Truth.

[@michaelg377]

Very true. And this information includes complex instructions for building things like your eyes with its millions of cells and a concave light-refracting lens that bends light just right so that you can see... and they say 'it's just chemicals." It's incredible.

[@michaelg377]

@@ThomasKundera Well, first you need to get information from non-information - out of a chemical puddle. This information needs to then grow into instructions for building things like your concave light refracting lens that bends light just right, 137M light sensitive cells, 40M nerve endings, and precise muscles that auto-focus this complex optical system 100,000 times a day. Then once you've solve that information/instructions problem for building this complex masterpiece of engineering, you can move on to the chemicals and physics involved in this engineering masterpiece - but first you need to account for the instructions for it from non-information in a lifeless information-less chemical universe. How do you do that?

[@michaelg377]

@@ThomasKundera So you admit that your chemical DNA is programmed with information (instructions) to build this complex machine including a concave light-refracting lens that bends light just right so your 137M light sensitive cells can process this input and turn it into a signal so you can "see"? Because the intelligent origin of information was the point of my post. So far so good my friend - right?

[@michaelg377]

@@ThomasKundera " the intelligent origin of information was the point of my post." And evolution is what put that information there." Okay, so DNA contains information. We observe that every example of information elsewhere always has an intelligent source - every book has an author, every program a programmer, the words on this screen came from you as the intelligent source. So take an early living cell, and go back in time to the first "creature" or "bacteria" or whatever it was that contained DNA with "information" - How did that "information" in that first DNA/information filled cell get created out of chemicals in a puddle without an intelligent source? Two worldviews, same evidence, two very different interpretations. Evidence: DNA contains information. Evidence: Every *other* example of information in existence always ultimately has an intelligent source. Biblical Creation Conclusion: Therefore, *consistently interpreted,* the information and instructions in DNA also had an Intelligent Source (God). Atheistic Naturalist Conclusion: "Evolution [an unintelligent source] is what put that information there." Can you please explain?

[@michaelg377]

@@ThomasKundera You just made another logical fallacy, *begging the question* of an unintelligent source for early DNA. Read above carefully, I'll repost here for you side by side, maybe it will help: "take an early living cell, and *go back in time to the first "creature" or "bacteria" or whatever it was that contained DNA with "information" - How did that "information" in that first DNA/information filled cell get created out of chemicals in a puddle* without an intelligent source?" You said "Do you suggest that *a mutation in DNA* is caused by intelligence?" - *That depends on whether that information in DNA originally came from an Intelligent Source or not, right? So back on topic, with the first instance of information in DNA, in the first bacteria, cell, etc. - where did that information come from?* You can get information from other information ("mutations in DNA," etc.) - but you need to get *information from non-information* without an Intelligent Source. By way of a rough analogy, if a bunch of pages were ripped out of several books and thrown into the trash, it's possible that those pages could just happen to fall together into a certain order in a "new" book. That "new" book was not formed by an intelligent source - but *all of the information in it still came from an Intelligent Source (the original authors).* You need to account for the "author" that gets you from information-less chemicals to information-full DNA, not from one information-filled cell to another mutated information-filled cell. Does that help?

[@rosesacks7430]

Enjoyed this video. I appreciate the discussion on evolution. I've watched several other speakers discuss the complexity of DNA and protein strands. The ecological impact of the eruption of Mt. St. Helen's had some new information for me. Keep up the good work.

[@pup1008]

Have you actually watched anyone other than the self affirming minions from YEC echo chambers?

[@michaelg377]

@@pup1008 With respect, given your misunderstandings and inability to explain your own worldview beliefs from our prior discussions... have you? “…It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong…The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor’s new clothes: *everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin’s predicted pattern, simply looked the other way.”* (Niles Eldredge, "The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982) That last part in particular is important: *"...everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin’s predicted pattern, simply looked the other way.”* This is an evolutionist admitting that evolutionary paleontologists are ignoring the evidence. What are your thoughts on that? All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12.

[@rosesacks7430]

@pup1008 what's it to you? I enjoyed the video. Spread your hate somewhere else.

[@pup1008]

@@rosesacks7430 One man's "hate" is another man's reality...

[@michaelg377]

@@Oldtinear *He absolutely is an evolutionist - that's exactly why that statement is so significant.* - and he said flat out that evolutionary paleontologists are ignoring obvious evidence. The fossil record most definitely is not evidence for evolution, it's time to abandon that obvious lie my friend - you've been misled, it's just groupthink and "simply looking the other way": Again: *"...everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin’s predicted pattern, simply looked the other way.”* (Niles Eldredge) This is an evolutionist admitting that evolutionary paleontologists are ignoring the evidence in the fossil record, and maintaining their stories DESPITE the evidence. What are your thoughts on that? Here are a couple more: *"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded... The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time... Some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record... have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."* (D. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50, no 1 (1979), 25) 2 things we observe in the fossil record: *“Stasis.* Most species represent no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. *“Sudden Appearance.* In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed.” (Stephen Gould, "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change," 1985) ...it seems no mountain of evidence could ever convince an evolutionist who is so blindly devoted to his faith.

[@Just_a_random_person13]

Thank you so much for this video! I’m almost 11 and science text books have been messing with my head and I’ve been having a hard time with my faith. Thank you so much Ken Ham!

[@Marie_711]

I feel your relief! I'm 65 and learning with you. 😊

[@damonirvine8910]

For your own sake, watch videos discussing logical fallacies. Most of Ken Ham’s arguments rely on them. If you truly wish to see how creationism holds up under scrutiny, watch Ham debate Bill Nye. Seriously, it’s an enlightening experience to see how dishonest his stance has to be in order to justify his belief.

[@michaelg377]

@@damonirvine8910 Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just wait a long enough *time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people? I do agree with one of your points - do watch that debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye - it's Bill's false assumptions that caused him to do as poorly as he did. Ironically, *Time* is actually working in favor of Creation, and increasingly against Evolution. For example: *“…It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong."* *“…The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor’s new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin’s predicted pattern, simply looked the other way.”* (Niles Eldredge, "The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982) That last part is important: "Paleontologists... obstinately refusing to yield Darwin’s predicted pattern, simply looked the other way.”

[@GuestingGameplays]

@@damonirvine8910 indeed, and a book I believe it’s called ‘Stealing from God: why atheists need God to make their case’ and some other ones from that author, it’s always around half truths and lies towards Scripture, don’t be afraid child the truth prevails and it’s mostly hypocritical arguments and just goes in circle, by their fruits we know them, it’s all spoken in the Bible that such men had do their works, and we have ours to do too, let us keep walking on that narrow path that God has put us in. He’s risen, He lives and loves, they forgot that it’s not because they reject and turn their faces away from someone that they stopped existing: they only ‘don’t exist to them’, yet we pray for them and ofc for all but the sin that leads to death as it’s stated in the book of John. God bless brothers, I also was one that had doubt and there are different things and problems but God clarifies everything, not everyone wants to serve but some want to be their own lord and gods of their lives, as Jesus said he who has ears let him hear.

[@lindaschipansky4429]

Me to. Cause truth of anything seems to be handed down generation to generation. Look at politics. Handed down generation to generation. Oh my grandparents and parents believed in this. So this must be the right!! Wrong

[@Shellshock361]

I used to watch Ken Ham many years ago when he debated between evolution and creationism. I over the years have became detached from God and Jesus. And have recently found my love again for God. It took a jarring event though that God used to wake me up again, God does work in mysterious ways. After finding God again I'm starting to feel better and better every single day. Things are brighter and more clear. Ken Ham's message is very powerful. I wasn't an Atheist per-say, but I was lost. I don't know how Atheists have the strength, it isn't a good existence.

[@ngc-fo5te]

How dare you speak for others.

[@michaelg377]

@@ngc-fo5te "The long and short of it is that I became convinced that atheism implies amorality; and since I am an atheist, I must therefore embrace amorality... The religious fundamentalists are correct: without God, there is no morality. But they are incorrect, I still believe, about there being a God. Hence, I believe, there is no morality." ~ Joel Marks, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the University of New Haven. *'They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them"* (Romans 2:15)

[@painreliefspc]

It doesn’t mean the word of God is not real if the Earth isn’t older than 6000 years. It means that human beings kept better records and oral traditions than we thought possible before. The Catholic Church wants you to believe that the world is only 6000 years old for whatever reason. Maybe to ignore the ancient archaeology around the world which is getting increasingly harder to ignore the more intelligent human beings become. Forget, carbon dating. Do you think you have more than 200 ancestor to Adam and eve? If so, that means the world is order than 6000 years. The institution of marriage itself is absolutely older than 6000 years. 😂

[@Zepeda1026]

Right beside you man. I'm going through some stuff and God is using that to bring me back. AMEN

[@travisbicklepopsicle]

@@michaelg377 I don't understand what you mean by, 'without God there is no morality'. There are billions of people in the world who do not worship the Christian God, are they all running around raping and killing each other? Some of the countries with the lowest crime rates in the world, such as Australia, New Zealand, France, and many more, predominately identify as atheist; all they're all running around raping and killing each other? Morality is subjective, it does not come from a book or a god.

[@stevenshaneyfelt]

I was shocked to see kids hearing this, I can’t imagine hearing this when I was little, even as an adult this is a lot to take in!

[@pamelaevans3146]

But it is true, called faith.😊

[@stevenshaneyfelt]

@@TdBone a more accurate statement- you can’t just claim people are your friend by saying it

[@donuts3476]

It's not really

[@frankmurphyburr3598]

​@@pamelaevans3146 faith doesn't mean anything, irs just a word used by people without evidence for their so called invisible celestial dictator

[@painreliefspc]

Forget, carbon, dating. Do you think you have more than 200 ancestor to Adam and eve? If so, that means the world order than 6000 years. 😂

[@spandanthapa8506]

One of the best clearest message I have seen

[@jszlauko]

Yeah, it's clear alright, in that whenever something cannot be explained, it's explained by being god. Never mind truly looking for the cause of anything, as it's just god. But then which of the thousands of gods that have been brought forth by man should one believe? For some crazy reason it's the one from the bible. As if that fairy tale carries any more weight that any other religion.

[@soultraveller5027]

So according to The cosmologist the big bang theory is currently the accepted theory of the beginning of the universe up to now .....but apparently there are a few other theories The steady state theory where matter was always.there. mult universe theory..but for now The universe started from a single point in spacoe expansion from a single Atom so where did the atom come from you can't have something out of of nothings

[@jszlauko]

@@soultraveller5027 - Funny how you go from saying "steady state theory where matter was always there" to then saying "so where did the atom come from you can't have something out of of nothings". Well, if the steady state theory is correct, then that atom was always there!

[@li0nhart4477]

@@soultraveller5027 The old chestnut, "nothing" as scientist use it is not the same as ordinary people understand. Nothing is a state of energy that equals zero then that fluctuated which then became something hence everything created (in a simplistic sense). I also pose a chestnut question, you can't believe that the universe came from nothing, but you believe god can or that he has always been there?. So why could that not be possible with the universe?. God is unnecessary baggage that need not be added. You are hypocritical of your own reasoning.

[@ryanpayne5755]

​@@soultraveller5027what makes God?

[@michaelg377]

This is a matter of competing worldviews over the exact same evidence, and you have to evaluate the worldviews. For example, *if sediments have been accumulating on the ocean floor for 3+ billion years, then the sediment on the sea floor should be several miles deep* ...but the thickness of these sediments is only about 1300 feet deep. Approximately 20 billion tons of dirt and rock debris are eroded from the continents and deposited into the sea every year, mostly near the continents. Approximately 1 billion tons of sediment are removed every year through tectonic movement (1-2 inches per year), resulting in a net gain of approximately 19 billion tons of sediment every year. At this rate, it would take about 12 million years (under *atheistic Uniformitarian Naturalist assumptions)* for all of this sediment to accumulate - not 3-4 *Billion* years. This measurable evidence makes sense from a biblical creation perspective which holds that most of these sediments were rapidly deposited a little over 4000 years ago in the global flood. The evidence just fits. Atheistic-Naturalists, however, have to invoke one of several rescuing devices to circumvent this problematic evidence, all of which are problematic themselves. Some claim *"it must have accumulated at a slower rate in the past"* - but the sediments on the continental shelves suggest they were deposited much *Faster* than today's rates. For example, the layering and patterns of the grain sizes in these sediments are the same as those produced by undersea landslides, when turbidity currents flow rapidly across continental shelves and the sediments then settle in thick layers over vast areas. *There is also no evidence of a large amount of sediment being subducted under the mantle.* Two worldviews, same evidence, two very different interpretations. Biblical creation proponents "scientifically" accept this evidence at face value of a recent global flood and a young creation - the evidence simply fits. Atheistic-Naturalists have to invoke a rescuing device to unscientificially *circumvent this problematic evidence in order to preserve their atheistic version of our origins.* Which worldview is really behaving more "scientifically" at this point, the one that accepts the evidence (biblical creation) or the one that has to invoke yet another rescuing device to sustain their belief system (atheistic-Naturalists)? We are all indoctrinated into atheistic-Naturalism (evolution, etc.) today in our public education system. Atheistic-Naturalists do the same thing with the Faint Young Sun Paradox which suggests earth would have been frozen when life was supposed to create itself 3.5 billion years ago (various unsubstantiated theories), young 100,000 year old maximum comets in our allegedly "14 billion year old" universe (fabricated Oort Clouds), young soft tissues in allegedly "65+ million year old" dinosaur fossils that appear similar to 4000 year old mummies and the Tyrolean ice man (preservative rescuing devices), the fact that the moon would have been touching the earth 1.5 billion years ago based on calculations concerning the effects of tidal recession on the moon (usually miscalculated and/or ignored), etc. *Is this really how "Science" is supposed to work?* Two worldviews, same evidence, two very different interpretations.

[@michaelg377]

@@adelinomorte7421 Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers? I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say, God "created" ("Bara", past tense) the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1), and then He looked at all He had "made" ("Asah" - past tense) and saw that it was good (Genesis 1:31) - He finished His creation. My point above was very simple, the sediment off the coasts does not fit a "billions of years" worldview, but it makes sense in a young earth worldview with a catastrophic global flood. This is a matter of competing worldviews over the exact same evidence. For example: *What are your thoughts on the Faint Young Sun Paradox?* Scientists observe that our sun is slowly warming up as hydrogen fuses into helium, and at this observed rate, 3.5B years ago our sun would have been 30% fainter and earth would have been frozen solid as a result (if it was really billions of years old). The problem is that atheistic-evolutionists believe that 3.5B years ago chemicals fizzed by chance in a puddle to form all the necessary proteins required for life - in what would have been a global, dead, frozen environment - hence the "paradox." *How do you handle this observable evidence?* A) Biblical Creation proponents happily accept this measurable scientific evidence - it's not a "paradox" at all because the earth isn't billions of years old, and life didn't create itself by chance from a puddle of chemicals, we were intentionally created. This makes sense because there is zero evidence that our earth was ever frozen solid as it should have been if it was really billions of years old, and also zero evidence of an early greenhouse gas atmosphere or other atheistic miracle warming effect to help sustain the atheistic belief in abiogenesis. B) Atheistic-Naturalists (evolutionists, etc.) however have a problem, because you need billions of years of deep time to make it seem less implausible that chemicals can fizz into people, and that life atheistically created itself. So you have to invoke some kind of a miracle warming effect with no evidence like an early alleged greenhouse gas atmosphere, or various implausible celestial phenomena. Not only do these excuses have zero evidence, but they are also incredibly implausible - because if you did have an early greenhouse gas atmosphere 3.5B years ago, you have to believe that it countered the faint young sun's temperature just right (not too hot like Venus, yet not cold like Mars) and it had to dissipate in perfect inverse proportion to the gradual warming of the sun over time - *all just to make atheistic abiogenesis and early evolution seem less scientifically problematic.* Two worldviews, same evidences, two very different interpretations. Which one is being more "scientific," the one that just accepts the evidence, or the one that has to fabricate implausible and evidence-less excuses to *circumvent this problematic scientific evidence and sustain their already scientifically-problematic belief that puddles can fizz into people?* Any thoughts? *All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12.* *"The evidence of God... has been clearly seen since the beginning in all that has been created, so they will have no excuse"* (Romans 1:20)

[@michaelg377]

@@Oldtinear That's because you believe in the modern mythology that nothing created everything accidentally with mathematical precision for no reason. I just don't have enough Faith to believe that a puddle of chemicals can fizz into a person, no matter how much *Time* you add to the mix. And I don't use the word "mythology" lightly, I say that because it a constantly rewritten atheistic origins story as it continuously makes evidence-less claims *about the unobservable past* and encounters evidence that contradicts its claims and expectations. That's not how "science" works. *"I mean the stories, the narratives about change over time. How the dinosaurs became extinct, how the mammals evolved, where man came from. These seem to me to be little more than story telling."* (Colin Patterson Sr., Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London) *What are your thoughts on the fact that planets and moons in our solar system, including our own Earth, show measurable evidence of being 'young,' not billions of years old?* Magnetic fields on planets in our solar system are measurably young based on data collected through probes we've deployed over the last few decades, and on a billions of years time scale you start to have a lot of problems with them. Creation scientists actually predicted this accurately - the evidence just fits a biblical worldview. We also observe tiny geologically active celestial objects which shouldn't be if billions of years old - like Pluto, Enceladus, Europa, and even our own Moon. There's no way the icy dwarf planet should still be geologically active with active nitrogen flows after 4.5 Billion years - scientists recognize this. Enceladus is spewing out material via a giant geyser, which is not sustainable on a billions of years time scale - secularists have an excuse for this, but that excuse doesn't apply to these other objects which are likewise geologically active - they are observably young. Even our moon was recently observed to be geologically active, including evidence of recent tectonic activity. Examples abound. *"Time is in fact the hero of the plot. . . . What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the “impossible” becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles"* (George Wald). These evidences (among many others) make sense in a biblical worldview - they look young because they simply are young. Right alongside measurably young comets in our solar system, measurably young tissues found in dinosaur fossils, the faint young sun paradox which causes a lot of problems for early atheistic abiogenesis and evolution, and the sedimentation off the coasts which would have only taken 12 million years to accumulate (assuming atheistic naturalist standards), among many others. In contrast, Atheistic-Naturalists like yourself have to invoke a number of various excuses to *circumvent these problematic young evidences and sustain your modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers and puddles can fizz into people if you just add enough Time.* Meanwhile, *All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12,* and if you understand "science" then you understand the implications of a competing explanation. *"The evidence of God... has been clearly seen since the beginning in all that has been created, so they will have no excuse"* (Romans 1:20)

[@michaelg377]

@@Oldtinear You just ignored a LOT of scientific evidence above that militates against your mythology my friend. None of those young objects in our solar system should exist if your mythology was true, that's why you have to make *unsubstantiated evidence-less excuses for all of them* to sustain your belief system. *All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12,* and if you understand "science" (a methodology) then you understand the implications of a competing explanation. *"we see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the lapse of the ages"* (Charles Darwin) *"we are condemned to live only for a few decades, and that's too slow, too small a time scale to see evolution going on"* (Richard Dawkins) Whatever "evolution" is, at least we know it's not observable as science (a methodology) requires. It's just *constantly changing storytelling about the unobservable past.* *"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."* (Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission) Your words: *"Science is about testing. If you cannot test it, it ain't science.* Biologists could come up with many hypotheses for how sexual reproduction evolved. *But they could not test them."* (Oldtinear, 6 Jan 2024). *So if you can't test, observe, or produce evidence for alleged Male and Female evolution in the unobservable past, then it's not Science. So what is it? Atheistic Faith?* It's not that you're lying - at least this time, you've been caught in a lie before - it's more that you are stuck in a "strong delusion" (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12) and are literally incapable of understanding (1 Corinthians 2:14). *"But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."* (1 Corinthians 2:14)

[@michaelg377]

@@Oldtinear That's an ad-hominem fallacy - you're attacking the person rather than the argument because you don't have a rational argument to offer. And it's not an appeal to authority fallacy, it's just recognition that even educated scientists recognize that evolution is a mythology, a worldview bias, a religion - not "science" (a methodology). *Does it concern you that we indoctrinated generations of children in schools with the Piltdown man as scientific fact, reviewed by evolutionists, with doctoral theses written on it for years? Those Expert Evolutionary Scientists were duped by a prankster's fraud - if even PhD holding Evolutionists can be so easily fooled, what else could they be wrong about?* *"Even a single protein could not arrive at its native structure in biological real time because conformational space is far too vast": ~10^95 possible conformations for a chain of 100 residues, so that "even a small protein that initiated folding by random search at the time of the big bang would still be thrashing about today."* (Peter Tompa and George D. Rose, "The Levinthal Paradox of the Interactome," Protein Science 20 (2011): 2074.) *"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."* (Sir Fred Hoyle, British Astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University) *"The evidence of God... has been clearly seen since the beginning in all that has been created, so they will have no excuse"* (Romans 1:20)

[@anonymousanon8412]

​@@Oldtinear They do. Modern scientists claim that everything came from nothing all in an instant.

[@8studio]

Wonderfully presented! Watching this in the start of the year is meaningful.

[@AlbertPaulMontini-nk6wh]

God bless you 🎉

[@canadiankewldude]

*_God Bless_*

[@artvallejos1460]

​@Tbone Yes there is

[@prof.anjumsandhu7763]

I think its the best lecture for not only the believers but also for the non-believers. It is needed to make more scientific lecture of the same type. It will be a good answers to those who criticize the Bible's teachings. Thank you so much for uploading this wonderful message.

[@gabepettinicchio7454]

Professor ... aren't you having to believe the Catholic Church as the "sole" earthly authority needed to write and publish the Bible? Knowing what epistles & gospels belonged and which did not? You, nor any Protestant, Evangelical, Baptist, Lutheran, Calvinist or 7th Day Adventist were in existance. You and they and the other 20,000-40,000 differing Christian denominations were yet to exist, much less play any part at all, having to do with God, His Son, and the complete understanding of the Almighty's plan for our Salvation? The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (established by Jesus Christ) needed to be (100%) under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of Truth)! In order for the Bible to be absolutely true, the CC needed to be absolutley "true." Is it possible, otherwise? Could the early church, have misunderstood Jesus, taught heresy, but yet knew enough to formulate & produce the (73 books) fully canonized Bible, that you need for your "sole rule of faith" ... you & every individual Protestant, with the authority to proclaim what it means? Even when all of you disagree? Isn't this the height of hypocrisy? *How can you make any sense of this way of thinking & believing?*

[@michaelg377]

@@gabepettinicchio7454 My friend, the Modern Catholic Church also was not in existence - you have many practices and even a modern canon that was not the same as the canon of the original early one true church, and even up to AD 1534 (Cardinal Cajetan, etc.) Modern Catholic leaders rejected apocryphal books from the canon. It wasn't always so clear-cut and "traditional" as Catholics insist... Let me ask you this: Scripture says *"One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind."* (Romans 14:5) - As a Catholic, what does *"let every man be fully convinced in his own mind"* mean to you? What if your church was teaching you something that was false, hypothetically speaking? *How would you know?* How could you know? Is there a way for you to know, as a Catholic? *"Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."* (Acts 17:11) Just as the Bereans questioned Paul's teachings and were considered *"of more noble character"* for doing so, I would "examine the Scriptures every day to see if what [the Catholic Church] said was true." But since you believe the Catholic Church is the "sole earthly authority" to interpret Scripture, how would you know if they were lying...? And you should know that Protestants are overwhelmingly united on the essential doctrines of Scripture (who is God, who is the Trinity, what is the Gospel, etc.) - it's on mostly minor secondary issues where we have disagreements. Besides, *Catholicism has many denominations:* The Latin Church, Coptic, Ethiopian, Maronite, Syrian, Armenian, Chaldean, Byzantine, Greek, Macedonian, Romanian, Russian, Slavic, etc. *So, if Protestantism is not true because of denominations, then it also means that Catholicism is not true because of its denominations. Do they, like Protestants, share the same core doctrines, and that excuses their differences?* Can we abandon the double standard...?

[@gabepettinicchio7454]

@@michaelg377 You: "My friend, the Modern Catholic Church also was not in existence - you have many practices and even a modern canon that was not the same as the canon of the original early one true church, and even up to AD 1534 (Cardinal Cajetan, etc.) Modern Catholic leaders rejected apocryphal books from the canon. It wasn't always so clear-cut and "traditional" as Catholics insist... Let me ask you this: Scripture says "One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind." (Romans 14:5) - As a Catholic, what does "let every man be fully convinced in his own mind" mean to you?" *Me: Then you are calling Jesus Christ a nut-case & deceiving liar, for stating that His church would never fall to the gates of hell. He also said that he would have to leave, but that he would send the "Spirit of Truth" ... and that it would guide the church to all truth, until the end of the world. I remind you that he also said that their was so much more for them to know, and that he hadn't the time. So, did he somehow give them all the rest? If so, how would he do that. Catholics believe that all ceased after the death of the last apostle (John), so in what way could they grow in the knowledge that the lord required of them? Answer: The Spirit of Truth, not by adding on to what Jesus had already taught them, but by furthering their understanding of it. Therefore the "true church" is still with us, if one believes Jesus Christ is a God of his word. Is he? And where is his church that is still with us?* *You are mistaken, in claiming the so-called Apocryphal books, were not part of the original canon, as stated by the church councils held in the late 4th & early 5th Centuries. Remember, Jerome questioned them. Anyway, please share the "unbias" link that supports your claim.* *You should be aware that that there were the Hebrew OT & the Greek Septuagint OT. The deuterocanonical books were present in the "Greek" but not the Hebrew. As I mentioned in my last comment, Jesus & his apostles quoted (in the NT) the OT roughly 300 times. Roughly 200 of those quotes were from the Greek Septuagint, including the reference of "the mother & the 7 brothers" found in 2 Maccabees of your "Apocryphal" books.* *Which "modern" Catholic leader's did not believe in the deuterocanonical books? I'm not saying that there were none, but would like their names and positions they held. If they existed that proves nothing. Many priests leave for Protestantism and many Prot. minister's leave to become Catholic. As a side note, Luther took away these 7+ books and also wanted James, Revelation and a few other books removed from the canon, but his followers would not allow it. He even called James, "the book of straw" and said it should be tossed into the fire.* *In Romans 14:5 ... you left out the rest of the passage: "He who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. He also who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; while he who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.” --- Who was Paul speaking to and about what? --- He was dealing with the infamous “Judaizers,” that are defined in Acts 15:1-2. So, I do not understand your point.* ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You: "What if your church was teaching you something that was false, hypothetically speaking? How would you know? How could you know? Is there a way for you to know, as a Catholic?" Me: *Yes, I believe I answer this in my comment above.* Of course, this pertains to the truths of "faith & morals." Individual men of Holy Orders, can and do sometimes error. I would also read the "Catachism of the Catholic Church." It's all there, and availabe on-line* www.usccb.org/sites/default/files/flipbooks/catechism/ How would you know if your cgurch is correct? In fact how would you know the Ninle is the true word of God? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- You: "And you should know that Protestants are overwhelmingly united on the essential doctrines of Scripture (who is God, who is the Trinity, what is the Gospel, etc.) - it's on mostly minor secondary issues where we have disagreements. Besides, Catholicism has many denominations: The Latin Church, Coptic, Ethiopian, Maronite, Syrian, Armenian, Chaldean, Byzantine, Greek, Macedonian, Romanian, Russian, Slavic, etc. So, if Protestantism is not true because of denominations, then it also means that Catholicism is not true because of its denominations. Do they, like Protestants, share the same core doctrines, and that excuses their differences? Can we abandon the double standard...?" Me: *That's nonsense. If they were united enough then they wouldn't be seperated ... would they? Luther believed in the Eucharist, he honored the Blessed Mother, as well as many other Catholic teachings, including the Catholic Doctrine of "The Trinity!" Then other's such as Calvin who left Luther for his own views on, free will vs God's will. Then Zwingli left because he decided to reject the Eucharist ... and so on. We're at 20-40000 different Protestant denoms, and counting. Is that what Jesus wanted? No, he was correct in telling Peter ... "the devil wishes to sift you as wheat ... and he did!" even in spite of the Lord saying that he has prayed for them (apostles) to all remain one* *If you want any Scriptural truth, just ask and I will gladly add them.* *You make mention of other Catholic denoms. Also, false. They are rights or sects, all 23 of them, are united with the pope in Rome. All, believing and teaching the exact same things w/the same readings at Mass, every day, as they share the same Liturgical Calender, in every country on Earth! They only differ, because of locality & culture, meaning wearing different colored garments as well as differing styles, again due to localities, and not differing in the teachings of faith & morals from the "Roman Right" ... or the "Western Church." We're all entirely ... One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic as Christ left it and the Spirit continues to lead it!!!*

[@chrislachat459]

@@gabepettinicchio7454 the roman catholic cult, so many wrongs, where do you even start to fix the whore of babylon's woes......

[@depe01]

The Bible contains ficional stories with ficional events, timelines and characters. Or is there Scientific research done that can prove otherwise🤔?

[@shanedemont9980]

to be able to see this, know this and learn from this!!! what a time to be alive

[@shanedemont9980]

@@martinkent333 at this particular time it really doesnt matter, say what you want we all find out in the end

[@drewchrisman7516]

Faith is incredibly inconsistent in proving anything. If I’m at a crossroads with two paths, and flip a coin on which path to take. Then I have faith that my path was correct that would be incredibly arbitrary. Now let’s make a crossroad with one thousand paths. I decided to pick a random path with the faith that the one I chose was correct. Would that make me anything but delusional? So basically yeah it’s blind faith.

[@shanedemont9980]

@@drewchrisman7516 I don't always make word salads but when I do it's a Saturday morning

[@artvallejos1460]

​@Tbone Yes there is

[@anothercomment3451]

Pray for strength, because a bumpy ride is just about upon us ... a great time to be alive.

[@lewking4620]

Thanks, Ken! I love this video! More, please!

[@BvictoryforChrist]

What a presentation. Sitting down with the wife and 4 kids to watch this after dinner tonight!

[@stephaniefogelvik4756]

@@stephenlaing2152 His children will have the opportunity to decide for themselves if they get to be presented with the information, and also, it is not really any of your business, now is it....

[@curesmithnet]

@@stephenlaing2152 And I venture that if you give them both sides, more often than not they will become fascinated in the real (scientific) version.

[@BNMS217]

@@curesmithnethe would never show his children something that challenged his own preferential world view lol trust me i grew up with very ignorant religious parents who were purposely ignorant to anything outside of there “comfort zone”.

[@BNMS217]

@@curesmithnet he would never show his children something that challenged his own preferential world view lol trust me i grew up with very ignorant religious parents who were purposely ignorant to anything outside of there “comfort zone”.

[@befunkrn]

How I love God and God's perfect creation. He is so magnificent, His creation was created in an utterly perfect balance from sub atomic particles here on our tiny earth to the red giant stars throughout the unmeasurable universe.

[@rogerandjoan4329]

A quasar pointing in our direction would be a very bad day for us. We’d be perfectly extinct, that’s for sure.

[@malcolmscrivener8750]

There’s no extinction in hell . Life is eternal .

[@rogerandjoan4329]

@@malcolmscrivener8750 Missed the point and was able to get in your nutty dogma too. You’re on fire today sparky.

[@malcolmscrivener8750]

@@rogerandjoan4329 I didn’t miss your point when you said you love to mock theists . By doing that you scorn Almighty God , your creator ! How hateful is that and how clever are you , son of dust ?

[@rogerandjoan4329]

@@malcolmscrivener8750 It’s a good thing that there’s astute gents like yourself around to have god’s back. Atheists only mock real actors. I can understand though why you think we mock god since you’re accustomed to confounding reality with mythology.

[@subjectsofthebible]

The whole time issue (a day is like a thousand years) can be solved with day 3 & 4. He creates trees on day 3. He creates the Sun on day 4 (millions of years later???).

[@Finalizor]

Yeah that doesn't make sense Though I do wonder why God chose to create the sun on day 3 instead of day 1 Because I'm sure some people probably would use that as a technicality that the first two days didn't exist

[@lorettasanchez1790]

2 Peter 3:8 King James Version 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

[@kk-cr4db]

It’s almost like there is a different explanation to how sun and earth were created…

[@liamdulson9329]

😂😂

[@Savedbygrace1922]

Thanks!

[@krjourneyfan78]

The Mount St Helen’s geology lesson was particularly interesting.

[@JB-yb4wn]

And breathtakingly wrong.

[@wrodrigues08]

God bless you, so nice to see so many young people in the audience.

[@rademilosavljevic5754]

He is amazing and scientific. God is always right! If you think isn’t you have to study deeper to get the answer.

[@NoTaboos]

So sad to see young people being brainwashed.

[@nosirrahonline]

He is not scientific, but if you want to explore the other side then you can ask me and I’ll be respectful towards you

[@brianl7535]

@@rademilosavljevic5754 he is absolutely un-scientific, he just poked some valid holes in science, but never really proved anything within the bible. He just put forth his theory of how things could have happened like they were described in the bible. There is a difference between proving something actually happened and simply stating a possibility of how things may have happened.

[@MaximusAugustusOrthodox]

Amen! God bless you and your family 🙏❤

[@joanbrickner1428]

A very great video . You have explained so much to people that do not understand the glory of God and how He created all life on earth. We were given a mind so we would know the danger of choosing the wrong path. A mind that records everything we do .!

[@joseespinoza8247]

What a joke of video Making Exertions Begging the question False representing videos And NO evidence for his claim 😅😂🤣😂😅😅😂😅

[@zerosteel0123]

@@joseespinoza8247 I think you are explaining evolution. You must be confused. 😉

[@SK-bw2cv]

We all have a choice to make in life and whatever choice we make has eternal consequences. Reminds me of Psalm 1. Blessed is the man Who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, Nor stands in the path of sinners, Nor sits in the seat of the scornful; 2 But his delight is in the law of the Lord, And in His law he meditates day and night. 3 He shall be like a tree Planted by the rivers of water, That brings forth its fruit in its season, Whose leaf also shall not wither; And whatever he does shall prosper. 4 The ungodly are not so, But are like the chaff which the wind drives away. 5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, Nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous. 6 For the Lord knows the way of the righteous, But the way of the ungodly shall perish.

[@joseespinoza8247]

@@zerosteel0123 I’m sorry you are confused. I’m calling out the flaws in the video. I’m not explaining evolution, I’m not a biologist and I highly doubt you are either. Come with some facts or stay in your lane

[@michaelg377]

@@joseespinoza8247 Charles Darwin said "if an *organ* were discovered which could not possibly be explained by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down... but I know not one." Darwin didn't have access to the fields of genetics and microbiology when he made up his theory of naturalistic evolution. *How did male and female evolve?* Specifically, how did the two separate, yet interdependent sets of male-female reproductive *organs* with numerous precision-tuned single points of failure, evolve by "numerous, successive, slight modifications" and still enable functional reproduction? Which gender evolved first, and how did it reproduce while the other one was still evolving? Going backwards in the evolutionary story, which of these critical organs do you reduce first "by numerous, successive, slight modifications"?

[@sargentoinkwinson4888]

"Of all the things I value most of all I look upon my Earth And feel the warmth And know that it is good" Spiral Architect, Black Sabbath (70s Psychedelic Blues Christian Rock Band)

[@katklein7815]

All of my questions/doubts were logically answered. Thank you Dr. Ham

[@chrisf4268]

Where did Ham receive his doctorate from?

[@andyvhot]

@johnnynotenglish9751 I don't know if this was meant in a mean / sexist way, or, if it is a joke I am misunderstanding, but regardless, that is no way for one to conduct themselves, and, no way to treat another person. To the recipient of the presumed insult, I sympathize with having to put up with this level of incivility.

[@painreliefspc]

Forget, carbon, dating. Do you think you have more than 200 ancestor to Adam and eve? If so, that means the world order than 6000 years. 😂

[@r.s.334]

no, they were not. this was 8th grade thinking mixed in with magic

[@2fast2block]

@johnnynotenglish9751 Then show us how smart you are by telling how creation happened on its own. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.

[@dougbeck2774]

This is the best video that Ken has ever come up with. I just wish he would slow it down a little bit and not try to cram everything into 1 hour. Love you Ken! ,😊

[@barbarajansen4912]

For those seeking evidence, this video is a deluge of proof that God exists and that the earth is His and responds to His power. Faith is believing in the unseen. Even if one has little faith there are questions they cannot answer that only our infinite creator can show us.

[@dr.rickmarshall6697]

🤔😂Alberts: Molecular Biology of the Cell, 6th, 2014 Hartwell et al: Genetics: From Genes to Genomes, 6th, 2017 Snustad, Simmons: Principles of Genetics. 6th, 2011 Jocelyn Krebs, Goldstein, Kilpatrick: Lewin’s Genes XII, 2018. Intelligent design? If that is what you mean, here´s a fact: there´s not a shred of evidence that supports id. A religionist complaining about lack of evidence in face of overwhelming preponderance of evidence in favor of the theory of evolution while having no evidence for his religion gives the word irony a whole new dimension. The assumption that you lack basic scientific understanding you think that gives you permission to be fact free, without knowledge to understand the living world and realize it originated from natural events with no help from any supernatural forces.

[@dr.rickmarshall6697]

@@Xerame506 all I would need is for someone just to tell me that they saw this movie and I would believe it. It’s so much easier than thinking for yourself, would you not agree?

[@dr.rickmarshall6697]

@Ibin Riding that also goes for the believer of a lie .Do you think faith and belief is a path to truth?

[@Peaceful02024]

This was a fantastic viewpoint and I just ordered the book! Can’t wait to discuss with my husband.

[@kinglychurch1717]

Powerful Video To The Glory Of God. Clear Presentation That Confirms The Bible Is True. Thank You Dr Ken Ham. God Bless You For Sharing This Excellent Post. Keep Shining For Jesus. Amen. Pastor Ben Soon.

[@JJDOSTUFF1111]

I have been doubting here lately so this is what I needed since I’m at a difficult stage of my life

[@ethanrichard4950]

@@JJDOSTUFF1111 Not only Ken Hamm, but Mike Winger as well is a wonderfully smart person. His youtube channel is named after him. He does great apologetics and theology. I'll be praying.

[@canadiankewldude]

*_God Bless_*

[@curesmithnet]

Pastor Ben, can you tell me what empirical evidence Mr Ham gives that confirms the bible is true?

[@artvallejos1460]

​@Tbone Yes there is

[@louiskunz4111]

Thank you God, for this video. I was lost and now I'm found.

[@efesamueligbudu2241]

No lol you still lost

[@Mwilson8581]

Found ignorant.

[@ronniebishop8681]

@@efesamueligbudu2241 Jesus loves you.

[@BadChess56]

@@Mwilson8581 Um... Dude, are you okay? I mean, you can accept a 1 in 10^40,000 probability for even the universe to be calibrated, let alone having life exist, but you're just fine with the 2^256 probability of your encryption being broken in a single calculation.

[@Mwilson8581]

@Lukephil Brecht There is a one out of 1 chance of it happening. And yes i'm okay. Probability is not a sound argument against something happening or for something happening. The chances are astronomical everyday, that you do the things in the order that you do them. Of course I am okay, I accept reality.

[@AgeDeo2009]

A very informative, enjoyable, and clear presentation of science, which indeed suuports the Bible! 🙂

[@adelinomorte7421]

***the bible has to be read by people who are ready to understand it, the bible do not need charlatan scientists to support, needs only people who can read it, not those stupid fanatics.***

[@AgeDeo2009]

@@adelinomorte7421 kindly tell us how we can prepare people to understand the Bible and how we can assess if those who've read and have been taught the Bible did understand it. Also how do we identify charlatan scientists and these so-called fanatics? An objective answer to these questions will be helpful. Thank you. 🙂

[@markplimsoll]

Nutty "Creationist" Ken makes money with a Noah's Ark tourist attractiin for Christians crppled by USA's local control of public education. Try to 7nderstand the following, in spite of your atrophied thinking skills: "Chris Mooney, of Slate magazine, believes Ham's advocacy of young Earth creation will "undermine science education and U.S. science literacy".[54] But Andrew O'Hehir of Salon argues that the "liberal intelligentsia" have grossly overstated the influence of Ken Ham and those espousing similar views because, while "religious ecstasy, however nonsensical, is powerful in a way reason and logic are not", advocates like Ham "represent a marginalised constituency with little power".[55] Ham has been awarded honorary degrees by six Christian colleges: Temple Baptist College (1997),[56] Liberty University (2004),[57] Tennessee Temple University (2010),[58] Mid-Continent University (2012),[59] Bryan College (2017),[60] and Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary (2018).[61] On February 17, 2020, PBS aired a documentary about the Ark Encounter entitled We Believe in Dinosaurs. Filmmakers Monica Long Ross and Clayton Brown followed the story line of a "religious organisation creating their own alternative science in a legitimate looking museum."[62] Don't Believe; maintain the logical skepticism that real science demands. Read science. Reading that "good book" is practicing ignorance with 3000 year old oral traditions of fairy tales. Gilgamesh?

[@michaelg377]

@@markplimsoll "Science" is a methodology. What you're talking about is an Atheistic Ideology, that's not "science" - that's something else. *Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just wait a really long *time* then puddles can fizz themselves into people?* Your "3000 year old..." epithet fallacy is something C.S. Lewis called "chronological snobbery" - we have evidence that many of our ancestors were quite advanced and very intelligent, in contrast to Atheistic-Naturalist caveman stories. For example, we discovered that neanderthal remains had the same size hypoglossal nerve as we do (ie. they didn't just grunt; they could talk!), and we also found neanderthal bone flutes and shell make-up kits, which suggests intelligence and culture. Compare that to the Atheistic mythology that dinosaurs turn into chickens and apes can turn into people if you just add *time.* Also, did you know there are at least 9 major differences between the Epic of Gilgamesh which is clearly written in a genre of mythology, and the Noahic flood which is written in an ancient Hebrew genre called "historical narrative." Did you know there are thousands of global flood legends all around the world, many of which suspiciously corroborate the Biblical worldview but not the Epic of Gilgamesh? There are 300 Native American global flood legends developed in the absence of Judeo-Christian influences, many of which specifically corroborate the biblical Noahic flood - but not the Epic of Gilgamesh. Also many cultures all around the geographically separated world have their own legends paintings etc. of dinosaur-like creatures, the exact same architectural style (ziggurats), and other odd similarities millennia before intercontinental travel became the norm... these things make sense if the biblical global flood was real. How do you explain these things if it wasn't?

[@markplimsoll]

@@michaelg377 You would enjoy the science book "The Singing Neanderthals" and it will help you dispell your disjointed fantasies about how science DOESN'T work, and a clearer picture of homonid lineage. Look around; everything physical created in the Modern world - food, furniture, architecture, etc. - evolved by collaborated incorporation of "new" contemporaneous scientific discovery or analysis. Touché. Thanks for responding.

[@nydiaadorno9190]

This is a great lesson that children as well as adults can understand. The great thing about the videos is that we can keep watching them. It actually help me understand many things and I am a Christian nurse. Thank you. And God bless you.

[@choosejesus1es]

I had read the book, “It couldn’t just happen" which was very helpful. THIS video REALLY explains in depth, but in easy to understand language, the answers to questions many of us have had. When confronted with the Ark account, I didn’t understand, but would rationalize it in my mind by thinking that God may have made it so the animals hibernated, or (being God) he made it so the animals didn’t need to eat or poo while on the Ark…things like that. Now I can explain the truth in ways that both I and others can understand. Thank you, Ken Ham! Thank you, God, for everything you have and continue to do for us! Thank you, God, for being there for us in good times and bad.

[@michelleblackburn8071]

Emily Ferris that's exactly what I think about the animals on the ark...they were ALL asleep!

[@choosejesus1es]

@@michelleblackburn8071 …yes! Being God, He is more than capable of that!

[@ericchin739]

Ohhh. So God used to be magic and help people survive catastrophic events?!?! What's going on with starving children?! How about.... ya know..... hurricanes?!! Couldn't God just intercede and help a brother out?! Or is he no longer magic?! Lost his touch?

[@ericchin739]

​@Michelle Blackburn Sleeping?! Even if that were true. You saw where the Ark allegedly landed, yeah?! So, after the flood and they crashed.... how did Kangaroos get all the way to Australia?! Or...... how would he have gone and retrieved the Roos in the first place?! And even if he did.... why would they go back... travelling across multiple continents and across the ocean....??! Does that make sense?!

[@choosejesus1es]

@@ericchin739 I respect your right not to believe in God. After all, He gave us free will so we could choose to live our lives and believe what we want. I do not denigrate you or your beliefs; I ask that you afford those of us who believe in God the same courtesy.

[@nebuchadnezzar6894]

Ken Ham: There is no new information. Genes get rearranged but they're still the same genes. Also Ken Ham at 27:09: Mutations: changes in our genes occurred. 🤦‍♀

[@CWRobinsonMusic]

Mutation or deformity is not new information. It's a corruption of the information that changes what should be there originally. Say the order should be abcdefg and a mutation comes along and eliminates a letter or makes the sequence acbedfg. It seems you may have confused create with change. A mutation doesn't create anything new no more than a man takes wood and carves it into whatever his heart desires. A new shape or form has been achieved but it is still just wood.

[@cynthiaayers7696]

All the information is before your eyes it's just you. You're on the road and there is no fork in it. It is choice. To let the physics explain who and what you are or somebody that's making a guess, their opinion of misunderstood information. Only pure facts matter there are no wrong answers only correct. The Human Condition is what you make it, for yourself. If you do not adhere to the scale of physics you'll never understand this. For this is where language is derived from. Also music. It is of scale, it can go up or down but it is unscalable in it's Mass. The physics within it, is the answer. Physics started when someone asked, what am I. Around a campfire. From there it led to philosophies which are all over the world, and just a repetition of itself. For there must be balance, or there would be none. Meaning if it can't hold it shape it won't exist/ no Foundation to it. So what you see the cosmos yourself everything is in balance, or it would not exist in the first place. Just Like Music it has to be in balance for you to enjoy/ hear it in the first place. It's just an understanding of the balance in, the presence of you in the first place. Understanding this will lead you to a compendium of understanding of all things. For the math it does not lie.

[@johnmacleod3421]

@@CWRobinsonMusic look up insertion mutations. new material can be added.

[@johnmacleod3421]

@@cynthiaayers7696 not hatred just rational disbelief. You might not believe that, for example, a Bigfoot exists. That doesn't mean you hate the idea of Bigfoot. You just haven't been able to find any good evidence for it.

[@treytilley333]

@@johnmacleod3421 doesn’t happen in the natural world though. Takes an intelligent mind to do so.

[@christopherfury9471]

I really really enjoyed this video the way he articulates and explains things in a way. That’s easy to understand. I wish they would play this on regular TV so everybody can hear it not just me who had to look it up. This is a great speaker and great explaining things.

[@hcvfggd]

You believe what you believe and that's all that matters is what you believe in no matter your religion the human mind is a pretty powerful thing with the right beliefs

[@michaelg377]

*"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me"* (John 14:6) *"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"* (Romans 3:23) *"It is appointed for a man to die once, then comes Judgment"* (Hebrews 9:27) *"The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord"* (Romans 6:23)

[@michaelg377]

@Just me I don't have "to DEMONSTRATE the truth of it," because you're doing it for me my atheist friend. *For some reason you live in contrast to the atheistic "we're all just chemicals" belief system, but perfectly in line with everything the God you reject said about you instead as a valuable human being made in His image and likeness - why do you do that?* That is powerful evidence you can see in yourself that God created you, and that you're not just "meaningless evolved protoplasm" in a meaningless chemical universe that doesn't care about you, and I love that He put that into you so you can see clear evidence in yourself that He exists. God said you are a meaningful and valuable human being made in His image and likeness (Genesis 1:27), with purpose and a capacity for "dominion" over creation (Genesis 1:26), morality and a sense of justice (Genesis 9:6), a sense of respect towards others (James 3:10), and a conscience which reflects the principles of His law (Romans 2:15), among other things. These are observable qualities that we all observe in you, and being made in God's image and likeness makes perfect sense of that. I know you don't believe in God though - so how do you explain these observable qualities in you from your own atheistic "we're just chemical reactions" worldview? "Do you believe meaningless chemicals fizzed together in a puddle, and somehow "human beings are valuable"? Or do you believe that chemicals evolved, and somehow "rape is wrong"? Animals do it all the time, and chemicals destroy each other all the time... and the atheistic worldview holds that we are evolved animals, and just chemicals... what's the difference?" *"They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them."* (Romans 2:15)

[@michaelg377]

@Just me Evolving as a "social species" doesn't explain how you get from meaningless goo to valuable you from meaningless godless chemical reactions my friend. You didn't rationally answer this problem the first time, and you haven't rationally answered it here either. Meanwhile, you're living perfectly in line with the image of the God you reject as a meaningful and valuable human being (Genesis 1:27) with a purpose and capacity for "dominion" over creation (Genesis 1:26) morality and a sense of justice (Genesis 9:6) a sense of respect for other human beings (James 3:10) and a conscience that reflects the principles of His laws (Romans 2:15) - and you reject this image just as He said you would (2 Timothy 3:5). In case this is lost on you, you are ironically living perfectly in line with the God you reject, and perfectly in contrast to your own atheistic assertions - and that is powerful evidence you can see in yourself that the God you reject exists, that He created you, and that He loved you enough to make you specially in His image and likeness. *"They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them."* (Romans 2:15) *"But God showed His love for us by sending His Son to die for us while we were still sinners"* (Romans 2:15)

[@michaelg377]

@Just me "Social species need to care about others in their tribe for survival." Why does "evolution" care about your survival in this chemical reaction universe? Did "Nature" or "evolution" determine that the chemical puddle we evolved from was somehow "important" and that it needed to "survive" and develop "advantages" so that it would be able to adapt and survive? Why does "evolution" or "nature" care about your survival at all...?

[@stevedyches4635]

@Just me Even if the magic man does exist, we were left to fend for ourselves on this God-forsaken planet.

[@jbeiler55]

Funniest projection in the opening statement. Ken Ham thinks people who believe in evolution use text books like Ken Ham uses the Bible.

[@pariyatidagrace4326]

Ahh ...now I understand scientific explanation of "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...All things were made by him."

[@MG-fn9xw]

An evolutionist believes the theory that a 14 year old boy named Charles Darwin came up with. He thought “the world looks old, therefore it must be old” And we use a child’s theory as our proof of history, JUST BECAUSE HIS FAMILY WERE CULT ELITISTS, aka Freemasons. His family was neighbors with Thomas Jefferson’s family, and William bartrams family. You gonna believe a book that is historically accurate and a book that we tell time from (2022 years after Jesus was born) OVER a 14 year olds random idea/theory LOL I CAN TELL WHO IS AND ISNT WELL READ HERE. WHO IS INDOCTRINATED AND WHO ACTUALLY LOOKS FOR INFORMATION

[@SK-bw2cv]

Amen

[@samuelrodriguez9199]

Jesus is indeed the Creator God. The Word who was in the beginning and formed all things. Great bible scripture! John 1 is one of my favorites.

[@samuelrodriguez9199]

@Atheistme nice saying. Unfortunately for you it means absolutely nothing to a believer in Christ. Try quoting the bible. You may get more of a response.

[@michaelg377]

@Atheistme "that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." So like atheistic abiogenesis, the many Atheistic Super-Natural solutions to the beginning of the universe, Oort clouds to explain away measurably young comets, an early greenhouse gas atmosphere to explain away the fact that earth would have been frozen solid 3.5B years ago (faint young sun paradox), dark matter, dark energy, dynamos to explain away measurably young magnetic fields on other planets, and macro-evolution...? *Should we hold your own atheistic worldview to the same standard...?*

[@joeythebushkangaroo1]

The word "day" also used in Genesis 2:2, which points out that God had completed his creative work on the 7th DAY & he "BEGAN to rest on the 7th DAY", this shows a continuous verb, not a 24 hour day that suddenly ended. There is no evening and morning mentioned to end that DAY, as it is still continuing. At Hebrews 4:1-10 the Apostle Paul indicated that Gods rest DAY was still continuing in his generation and that was 4000 years after that DAY of rest period began. A Religious Encyclopaedia edited by Philip Schaff observes: "The days of creation were creative days, stages in the process, but not days of 24 hours each". 1894 Ed.,Vol I,p 613. Also, at Genesis 2:17, God warned Adam that in the DAY you eat from the tree you will die, yet Adam was was still alive after he ate from the tree. In fact he lived for 930 years, thus proving "in the day" you eat, "you will die", his death did not occur in the next 24 hour period of time. God cannot lie and the scriptures prove that Adam did not die during that 24 hour "day" that he disobeyed that command, the "day" he died covered just under 1000 years. Genesis 1:5 says the light was called DAY. This is not a 24 hour period because the darkness was called Night which followed it, before the 1st creative "day" ended. Note,too,that the entire period of the 6 time units dedicated to the preparation of the Earth is summed up in one all-embracing "day" at Genesis 2:4; "This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the DAY that God made earth and heaven". We cannot be dogmatic about how long a creative day was because these other Scriptures show that in these instances it is not meaning a 24 hour day period of time. We can say that yes, God called these periods of time- the 1st Day, 2nd Day, etc but the Hebrew "day" is also used at Joel 2:1, Amos 5:18 Zephaniah 1:14 Does this mean 24 hour periods too? We do not know.

[@sherrylawrencelewis2544]

Praise be to our All Mighty God. Hallelujah! 😊🙏🏽🕊👑✝️👑🕊🙏🏽😊

[@cwf081166]

A higher life form coming to earth, dropping off much lower life forms is like talking a domesticated dog, cat, gator, gerbil dropping them into the Amazon, Death Valley, the moon and expecting them to become what we are to day.

[@jess65963]

We have a lot to learn. But we may never know. The world is full of secrets.

[@TheBadStatic]

Honestly you know what I think God is? I think in all of reality and creation, there are only really 2 things, the mother and the father, and they need each other for life to continue existing, so woman asked man what it would take to prove she loved him and he said you would have to show me and let me feel your love when I'm my strongest or weakest, when Im good to you or I'm cruel to you, when I am the infinitely best to you or infinitely the worst as in when I kill you, you will always show me your love and beauty. Woman said I can do that, and what would it take for you to deserve that love? And man said well I suppose for every slight against you, I will see that it is damaging that beauty, and so I will punish myself as a way to clean you up to show you that no matter what we do to each other we will always need each other and you will always be beautiful for me and I will always work to prove to you that you have that beauty to give, and the two of them made the agreement and that is what all of life is. God is the love between the man and the woman, the light and the darkness, the sick and the healthy, the weak and the strong, literally two halves of every conceivable coin possible and the two of them just create the world together feeding off of each other just to make an interesting and exciting world to live it together and experience every conceivable moment together across all of time.

[@elilevi196]

One example of a genetic process that can increase the information in a genome is gene duplication followed by divergence. This process occurs when a section of DNA is duplicated, resulting in multiple copies of a particular gene or set of genes within an organism's genome. Gene duplication can arise through various mechanisms, such as errors during DNA replication or recombination events. Once a gene is duplicated, one copy remains functional, carrying out its original role in the organism, while the other copy is free to acquire new functions through mutations without disrupting the essential functions of the original gene. Over time, the duplicated gene can accumulate mutations that alter its sequence and functionality, leading to the formation of a new gene with a distinct function. This process is known as gene divergence or subfunctionalization. Through gene divergence, the duplicated genes can take on different roles or specialize in performing slightly different functions within the organism. This increases the genetic information by adding a new gene variant with a unique function to the genome. An example of this process can be observed in the evolution of the globin gene family, which includes genes responsible for producing hemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying protein in vertebrates. Gene duplication events in the ancestral genome resulted in the formation of multiple copies of the globin gene. These duplicated genes then diverged over time, leading to the development of different globin genes with distinct roles. In humans, for instance, gene duplication events resulted in the formation of several globin genes, including those responsible for the production of different types of hemoglobin: fetal hemoglobin, adult hemoglobin, and myoglobin. Each of these genes has undergone divergence, acquiring specific mutations that allow them to perform their unique functions in different stages of development or in different tissues. This process of gene duplication and divergence has played a significant role in the evolution of new genes and the expansion of gene families throughout the history of life on Earth. It has allowed organisms to acquire new functions, adapt to different environments, and increase the complexity and diversity of their genomes, ultimately contributing to the richness of life forms we observe today.

[@elilevi196]

Other processes, such as mutation, recombination, horizontal gene transfer, and genomic rearrangements, can also contribute to the generation of new genetic information. Mutation, for instance, introduces changes in the DNA sequence, which can lead to the formation of new alleles or novel gene variants. Recombination, the exchange of genetic material between chromosomes, can result in new combinations of genetic information. Horizontal gene transfer, the transfer of genetic material between different species, can introduce entirely new genes into a genome. Furthermore, natural selection acts as the driving force that determines which genetic variations are advantageous and thus more likely to persist in a population. Beneficial mutations that increase an organism's fitness, such as providing a new function or improving an existing one, can be positively selected for, leading to their preservation and spread in a population over time. Overall, these mechanisms, combined with natural selection, provide a comprehensive understanding of how genetic information can increase in a genome over generations. The claims against evolution that suggest information cannot be increased are based on misunderstandings of the processes involved and ignore the substantial evidence supporting the accumulation of new genetic information through evolutionary mechanisms.

[@jess65963]

Nicely put. Thank you.

[@knkn5049]

Bubble of fresh air in swamp of ignorance, but anyway they will put god in any gap and crack you have

[@EloraSelah]

😂lol gene duplication is not increasing information or generating new information? Apart from A, T, G, C how many new bases could be formed and entirely new generic code could be created? Can you answer that?

[@EloraSelah]

Hgt is transfering not creating Recombination is just rearranging n so is mutation just mutating on the information available? Rewatcv the video

[@dwillUtoob]

The Best concise explanations of aspects of creation I’ve seen thus far. Explanation of the East Asian eye shape was omitted; which most likely originated with Eve. Thank you.

[@ChiefCedricJohnson]

Luke 14:11 For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

[@Mari-rz5sh]

Amen 🙏

[@ChiefCedricJohnson]

@@Mari-rz5sh Amen

[@Mari-rz5sh]

@@ChiefCedricJohnson Good to see that you are wise. GOD Bless you & all who seek HIM, all that are lost return your Creator Almighty GOD. Shalom🙏 Deuteronomy 30:15-20 New American Standard Bible Choose Life 15 “See, I have placed before you today life and [a]happiness, and death and [b]adversity, 16 in that I am commanding you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, so that you may live and become numerous, and that the Lord your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to take possession of it. 17 But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but allow yourself to be led astray and you worship other gods and serve them, 18 I declare to you today that you will certainly perish. You will not prolong your days in the land where you are crossing the Jordan to enter [c]and take possession of it. 19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have placed before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your [d]descendants, 20 by loving the Lord your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding close to Him; for [e]this is your life and the length of your days, [f]so that you may live in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.”

[@Mari-rz5sh]

Psalm 52:2 God looks down from heaven on the entire human race; he looks to see if anyone is truly wise, if anyone seeks God.

[@ChiefCedricJohnson]

@@Mari-rz5sh God bless. I read the King James Version.

[@rizaldymarcella5203]

It is the best explanation that i have ever heard in my entire life. It can solidify my faith in God like a diamond and can never be swayed by atheist scientific theories ever again.

[@edwardcopeland5069]

Religion produce nothing, science do.

[@JB-yb4wn]

Well you obviously haven't been to the library in decades.

[@TheYoungFactor]

Geological and Hydrological Impossibilities Volume of Water: The story describes a flood that covers all the mountains under the entire heavens (Genesis 7:19-20). For this to happen, the volume of water needed would be vastly more than exists in the Earth's hydrosphere. There is no plausible source for such an immense amount of water. Water Distribution: Even if there were enough water, its distribution would defy the laws of physics. Water seeks its own level, and a flood of this magnitude would require a completely different planetary topography and gravitational dynamics than what we observe. Sediment Layers: Geological records show that sedimentary layers have formed over millions of years. These layers contain fossils and other evidence of gradual deposition, which contradicts the idea of a single, year-long flood depositing all the Earth's sediment. Biological and Ecological Issues Species Survival: The Ark story implies that all terrestrial animal species were saved on the Ark. There are millions of species of land animals, many with specific habitat and dietary needs. It's logistically impossible to gather, house, and care for this diversity of life on a single vessel for an extended period. Genetic Bottleneck: A global flood would cause an extreme genetic bottleneck, drastically reducing genetic diversity. This would lead to inbreeding and increased susceptibility to disease and genetic disorders, threatening the survival of species rather than ensuring it. Post-Flood Ecosystems: The story does not account for how ecosystems would be restored after such a cataclysmic event. Most plants would not survive a year underwater, and the ecological interdependencies would be irreparably disrupted. Logistical and Structural Challenges Ark Construction: The dimensions of the Ark (300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, 30 cubits high) are impractical for ancient construction techniques. The largest wooden ships historically built were much smaller and often suffered from structural weaknesses. Animal Care: Managing the care, feeding, and waste disposal for thousands of animals for a year would require more resources and manpower than described. Additionally, many species have very specific environmental needs that could not be met on the Ark. Feasibility of Repopulation: After the flood, the rapid repopulation and spread of animal species to their respective habitats across the globe, crossing oceans and continents, is biologically implausible. Historical and Mythological Context Ancient Flood Myths: The Noah's Ark story shares similarities with other ancient flood myths, such as the Epic of Gilgamesh from Mesopotamia. These myths likely arose from localized flood events that were catastrophic to early human settlements but not global in scale. Lack of Archaeological Evidence: There is no archaeological evidence supporting a global flood. Ancient civilizations in Egypt, China, and Mesopotamia show continuous habitation and development through the period when the flood supposedly occurred. Chronological Discrepancies: The timing of the flood as described in the Bible does not align with known historical timelines of ancient civilizations. These civilizations show uninterrupted cultural and technological progress during the supposed time of the flood. Conclusion on the flood From a secular, scientific standpoint, the story of Noah's Ark and the global flood contains numerous impossibilities and contradictions. The required volume of water, geological evidence, biological logistics, and lack of archaeological support all point to the conclusion that the story is a myth rather than a historical event. Understanding this narrative as part of ancient mythological traditions provides a more coherent explanation of its origins and cultural significance.

[@michaelg377]

*"This text is 100% likely to be AI Generated"* (Quillbot)... *Yes, you should "think for yourself" my friend.* Also you're wrong. For example: Quantity of water) Mars has no liquid water, but scientists believe it was once covered in liquid water because of its canyons and other features. Earth is 70% covered in liquid water (!) and has similar features, marine fossils on the highest mountain tops, whale fossils deep inland in the Unites States, Ankylosaurus fossils found buried where they're not supposed to be among marine creatures, entire stacks of layered solid rock - bent at a 90 degree angle with no signs of breakage (because they were wet) - but secularists insist "there's no way there could have been a global flood." *Why the double standard?* You should research what the biblical creation worldview actually believes on this point my friend, it is actually perfectly plausible and there is a great amount of evidence that supports it if you can see beyond your Atheistic-Naturalist blinders. There are many problems with the secular origins mythology today, you just have to be able and willing to conduct an honest critical self-assessment of your worldview and see what the other side's *actual arguments and evidences* really are. In the meantime, here's another one for consideration that I hope you will find interesting *which contradicts several of your claims above:* *Did you know that the secular 4000-5000 year old Chinese language suspiciously contains uniquely biblical imagery in some of its characters?* How did it get in there? For example, the Character for "boat" consists of the characters "vessel" " *eight* " and "people," suspiciously matching Noah's family of 8 on the ark. The character for "flood" consists of "water" and "total", and the character for "total" is made up of "together," " *eight* ," and "earth," again suspiciously matching Noah's flood. The character for "To create" consists of "speak" "dust" "life" "walk" suspiciously matching how God spoke life into existence and formed man from the dust of the ground. The character for "devil" consists of the characters "secret" "man" "garden" "alive" , and the character for "tempter" consists of "devil" "two trees" and "cover," suspiciously matching the description of Satan in the Garden of Eden. The character for "Garden" includes "dust" "breath" "two persons" "enclosure" again suspiciously matching the account of God creating Adam and Eve from the dust in the Garden of Eden. The character for "happiness" includes "God" and "sheep" reflecting God's desire throughout the Bible to be with His sheep. The character "forbidden/to warn" includes "God" and "Two Trees" suspiciously matching the two trees God put in the Garden of Eden to give man a free will choice between good and evil (among other things). Some argue that the Bible is just a "Bronze age" copy of other ancient mythologies, but that doesn't make sense. There are dozens of these Chinese characters with specifically biblical imagery, and I have yet to see an ancient copycat legend that has these same details. *The birth of the Chinese language suspiciously lines up with the time the Bible says the Tower of Babel incident occurred, and it would make sense if this imagery entered their language because the early Chinese people were simply familiar with the biblical account of creation and the biblical flood.* If you deny that though, then how do you explain this? Christian missionaries didn't exist until millennia after the Chinese language began. As a related finding, some ancient Chinese writings and pottery depict cultural parallels between the ancient Chinese and ancient Hebrew people concerning animal sacrifices... food for thought. In addition, there are thousands of global flood legends all around the world, including 300+ Native American global flood legends which were developed in geographic isolation of Judeo-Christian influences, many of which specifically corroborate the biblical Noahic flood account, but not the other Mesopotamian flood myths. All of these geographically isolated people on separate continents suspiciously also had a knowledge of dinosaur-like creatures, and they also suspiciously had the same taste in architecture (ziggurats) all around the world. All of this evidence makes sense if these people descended from the same common people from the Tower of Babel incident after the biblical Noahic Flood. Otherwise this is all very strange and seems to contradict the secular narrative of human origins at many points. Blessings to you and yours.

[@michaelg377]

@@Oldtinear That's because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and that if you just wait a long enough *time* then puddles of chemicals can fizz into people - and that's quite a bit of "science" you just ignored above my friend. Your words: *"If you cannot test it, it ain't science."* (Oldtinear, 20 December 2023). ""We can speculate [regarding early evolution], but *any speculations could not be tested, so we will never know"* (Oldtinear, 30 September 2023) "the first life-forms which developed this feature *left no trace of themselves* 2 billion years ago." (Oldtinear, 30 September 2023) Thank you for those powerful arguments against Evolution - now you can know, *from your own words,* that your own belief system *"...is not testable - it is nothing to do with science. It is a fundamentalist religious belief."* (Oldtinear, 20 December 2023) Do you hold yourself to your own standard though...? Science is a methodology, what you're talking about is an Atheistic Ideology. No one here has a problem with "science" (a methodology), it's your Unscientific Atheistic mythology that says you are a fish, cousin to a cockroach, a brother to cancer cells and leprosy, and that we are all just "meaningless evolved protoplasm in a meaningless amoral chemical universe" that is the problem. You are so much more than you believe you are. *"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."* (Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research)

[@darthtyranous4514]

@@bioof4NGL writing essays about why people don’t believe in something is… normal. Wasn’t the Declaration of Independence literally an essay as to why the 13 Colonies shouldn’t be ruled by England?

[@michaelg377]

@@darthtyranous4514 I think the bigger issue above is that our friend "think 4 yourself" was using AI to "think 4 him" instead, and it was regurgitating shallow researched arguments and false information from the internet in a confirmed 100% AI generated "essay." Among other things, this shows the negligible role that "science," "evidence," "logic," and "thinking for yourself" actually plays in the atheistic worldview - it's an effort to suppress God, and it has nothing to do with logic, evidence, reason, or "thinking." Consider this: *“…It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong."* “…The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor’s new clothes: *everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin’s predicted pattern, simply looked the other way.”* (Niles Eldredge, "The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982) That is an evolutionist claiming that evolutionary paleontologists were deliberately ignoring evidence and acting on bias and groupthink - what are your thoughts on that?

[@michaelg377]

@@Oldtinear Actually he didn't, and the evidence I provided above refuted many of his major points. The problem with AI is that it uses the internet as its source of information, so by relying solely on AI to answer any question means *operating on the assumption that "just because it's on the internet means it's true."* Think for yourself my friend. What are your thoughts on the evidence above that you ignored as well? And what are your thoughts on the evolutionist admitting that evolutionary paleontologists are deliberately ignoring obvious evidence and engaging in biased groupthink? "Think-4-Yourself's post listed a series of factors which destroyed the silly myth of the flood. You cannot come within a mile of rebutting them, so you make a fuss about AI and hope nobody notices your empty-handedness." That series of epithet fallacies and strawman misrepresentations of what happened above is because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and that if you just wait a long enough *Time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people by chance. It's classic apriorism, an Invincible Ignorance fallacy - there is no mountain of evidence that can convince a scoffer like yourself to honestly consider that you might be wrong. "You toss words such as 'meaningless' about, but *meaningful social behaviour has a natural explanation."* (Oldtinear, 19 May 2024) "'How do you get from meaningless goo to meaningful and valuable you just by adding time + chemicals + chance in a meaningless universe? 'The natural origin of life (abiogenesis) *is a hypothesis in progress. When we know more, I will get back to you."* (Oldtinear, 19 May 2024) *How do you know it has a "natural" explanation if you can't explain it "naturally"...?*

[@Maura-mz3fz]

You are an awesome teacher Ken Ham may God bless you❤🤍🙏😌♥️🩶🩷😊❤️

[@geraguliker4560]

I thank you for this video. I believe and love God almost all my live, but I was not sure about the timetable of creation, because of the quote '1 day 1000 year'. Now I know earth is really created in one week. I stood in aw after seeing your video. How great is our God. I love him with all my heart. Is there a possibility to translate it in Dutch, so I can send it to a lot of people in my neighbourhood? A lot of people here still doesn't understand English so good.

[@hectorpatton9401]

Please don’t spread this nonsense what has it ever done to help the human race

[@noahc2078]

​@@hectorpatton9401 It teaches us that nothing we do really matters in the grand scheme of things, that we're just animals, so our lives don't count. It leaves us with the impression that nothing we do has consequences, that we're free to destroy each other over the most petty things. The idea that there is no higher power is... OH, I thought you were talking about evolutionism. Well nevermind, I've nothing to say.

[@ronf.hercules37]

Excellent Presentation! A "must see" for every believer.🙂

[@jothekingjtk]

I thought this was supposed to convince atheïsts? but it seems it's only used by Christians to take away the doubts they were starting to have HAHAHAHA

[@2fast2block]

@@jothekingjtk I have no doubt about God and where you're going. You can't even explain how we got here and got all this. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. It is clear creation had to be done supernaturally yet it is still denied because people are just too proud to accept that, among other things.

[@bradbuckner9496]

For all humans especially nonbelievers. But I get your point

[@tobyonatabe2601]

@@2fast2block it was created supernaturally sure, but it was obviously a spaghettimonster.

[@tobyonatabe2601]

@@bradbuckner9496 no, I’d rather not have people watch a video where the words “the Bible is a trustworthy source” are uttered.

[@lauracaskey2753]

Thank you for this wonderful video. Full of truth! Praise be to our Father and praise be to our Savior Jesus Christ 🙏

[@canadiankewldude]

*_God Bless_*

[@Sodiumax]

the creation story is fake lol

[@krupto848]

@@Sodiumax how?

[@Sodiumax]

@@krupto848 ? How "how"? It is basic science lol

[@krupto848]

@@Sodiumax Do u even know tht the father of science was a Christian?

[@sl-rt5kv]

Noah's flood is mentioned in the Bible, but the _subsequent_ events described here including world-wide volcanoes, sudden global freezing, ice age, sudden global warming, extremely fast ice melt extraordinarily fast uplift of the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Pyrenees, Urals, Atlas and other mountain ranges worldwide etc. are certainly not mentioned in the Bible. We know from historical and archaeological information that people lived worldwide in the immediate aftermath of the flood. The first Pyramids arose in Egypt around the time of the flood or very shortly after. In addition to Egypt, there were also great civilizations along the Tigres and Euphrates, Indus Valley, and China. There were people living in Europe, England, Ireland, around the time of the flood as well as in North and South America. Their lives would have been imperiled by the plethora of *post-flood* catastrophic events described here _especially since they produced such drastic swings in temperature and the landscape over such a short time._ Ditto for the mountain ranges springing up like rapidly sprouting mushrooms all over the world; as well as the dozens of volcanoes spewing ash like Mt St Helens shown in this video, exploding like 24 megaton nuclear bombs world-wide and leading to an ice age. Instead, there isn't a shred of evidence the people even noticed any of this or that living things were impacted at all by the post-flood apocalypse. There is no science that describes events like these and no dating information or other evidence indicating that they occurred when they are supposed to have occurred. The *post-flood apocalypse* described here is not only unbiblical and unscientific. It is also pure fiction.

[@debramorgan3824]

Thank you, this should be in our schools. It's not telling you who is or how to worship, you have to decern the who and the how. With this you can,more easily.

[@stybur19]

exactly. that is the point of God programming us with the act of freewill. it is a true test of ones ability to discern and display our God given conscience. science has never been able to explain where our sense of morality derives from. God is a master at everything and scientists have been infiltrating His creations for quite some time, even going after the "god particle", which is simply nature. we are all malleable. science wouldnt exist without nature (God) and of course, we wouldnt exist without God. it seems so much more simple yet when you attempt to have these sort of conversations with pro science minds they just laugh and mock you, which proves they cannot produce an argument with objectives. all of science is perceived, not proven without including nature.

[@summerd7668]

Absolutely! They took God out of schools and we can put him back in even if people don't want to do that, at least we could take the religion of evolution out.

[@travisbicklepopsicle]

@@summerd7668 I don't know what country you're from, but in the United States it is unlawful to do what you are suggesting. It is perfectly acceptable to pray in public schools, but we certainly cannot mandate the teaching of one religion over any other, since there are millions and millions of public school students, and they certainly all do not worship the same god or follow the same belief system.. this is one of the reasons why separation of church and state is very, very important. How would you feel if Hinduism, or some religion other than yours, was taught in public schools? In order to push one religion over all others, and teach it as truth in public schools, the United States would have to become a theocracy. Do you really think that would be a good idea? There's a time and a place for everything, and public schools are not the place to teach religious beliefs, unless it's a comparative religions course, or part of a history course or something. There are places to go to learn about, and be taught that one specific religion is the one true religion, and those places are called, 'churches'. Would you want biology or some other field of science to be taught in Sunday School? I wouldn't, because churches are not the places to go to learn about science. I'm not going to say anything about the 'evolution religion' part of your comment, because it makes no sense.. (perhaps it doesn't make any sense because you learned about the subject in church).

[@summerd7668]

@TravisBickle Popsicle You should review your history and the separation of church and state. Evolution theory is absolutely a religion and that is the one taught in schools. What I learned in church was to ask questions and when you ask enough of them, you find that science and God are not in opposition. God created the laws of the universe and us with the ability to understand them. There is more evidence for God and only a fool would continue to deny Him and remove Him from the reality that He created.

[@travisbicklepopsicle]

@@summerd7668 the theory of evolution, or evolutionary theory / the modern synthesis, is a scientific theory. Maybe there is a God, maybe there isn't. I have no idea. That's got nothing to do with evolutionary theory or any other scientific theory. Since you are proclaiming that this particular scientific theory is actually a religion, which is kind of weird but whatever, maybe you could define evolutionary theory? Can you even define *scientific theory*? Nah, nvm.

[@rickbrickles1410]

Faith and Jesus is all we need !!! Everything else will fall in line !! Amen

[@ArleneRodilla]

Amen Jesus Is King All My Faith And Trust Is To Him Not On Science Again And God Exist God Is King God Is Good

[@Terces_Secret]

@@rickbrickles1410 a stupid line of thinking. Why take medicine to stop a infection, just believe that Jesus will cure you

[@davidpiraux1262]

This the best information i have heard to confirm my faith !! I have wondered these principles my entire life.... well still always having faith God is real of course. But this makes perfect sense 👌

[@BobSmith-ew5oi]

You have not given any proof your sky fairy is real as no historical,scientific or real time narrative of his life and not make sense to believe the unknown authors and there plagiarism that written hundreds of years after the event.We in 21st century and not superstitious dark ages.Science find an answer for most of gods mysteries and make him unwanted and un needed.

[@blocc_nova746]

God is a tool to control people. It's always been that way with Christianity.

[@blocc_nova746]

@@stephenlaing2152 Why do you have such faith in this insanity?

[@blocc_nova746]

@@stephenlaing2152 Exactly, they try to tell the followers that they will live in a fictional dream land as long as they suffer in life. And that's how they get away with making you suffer without you getting wise at them.

[@AlbertPaulMontini-nk6wh]

God bless you with lots of good health and happiness 🎉

[@quentinhoffman3107]

Can you please use the same method on the Flat earth vs Globe earth according to the bible. And what about the firmament...

[@carolynbillington9018]

Great clear message

[@michaelg377]

This is a great message for those who are willing to listen to the evidence and critically assess their own worldview assumptions. We're all uncritically indoctrinated into the theory of evolution today, and most people don't know how to think for themselves as a result.

[@h.gonyaulax2190]

@@michaelg377 Most people have never been educated in advanced biology, but indoctrinated by churches. From European perspective ist looks like one of the US-problems.

[@zadokmotorfreight2423]

@@michaelg377 agree 💯

[@travisbicklepopsicle]

@@michaelg377 'uncritically indoctrinated into the theory of evolution'.. what does that mean? Science isn't about indoctrination :-(

[@michaelg377]

@@travisbicklepopsicle Science is a methodology. What you're talking about is an Ideology. We are all forced to learn the theory of evolution in our public education system from a very young age, and it's even pushed in our childrens' cartoons - we never talk about the problems and scientific difficulties it encounters like getting information from non-information, the changing story of the Coelacanth, debunked Junk DNA, the Faint Young Sun Paradox which suggests our earth would have been frozen solid when life was supposed to atheistically create itself from a puddle, "billions of years" without ever considering the unverifiable assumptions that go into radiometric dating - *time* performs the Atheist's miracles. Science is great, but science is *limited* to measuring physical natural phenomena. It can't account for anything immaterial, like the laws of logic which exist outside of our chemical bodies and yet all of "nature" has to obey, or the metaphysical mathematically precise laws of physics which all of material nature has to follow for some reason. It also can't explain anything outside of the laws of nature - so consider this: The 1st law of thermodynamics doesn't allow energy to come from nothing "naturally." The 2nd law (entropy) says energy is always being converted into an unusable form, so energy can't just exist forever because on an eternal past time-scale it would all be used up. So if our universe couldn't have a beginning from nothing, and if it couldn't have just existed forever, then *how do you "naturally" explain the beginning of our universe?* You can't, not without invoking some kind of a Super-Natural phenomenon. Science breaks down at this point, among others. Have you ever wondered why atheists have to invoke such wild sci-fi sounding theories to sustain their "natural" belief system? *Infinite* unobservable alternate universes, an *eternal self-existent* singularity, alternate *unobservable metaphysical* laws of nature, *pre-existent* phenomena... you have to attribute Super-Natural qualities of God to "nature" to "naturally" explain our origins, it doesn't make sense. *The only way for "nature" to create itself is if "nature" is pre-existent... like God.* *"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."* (Romans 1:20)

[@bey12345]

Very well created documentary, thank you!

[@AlbertPaulMontini-nk6wh]

God bless you with lots of good health and happiness 🎉

[@AlbertPaulMontini-nk6wh]

God bless you with lots of good health and happiness 🎉

[@davidkyros2723]

You mean to say a "well created load of BS" None of what is being said about genetics holds water

[@canadiankewldude]

*_God Bless_*

[@HS-zk5nn]

@@davidkyros2723 how so? what is wrong? facts please. not opinions

[@cortedemico]

32:58 the fact that we all technically live on islands is a pretty good indicator that there was a flood.

[@DaniPooo]

Science agrees that there has been floods in the past, there's deserts that used to be under water and so on. But all the continents user to be one super continent at one point. We know this because of archeological findings like fossils of the same species being found on different continents and other geological findings. Not to mention the current movement of the continents. A few floods in the past does not confirm gods existence. In fact the pole ices are melting right now and will cause landmasses to get under the sea level. These events happen on a geoactive planet. But to make a further argument. The epic of Gilgamesh is a text written around 2000 BC, (long before the bible). And it has a flood myth which is very very similar to the story of Noah.. Including building a ship and taking animals onboard "The gods sent a flood to destroy the human race, but one god, Ea spoke to a reed fence giving instructions on how to build a suitable boat. Uta-napishti heard the words of Ea, and saved himself, his family and all living things. The flood was upon the earth for six days and seven nights." Is it coincident? I think not.. Most likely this story was carried on from mouth to ear, gradually changing and eventually tailored to fit into the Old Testament. It makes the most sense.

[@HaveAHuff]

No it's not. Creationists like ken Ham deny evolution but they rely on the theory of evolution to support the claim of the flood. People who believe there was a flood and an arc need to be institutionalized. It's a belief founded in ignorance and denying science.

[@michaelg377]

@@HaveAHuff That's just not true my friend. For example, *if sediments have been accumulating on the ocean floor for 3+ billion years, then the sediment on the sea floor should be several miles deep* ...but the thickness of these sediments is only about 1300 feet deep. Approximately 20 billion tons of dirt and rock debris are eroded from the continents and deposited into the sea every year, mostly near the continents. Approximately 1 billion tons of sediment are removed every year through tectonic movement (1-2 inches per year), resulting in a net gain of approximately 19 billion tons of sediment every year. At this rate, it would take about 12 million years (assuming atheistic-Naturalist assumptions) for all of this sediment to accumulate - not 3-4 *Billion* years. This measurable evidence makes sense from a biblical creation perspective which holds that most of these sediments were rapidly deposited a little over 4000 years ago in the global flood. The evidence just fits. Atheistic-Naturalists, however, have to invoke one of several rescuing devices to circumvent this problematic evidence, all of which are problematic themselves. Some claim *"it must have accumulated at a slower rate in the past"* - but the sediments on the continental shelves suggest they were deposited much *Faster* than today's rates. For example, the layering and patterns of the grain sizes in these sediments are the same as those produced by undersea landslides, when turbidity currents flow rapidly across continental shelves and the sediments then settle in thick layers over vast areas. *There is also no evidence of a large amount of sediment being subducted under the mantle.* Two worldviews, same evidence, two very different interpretations. Biblical creation proponents "scientifically" accept this evidence at face value of a recent global flood and a young creation - the evidence simply fits. Atheistic-Naturalists have to invoke a rescuing device to unscientificially *circumvent this problematic evidence in order to preserve their atheistic version of our origins.* Which worldview is really behaving more "scientifically" at this point, the one that accepts the evidence (biblical creation) or the one that has to invoke yet another rescuing device to sustain their belief system (atheistic-Naturalists)? We are all indoctrinated into atheistic-Naturalism (evolution, etc.) today in our public education system. Atheistic-Naturalists do the same thing with the Faint Young Sun Paradox which suggests earth should have been frozen when life was supposed to create itself 3.5 billion years ago (various unsubstantiated theories), young 100,000 year old maximum comets in our allegedly "14 billion year old" universe (fabricated Oort Clouds), young soft tissues in allegedly "65+ million year old" dinosaur fossils that appear similar to 4000 year old mummies and the Tyrolean ice man (preservative rescuing devices), the fact that the moon would have been touching the earth 1.5 billion years ago based on calculations concerning the effects of tidal recession on the moon (usually miscalculated and/or ignored), etc. Is this really how "Science" is supposed to work?

[@HaveAHuff]

@@michaelg377 I'm not reading any of that. There are 16000000 species that would have had to be on the arc. Creationists acknowledge there's no way a vessel that size could have been constructed by a man and his family. They assert there were only 1000-4000 species, depending who you ask. Which means everything had to evolve from those species. The entire world view is a contradiction. Even most people who believe in your god don't believe the flood happened. It's simply illogical.

[@HaveAHuff]

@@michaelg377 You aren't going to be taken seriously when you blatantly deny science.

[@erigon5833]

Ken Ham: *describes textbook evolution* Also Ken Ham: This is evidence AGAINST evolution!

[@JohnsonA1788]

Yeah. Because it is.

[@rocket964]

He described adaptation. No one disagrees with adaptation, because it’s demonstrable. Evolution requires that an unbelievably complex cell, that can’t survive for a second, unless all those tiny complex machines are all working perfectly, simultaneously, just sprang into existence, all by itself, from materials that couldn’t possibly be responsible for that. It seems to me like you don’t understand what you’re saying.

[@Terces_Secret]

@@rocket964 where's your evidence that cells can't survive for more than a second? Also, how can you admit adaptation is real but evolution isn't? Adaptation is a part of evolution, so explain?

[@Terces_Secret]

@@rocket964 read a scientific paper on evolution before you make bold claims like that

[@mrjmpatait]

Ken does a great job in this video, I wish more churches and schools were wise enough to use his material, instead it is apparent the world runs to embrace lies so much so many schools teach the fiction of evolution better then most churches teach the truth of creation.

[@adelinomorte7421]

***IS THAT SO?***

[@painreliefspc]

Forget, carbon, dating. Do you think you have more than 200 ancestor to Adam and eve? If so, that means the world order than 6000 years. 😂

[@catfacecat.]

So you want schools teaching religion down vulnerable children's throats so that they believe because if you try to teach them after they grow they will think about it and probably not believe?

[@paulhabrelewicz7749]

There’s more physical proof of evolution than god! There’s no proof anything in the Bible is true, it’s all based on faith!

[@Mianhe]

@@painreliefspc carbon dating is clearly a sham, it wouldn't prove a god so it's clearly a lie.

[@opalwhite8022]

Your amazing at this i can really feel his spirit when your talking

[@judyreeves2600]

I remember when Mt. St. Helens erupted. Scientists "carbon dated" trees after the eruption and the reading said they were millions of years older than everyone knew them to be!

[@pup1008]

You keep ignorant & deluded, your flavour of geographically and culturally ordained god seems to like that! 😂👍

[@michaelg377]

@@pup1008 What are your thoughts on the observed 10-year old samples taken from a lava dome at Mt. St. Helens that were K-Ar dated to be 300,000 years old? In order to accurately "date" something, you need to know the original amount of the parent isotope, the original amount of the daughter isotope, that the rate of decay remained constant, and that the material was in a closed system unaffected by other influences which could throw off the results - *we can't verify any of these Assumptions without a time machine.* Why were the samples from this lava dome so far off? Because the scientists *incorrectly assumed* that all of the Argon was the product of radioactive decay of Potassium, but the material inherited additional Argon as it solidified, so they incorrectly dated a 10-year old object to be 300,000 years old based on their false assumptions. If objects that we observe can be so incorrectly dated, what does that tell you about dating objects that we cannot observe, from the Unobservable Past? Other items for consideration include young Carbon-14 found inside of allegedly "billions of years old" diamonds, young soft tissues and intact cells found inside a growing number of allegedly "65 million year old" dinosaur fossils which appear similar to 4000 year old mummies and the Tyrolean Ice Man, snail shells dated to be 26,000 years old in the 1980s, and numerous measurements taken from samples of past historically documented volcanic eruptions (Mt. Etna, etc.) which are WAY off compared to what documented history shows. ...but without this atheistic "flavour of geographically and culturally ordained god" (Naturalism and its underlying assumptions), you don't have "billions of years." Without "billions of years," your already implausible belief that chemicals fizzed into people by chance just by adding *Time* falls apart. You need a Creator. *"It is appointed for a man to die once, then comes Judgment"* (Hebrews 9:27)

[@dumyjobby]

Ehm no, just a Cristian lie

[@judyreeves2600]

@dumyjobby no, just a fact you cannot accept. This was general news at the time, until all of a sudden it wasn't. You can say whatever you want, but I actually lived this.

[@pup1008]

@@judyreeves2600 Actually check out *ANY* mainstream, secular site relating to it for a full & *FACTUAL* explanation! 🙄

[@Daniel-js3tx]

Hello, There is a problem with your story of Cain. in Gen 4:9 Cain left for the North area of Eden, there could have been people ready to kill him and he met his wife over there which was not his sister. Sisters came quite later in Gen 5 and after the third child Seth.

[@ib1ray]

Wouldn't they still have come from Adam and Eve? Obviously as more people have more children, we would be less likely to share the same genetics....

[@leoneljuarez8378]

Very impressive, and informative! Thanks! Amen!

[@AlbertPaulMontini-nk6wh]

God bless you with lots of good health and happiness 🎉

[@canadiankewldude]

*_God Bless_*

[@Sodiumax]

no, the creation story is fake

[@canadiankewldude]

@@Sodiumax Why, because of speciation. There is no tangible laboratory tests that can replicate the creation of life from non life and there is no demonstrable experiments showing anything beyond variation of a living creature. No hard science, all theory. Self creation vs a creator, do you have a third choice.

[@leoneljuarez8378]

@@Sodiumax The Creation story is true, Father GOD created all things through Our Lord Jesus Christ! Amen!

[@jayess9933]

I have a quick question about the “observational science vs historical science”; what would you consider the Big Bang to be? Here’s why I ask: In the few years after Lemaître posited the idea of the Big Bang, physicists from around the world began to make predictions about what we would have to see and find if his hypothesis held water. At the time we didn’t have the technology to test those predictions, but today they do. We can observe them today. Such as the background radiation left over from the event, the existence of neutrinos, specific elemental compounds of other galaxies, etc. It would be very much like walking upon a car crash that you didn’t see yourself, but you can see the evidence of. Debris on the road, one car’s on fire, backup in traffic, etc. Would you consider that to be historical or observational?

[@RomyCats]

I concern that the Big Bang is the moment our universe was created. Originally, many scientists didn't like the idea of the Big Bang because it meant our universe has a beginning and an end. A question that scientists can't answer but have many theories about is what caused the Big Bang. No human was around to observe that. Some force outside the universe caused energy, matter, and atoms to form. I believe that it was God who spoke the universe into existence. That moment could be what is referred to as the Big Bang.

[@NinaQuiros]

you explained this beautifully

[@jess65963]

How about both? I like the way you think.

[@astrawboiii1853]

You could repeat the car crash, but you can’t repeat the bigbang, sceintefic approach is repeatable, historical science is not

[@jayess9933]

@@astrawboiii1853 Let’s say they were both 1of a kind cars so you can’t accurately recreate the crash. Using what you can see though, you can determine the direction they were heading, the speed they were going, and even who’s at fault. You can even take the data collected and recreate the crash on a computer. The Big Bang is no different. When it was first hypothesized, physicists made several predictions against the model. If the Big Bang really did happen, these things would have to be true. To date, all but one has been proven to be true, and the only reason why the last one hasn’t yet is because we currently lack the technology to do so. For instance, we can see the radiation left over from the event, hydrogen is the most common element in the universe by far, the Higgs Boson does exist, etc. We can use current observations to recreate past events with a high level of accuracy.

[@JamesAkubi-rn4fx]

Thank you again. I approve of your presentation. The Bible and science are there to complement each other

[@squidwardtenticles8851]

the bible was used to explain things that science couldnt such as why a disease killed people etc. but now we have that science to prove it. people just want to continue to believe in the fictional fairy tale because they cant accept the fact that when u die, your are dead. thats it. and anyone that disagrees with them is just a 'lost soul ' or whatever nonsense, and that they are clearly the more educated one even though they have never studied science or evidence or read a science book in their whole life. They disregard every single scientist and book of evidence except their one book of evidence make thousands of years ago. and then instead of disproving the facts they cherry-pick evidence so they feel like they are in the right, and parade incompetent scientists to pretend like science is on their side.

[@whaleroast2372]

No they aren't

[@drugbustin]

They actually contradict each other over and over again

[@MrPatrickKelly]

You, I and every other person born into this world face the same challenge of trying to come up with answers to how and why we exist. Everyone struggles with this to one degree or another and one of the first things many consider is how those who came before us answered this same question during their lives. We can look at the sheer numbers of people who accept a particular set of beliefs and conclude that must be the right answer because so many people believe it. Or we can simply agree that the answers our family and friends learned to believe are probably the right ones. But as we look around the crazy world we were born into one thing seems clear. If there is one honest and truthful answer to humanity’s biggest question behind the meaning of our lives, it would have to be the one that says we don’t know enough yet to accurately answer it. Anyone who says differently is either lying to themselves or lying to you and it would be a mistake to believe them, especially if their claims of having the right answers also involve any requests for money. So who should we believe? Scientists with their changing answers tied to the latest scientific discoveries that show no evidence of gods or religious scholars who rely upon faith to justify increasingly inaccurate scriptures that keep sliding further and further away from science. Perhaps the best way to answer this question is to bring up the subject of honesty. Everyone knows it feels good to be honest. It feels good to admit that it was you who took something that wasn’t yours. In fact, honesty is so highly valued that admitting you did something wrong often becomes more important than what you did wrong. There is a feeling of great relief that comes when you stop pretending or lying to others or even more importantly to yourself. The feeling of inner pride one experiences when being honest is universally recognized and highly respected by almost everyone. Except perhaps when your spoken honesty conflicts with things others have learned to believe and feel obligated to defend. That especially applies to certain beliefs some may have invested so much of themselves into, it has become an important part of their identity. Such people have willingly closed their eyes to reality in a misguided quest to protect what they have learned to believe from any countering influences. That is dishonest. Playing games with yourself instead of being honest hurts and wastes a lot of mental energy as you are tasked with pretending something is true when you know deep inside there are serious problems with the belief you have been forced to hide from rational scrutiny. Even though, it feels good sometimes to pretend you believe the same things as those around you even when you know it probably isn’t true. Unfortunately, that is a dangerous slippery slope to start down because it divides you from yourself or at least the part of you that once valued being honest. If there is one answer everyone deserves to find during their lives, it is an honest sense of who and what you are that adds up and finally makes sense. You may not come up with all the puzzle pieces, but you should have an honest sense that the pieces you did come up with have a strong connection to both truth and reality. You don’t need to climb to a mountaintop and spend a month in deep meditation. You just have to be as open and honest as you can. Living an honest life as opposed to a pretend one has many rewards, not the least of which is a fulfilling sense of inner peace. A knowledge that you really got to know yourself during your shot stay in existence. Peace my friends and try not to hurt others in any misguided quests to defend or protect ignorance from the blinding light of truth. It is that truth that has the power to make our world a better place for all those who come after. John Lennon had the right idea when he sang, “Imagine no religion.”

[@dustygatrell-ru7tg]

So do you believe in God or what?

[@MrPatrickKelly]

@@dustygatrell-ru7tg No.

[@dustygatrell-ru7tg]

@@MrPatrickKelly seem like your intelligent. I believe in God. An you know the gospel. It's your choice whether you receive it or not. I hope you do. But ultimately that's your choice.

[@MrPatrickKelly]

@@dustygatrell-ru7tg - Here's the deal Dusty. If there really is a god then he/she or it is more than welcome to appear on earth and introduce himself. Until that happens, I can't buy into all the nonsense that life is a test to see if particular humans are worthy of spending an eternity in heaven based in large part upon whether or not they believe in god without poof to sustain any such belief. None of this adds up or makes any sense especially when you consider that all the gods throughout history are supposed to be all-knowing and therefore would already know whose names are on the ticket to heaven list before any of us are even born. So what's the point from a god's perspective if it already knows all the answers. Why not skip this life thing and just go right to the eternity in heaven without passing go. Seems like a lot of trouble for noting. I will say Dusty, that after spending many years searching for evidence that supports the existence of god, I stumbled upon one question that sort of summed it all up for me. "What makes the god you learned to believe in any more real than all the other gods you never learned to believe in?" Good question. Since we can fully explain through historical records where all the different gods came from that people have worshiped down through the ages, the question of whether god exists has already been answered. You can easily answer that question by asking yourself where did the concept of ghosts come from? Or is the tooth fairy real? The answer in case you need me to spell it out for you is from the human imagination. If you open your eyes and look at all the god nonsense from this perspective, then all of a sudden, everything starts to add up and make sense. Unfortunately, things that are created in the human imagination have little if anything to do with reality. Unfortunately for us, life is temporary, and dead is dead. End of story.

[@dustygatrell-ru7tg]

@@MrPatrickKelly you see, I refuse to believe there's not a God. Jesus is the only true hope I have in life. When I die I wanna live for eternity with Jesus. An sometimes I wonder myself of he's real or not. But we all have doubt. Yet I still believe cause the cost of not believing an living for Jesus is much to great. I'd rather not take the chance. I have nothing to lose by believing in God. There's only life to gain by believing in him. And you might ask, well I'd he's real where's the proof? An I say to you , I can't show you God. But I can show you love an faith threw Jesus. And there's differences between the real God. An the other mythical gods. You just ask me to name some differences an I will.

[@mariogirard1221]

very instructive and interressing,excellent video

[@judeisnot_rude]

Interesting*

[@dr.rickmarshall6697]

@@judeisnot_rude For a two year old maybe.😲🤮

[@ryanchesmore6712]

@@dr.rickmarshall6697 it’s better than anything atheistic evolutionists have

[@GB-9666]

@@dr.rickmarshall6697, even you can’t successfully rebut his rational explanation.

[@daveyjones9930]

@@GB-9666 I can...with ONE example. If your god is all knowing and all wise and knows the end from the beginning and loves all mankind, where is the Eleventh Commandment: "Thou shalt not own another person". *SLAVERY!!* Instead the slave owners CLEARLY justified slavery using the Old Testament.

[@tedandrew1868]

Well presented!To make a overall conclusion is that: believing in God and dying is much more better than dying without believing in him.

[@suqma]

according to what I believe, it's the same 🤔🤷🏻‍♂️

[@Notarabbit911]

The reason you believe in God is because deep down you hate the fact that you had to move out of your parents house, that is what I believe makes people go after God.

[@fatstrategist]

@@Notarabbit911 ...What?

[@Lyaratre]

Love the editing, thanks for sharing this❤️

[@ElghinnLightbringer]

Ken's video and all his explanation, scriptural references, and explanation of genetics are spot on. Thank you Ken for fighting for the truth, that the Bible is the Word of God, and is correct in all it's aspects. The only minor issue I have is the calculation of the age of the earth. One must remember, time for Adam was not initiated until the fall. Before the fall, he was deathless, and would live forever. As Ken stated, sin brought about the fall, which then brought about death, and that was when the assigned passage of time on the earth took effect upon Adam and Eve. Yes the earth was created in 6 days, and God rested the 7th. That divine week was 7000 years, and we are currently in the second 7000 year week, starting with the fall of Adam and Eve, leading up to the Second Coming of the Savior. It stated in the bible that a day with God is as a 1000 years, and prior to the fall, Adam and Eve were with God, and subject to His time frame (1 day = 1000 yrs). Once the fall occurred, Mankind became subject to the laws of the earth set forth by God, that being 1 day = 24 hours. That's why Adam and Eve were warned, prior to the fall (and eating of the forbidden fruit), that in the day they eat there of (the fruit), they would surely die. "In the day", at that time, would have been a 1000 year time frame, and that is why, when Adam finally died, he was 930 years old, in the ending time frame of the original 1000 year day. Now one could say that as soon as he ate the fruit , in that "day" (24 hour period) he began the process of dying, like we all do upon our birth. But that would be incongruent with the points in the creation account when God speaks about time prior to the fall, and the effects of sin that take hold of the earth following the fall. Again the whole life span of all the earth Patriarchs is very long. Why? Because they were given a day (1000 yr span) to preach and bring the populations of the earth back to God. After Noah (and this could be explained by Ken's explanation of genetics, AaBb combos, etc.) why mankind only lived now about 1/10th of the life span of the original Patriarchs. Perhaps the Patriarchs (minus Noah and the following prophets) had the longevity genes of an AABB, thus their long lives, while Noah and the 7 other survivors of the flood may have had the aabb combination, which then passed on to the rest of the world's population a much shorter life span (100 years). That's my thoughts about it. In any case, Ken explains things very well, logically (which God is, and perfectly I might add), and in harmony with the word of God. Millions of years are not necessary to create the Earth, as all matter obeys the commands of God and are subject to his word, and they do so far better than we do, who are His ultimate creation.

[@JB-yb4wn]

The Earth is actually some 4.5 billion years old. Try reading some real science books.

[@snickers6125]

@J B might wanna research the Bible more, this is like the 5th thing I've seen you get hilariously wrong

[@JB-yb4wn]

@@snickers6125 So you are saying that a poorly written 2000 year old book that says the sun revolves around the Earth knows more than every scientific discipline on the planet? Don't make me laugh.😄

[@snickers6125]

@@JB-yb4wn well first the bible does not say the sun revolves around the earth, and it may be old but the word of God is older then our universe and we are also older then the universe. The Bible is the word of God who trandsends time. So in comparison a 2000 year old book came out basically yesterday. Besides thay science doesn't disprove God only shows us little parts of how God made things to be.

[@snickers6125]

@@JB-yb4wn but yes gods knowledge is unfathomable compair to the near nothing we have discovered about this universe as humans. I'm obviously gonna trust him more then humans

[@matthewjeffres4640]

i WILL SHARE THIS WITH AS MANY PEOPLE AS i CAN! THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER! WE NEED TO SHARE THE GOOD NEWS AND THE TRUTH! PEACE BE WITH YOU ALL!

[@JohnKoenig-db8lk]

WHY ARE YOU SHOUTING?

[@JenniferArmato87]

I'm so glad I found this video. Excellent.

[@canadiankewldude]

*_God Bless_*

[@artvallejos1460]

​@Tbone Yes there is

[@2beontop]

Can you compare where science brought humanity vs your old book that’s says nothing verifiable valid or valuable.. what do you do with all your biblical knowledge meanwhile we create everything around you and expanding life span ?

[@michaelg377]

Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just wait a really long *Time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people by chance? Science is a methodology, what you're talking about is an Ideology - that's not "science," that's something else. Science (a methodology) actually corroborates biblical claims very well. For example, *Have you ever heard of the Faint Young Sun Paradox?* Scientists observe that our sun is slowly warming up as hydrogen fuses into helium, and at this observed rate, 3.5B years ago our sun would have been 30% fainter and earth would have been frozen solid as a result (if it was really billions of years old). The problem is that atheistic-evolutionists believe that 3.5B years ago chemicals fizzed by chance in a puddle to form all the necessary proteins required for life - in what would have been a global, dead, frozen environment - hence the "paradox." *How do you handle this observable evidence?* *"Liquid water is generally considered a key ingredient for life. When the Sun was much fainter, the Earth with its present atmospheric composition would have been frozen solid. If the oceans were frozen, life may not have formed" (Quote: NASA).* A) Biblical Creation proponents happily accept this measurable scientific evidence - it's not a "paradox" at all because the earth isn't billions of years old, and life didn't create itself by chance from a puddle of chemicals, we were intentionally created. This makes sense because there is zero evidence that our earth was ever frozen solid as it should have been if it was really billions of years old, and also zero evidence of an early greenhouse gas atmosphere or other atheistic miracle warming effect to help sustain the atheistic belief in abiogenesis. B) Atheistic-Naturalists (evolutionists, etc.) however have a problem, because you need billions of years of deep time to make it seem less implausible that chemicals can fizz into people, and that life atheistically created itself. So you have to invoke some kind of a miracle warming effect with no evidence like an early alleged greenhouse gas atmosphere, or various implausible celestial phenomena. Not only do these excuses have zero evidence, but they are also incredibly implausible - because if you did have an early greenhouse gas atmosphere 3.5B years ago, you have to believe that it countered the faint young sun's temperature just right (not too hot like Venus, yet not cold like Mars) and it had to dissipate in perfect inverse proportion to the gradual warming of the sun over time - *all just to make atheistic abiogenesis and early evolution seem less scientifically problematic.* Two worldviews, same evidences, two very different interpretations. Which one is being more "scientific," the one that just accepts the evidence, or the one that has to fabricate implausible and evidence-less excuses to *circumvent this problematic scientific evidence and sustain their already scientifically-problematic belief that puddles can fizz into people?* Any thoughts? *"The evidence of God... has been clearly seen since the beginning in all that has been created, so they will have no excuse"* (Romans 1:20)

[@WoWUndad]

​​@@michaelg377bro that's all you 😂 type is "do you say that because evolution 🤔?" Your fairy tale has a talking snake and a book less accurate than Harry potter

[@michaelg377]

@@WoWUndad No, I say "do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers" to specify the unscientific storytelling nature of the belief system. *You also just ignored quite a bit of scientific evidence that militates against your belief system as an atheist - so between the two of us, the Christian is listening to science and the Atheist ignoring it... food for thought. Regarding Atheistic Fair Tales, let me ask you this... the 1st law of thermodynamics doesn't allow energy to "naturally" come from nothing. The 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy) is that energy is always being converted into a less usable form, and it doesn't allow energy to remain usable forever, because in the infinite past it would have been infinitely used up by now (Heat Death). *So if our universe can't "naturally" have a beginning from nothing, and it can't have just always been here (otherwise all of our energy would be infinitely used up), how do you naturally explain the beginning of our universe?* Have you ever wondered why Atheistic-Naturalists have to invoke such wild and sci-fi sounding theories to sustain their "natural" (atheistic) beliefs on our origins? *Infinite* alternate universes, an *eternal self-existent* singularity, alternate unobservable metaphysical laws of nature, *pre-existent* phenomena... they have to attribute supernatural qualities of God to "nature" in order to "naturally" explain our origins. This is the Atheist's Natural-Supernatural (!) worldview. It's an internally inconsistent and self-refuting belief system... the only way for nature to create itself is if nature is *pre-existent - like God.* *"The evidence of God... has been clearly seen since the beginning in all that has been created, so they will have no excuse"* (Romans 1:20)

[@michaelg377]

@@Oldtinear Your words: "the first life-forms which developed this feature *left no trace of themselves* 2 billion years ago." (Oldtinear, 30 September 2023) ""We can speculate [regarding early evolution], but *any speculations could not be tested, so we will never know"* (Oldtinear, 30 September 2023) *"If you cannot test it, it ain't science."* (Oldtinear, 20 December 2023). Thank you for those powerful arguments against Evolution - now you can know, *from your own words,* that your own belief system *"...is not testable - it is nothing to do with science. It is a fundamentalist religious belief."* (Oldtinear, 20 December 2023) I'm not sure you're in any position to judge anyone about "science" my friend - you just admitted your own belief system (Evolution), on your own standard, by your own words, is an unscientific belief system - it "is not testable - it is nothing to do with science. It is a fundamentalist religious belief." (Oldtinear, 20 December 2023). You are contradicting yourself again. Your only consistency here is how you scoff and contradict yourself repeatedly. Be honest, and use your reason - maybe consider answering some of these questions yourself for all to see.

[@goojunpyoo9489]

Glad I found this video. Answer all my questions

[@danielshumway9355]

This is a wonderful video! It can cure some atheist and it has boosted my mediocre faith and I'm thinking about quitting drinking and smoking and becoming kinder and more organized.

[@carollynnberwindscheffler398]

God will bless your efforts. Resulting in more blessing once you have by faith quit the elements that are harming you.

[@visiblehuman3705]

Talking about religion as if it can **cure** people is insane. People can live happy lives without religion, let alone your specific religion. No need to act as if everyone else is diseased for not sharing your illogical set of beliefs.

[@pgsibilo]

Amen. A beautiful sermonn, not just for the young ones, but for everyone 💯💯💯❤️❤️❤️

[@davidclark573]

A good sermon if you do not care about the truth.

[@pgsibilo]

@@davidclark573 what truth?

[@davidclark573]

@@pgsibilo That Yahweh in the old testament is not the god that created the universe. Sorry to wake you up.

[@sadistksuffring1537]

@@davidclark573 how about that we have no evidence that any mystical being created the universe. The way you phrased that makes it sound like you believe in some other God. Sorry to tell you but we have no proof of any god that has ever been posited.

[@davidclark573]

@@sadistksuffring1537 No one has a clue how the universe came about. Those that do are just kidding themselves.

[@petermeyer6873]

The Lots-of-Dogs-lecture from 20:00 on is really worthwhile. I cannot but give this video a thumbs up! Lets all redistribute it as many times as possible to anyone, because anyone, not only those remotely in contact with statistics, really any grown up should be able to look right through it and detect the screaming errors. This is a "lecture" that could only be performed in front of a complete helpless audience. It would be interesting to track how many of those children will remember this particular nonsense long enough to hopefully see through it sooner than later. It may even serve as a tipping point to them.

[@Relies-t5v]

There was nothing wrong with the explanation, it was just simplified for children to understand, this is exactly what we observe in nature, everything is a top-down speciation proccess limited within each family kind, by dogs he meant canines in general, originaly two canines brought all the rest of them, and there has never been a case where a canine can become a non-canine regardless of how much time passes

[@Relies-t5v]

@@SillyMagoo What? there are at least 13 different definitions of the word "species", the most commonly used one refers to variations within a family/kind, for example the canine family has different species such as wolves, dogs, coyottes etc and those have sub-species too, and can interbreed with each other, but no canine can interbreed or become a non-canine

[@petermeyer6873]

@@Relies-t5v "There was nothing wrong with the explanation, it was just simplified for children to understand..." No and no, there are many errors in his presentation and I wouldnt bet on that he trimmed his presentation down for children - it is probably exactly how he misunderstands things. "...originaly two canines brought all the rest of them..." Are you referring to the 2 that are suppopsed to be made by god according to some tales? Its not necessary at all for a new species to spring from exactly 1 pair of parents. "...and there has never been a case where a canine can become a non-canine regardless of how much time passes" Evolution has allready outFOXed you.

[@ryanlipple6854]

I wish the narration was slower for children. Since it’s so fast, I won’t share this with my daughter who needs slower speech. Otherwise, it’s good information if one can ingest such rapid speech.

[@ib1ray]

You do understand that you can change the speed of the video right? Right?

[@jenns1483]

Definitely best argument I ever heard. Not 100% but pretty good.

[@thatguy2521]

We’ll it’s more of a couple of arguments put together in one video

[@elliot1784]

Seen Dr Kent Hovind?

[@jenns1483]

@Elliot sadly, I don't really go deep into religious conversation. I don't believe and don't really have enough knowledge on it. Plus, I'm more focused on other things. Religion is accepted, not being told.

[@hanshuijboom4017]

Hartelijk dank voor deze heldere en duidelijke uiteenzetting Verfrissend is dit geluid voor mij Moge het vele broeders en zusters helpen en vrijmoedigheid geven om open hier over te spreken God zij geprezen door deze video

[@quitetidy]

Genes are amazing. My kids are 4 years apart. My son was born with perfectly olive skin, though he is white And he tans perfectly and never burns, my daughter however, is pale and I have to put sunscreen on her. Their skin is so different!

[@seanmdanielson]

Who then are Satan's seed according to Gen 3:15? What does Gen 6:9 mean about Noah being perfect in his generations? Sounds to me like the human race was contaminated by Satan. 1John 3:12 tells us that Cain was of the wicked one (Satan's seed?). So Cain's seed mixed with Seth's seed except for the line of Noah, his wife and sons. Could one of the sons wives been from the line of Cain?

[@michaelg377]

Check out "What is the Serpent Seed doctrine?" at GotQuestions, that view has a lot of theological problems. Also consider 2 Peter 3:9 - "But God is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish, but for *ALL* to reach repentance" (2 Peter 3:9). Not "all but the seed of Satan/Cain," but for "All" to be saved. With respect, John 3:12 does not say that Cain was "Satan's seed," it says he "belonged to the evil one." Scripture does say plainly that Cain was Adam and Eve's "seed" and that God (not Satan) gave Cain to them. *"Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, “With the help of the Lord I have brought forth[c] a man.”"* (Genesis 4:1)

[@mommymccracken3452]

I would be more apt to share this amazing and easy to follow video if the title of it didn't scream "click bait." I would also love for my adult friends and family who see it not to approach it with a hardened heart right from the start. I would especially like to share this with my sister, V.P. of a community college in the south, a world traveler, who is raising 3 children without the knowledge or affections of Christ in their lives. One is entering college next semester, another is in her first year high school and the youngest starting middle. The lack of recognition for our creator is generational and I love them all dearly and want to share with them from this deeply intimate place of love grace and faith. Any recommendations or links on how to approach this conversation with her appreciated.

[@Burger14]

Just let them be, you sound cultish either the way you want to imprint your beliefs on them. Anyways I know you may get offended to read this but I doubt that with how old they are already and the stages they are at in life you will be able to change their beliefs. Especially when it’s about the Bible and how it’s more accurate than scientists today

[@mommymccracken3452]

@Burger14 thank you for the conviction in providing a perfect example of what I don't want to hear when I do bring it up with my sibling and reminding me what brought me to this video to start with... I asked for advise to share in love and faith and received, "let them be". With all due respect that's what I have been doing and the fact that their missing a beautiful relationship with their creator now and the burden their eternal souls will miss the joy and happiness of a heavenly after life is proving more and more difficult to "let it be." It appears your only responding to receive a reaction especially approaching name calling from the start and noting the offense.... by your definition here any form of conversation would be considered "cultish". 🤔 BTW I didn't truly convert till I was 27 so age really has nothing to do with opening your heart to receive God's love. 😊 although their ages range from 10 to 44 so I'm not sure what would be acceptable time table to be open minded enough to have a dialogue. 🤔

[@DavidHummel-cc4of]

Yes I understand this sentiment- dont have children myself, but i have at least one brother that, i just think, will never even begin to come to Christ. Another brother that is a believer and lover of Christ, yet his son is very hostile towards discussing the Good News of Jesus. Yet on this topic of aligning 'science' - whether real or the kind that Paul derided as 'falsely so called' that Science can be aligned with God's words. I know very little Hebrew, so when scholars say 'such and such word might have suffered bad translation from Greek or Hebrew to English, i tend to believe if the scholar can back it up. Within the first 4 or 5 chapters Genesis, God is describing how He took a rib from Adam to create Eve. Apparently, the word in Hebrew is most closely related to curve- as in DNA helix curve- In comparing scripture with scripture, one could do some rearch in another passage where it seems 'rib' does seem to be talking about the curvy bone from a chest area and see if the two 'curves' or 'bones' are translated from the same Hebrew word.. i speak of the passage, also in the old testament, that talks of ribs hanging from a bear's mouth as symbol for Israel tribe.

[@christineing9686]

Pray and ask God to soften their hearts. And open doors for communication about Him. Not just through you but through their everyday life and interaction with others as well. My best friend was saved at 23. It's NEVER too late. My aunt was saved at 80 :)

[@camilaco1605]

@@Burger14a good reminder to you, looks like it’s very much needed. None of us deserved to be saved, yet it is not about us but about who God is, He came to save us all, He did not come just for a few or for the better ones because we are all sinners equally! None of us deserved to be saved. God can still change hearts, if he was able to touch your heart and save you and do the same with me and all of us then He can still do that with the ones that don’t believe in him right now or are far away from his path.

[@IAMhassentyou-h5w]

God is amazing in every way! One day we see him and know forever!

[@pamelakingwell2155]

Thank you, Mr. Ham. God has brought me to this video. Thank you, God.

[@teajay8769]

Mr. Ham is a big liar. He just shamelessly makes things up. Believe me when I tell you this man is less a scholar than he pretends to be.

[@michaelg377]

@Just me You're begging the question of atheism. If God did guide him there, then what you're saying is false. Or, alternatively, maybe He even used that YT algorithm for His purposes. Do you have perfect knowledge of everything in the universe, everything in existence? If not, then the best you can rationally say is "I don't *think* God led you to this video." Likewise, if you're honest, as an atheist the best you can say is "I don't *think* that God exists" - thus logically, you're not an atheist - you're an agnostic. Honest atheists are agnostics, not atheist.

[@michaelg377]

@Just me " " He even used that YT algorithm for His purposes" - Baseless assertion!" Again, do you have perfect knowledge of everything in existence in the universe? No? Then you can't rationally say that possibility is false - the best you can *rationally* say is "I *think* that is false." Right? Are you being rational? ""as an atheist the best you can say is "I don't think that God exists"" - Which is what atheism IS. Agnosticism relates to KNOWLEDGE." Oh, so in your knowledge you are an agnostic? You just don't know, that means there is a possibility that God exists in your worldview?

[@michaelg377]

@Just me That ignores evidence of existential reality though. Again, you live perfectly in line with everything God said about you as a valuable human being made in His image and likeness (see above), and perfectly in contrast to your own "meaningless evolved protoplasm" atheistic worldview - and that is *clear evidence* you can see in yourself. *If you're an atheist (God doesn't exist) or an agnostic (you "just don't know") then why are you living perfectly in line with the God you reject?* You're just throwing that evidence out because it doesn't point to the conclusion that you want to be believe in. *"If a man so much as looks at another woman with lustful intentions, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart"* (Matthew 5:28) *"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"* (Romans 3:23)

[@michaelg377]

@Just me The fact that you say you're an atheist (doesn't believe in God) and agnostic (just "doesn't know") but then you choose to live perfectly in line with everything Scripture says about the image and likeness of God in you is powerful evidence you can see in yourself that your atheistic and agnostic worldview are false biases, and that He exists and created you. I'm showing you existential evidence you can see in yourself my friend. You say "I don't know if there is a god or not but I don't BELIEVE in one," meanwhile you choose to perfectly corroborate God's existence while living in contrast to your own "chemical reaction" version of our origins. It's a beautiful thing if you honestly think about why you do the things you do as an atheist. *"So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."* (Genesis 1:27) *"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"* (Romans 3:23) *"But God showed His love for us by sending His Son to die for us while we were still sinners"* (Romans 5:8) *"Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God"* (John 1:12) When you say "God... places ZERO value on human beings" what are your thoughts on these verses above? He made you in His image and likeness, you rebelled against Him, and He paid your fine in His own blood in your place for free because He loves you, and just for "receiving Him" He offers you eternal life and to bring you in as one of His own children. How do you reconcile your statement ("ZERO value on human beings") with these four verses?

[@terrymoore6859]

Thank u God not that we deserve truth but people keep searching like their suppose to and it always begins and no end with u. Thank u again love Terry

[@b3beta]

Thank you for your sharing this video. May God bless you abundantly

[@souljarain17]

Praise our lord and saviour Jesus Christ. God bless everyone who reads this. Amen 🙏🏼

[@ClosedDoor35]

This was absolutely mind-blowing! Several things I had accepted as reality, torn apart in 57 minutes with plenty of evidence to back it up. Some things I feel stupid for not figuring out earlier. I gotta show this to the rest of my family.

[@davidwelch5186]

What evidence? even if the theory of evolution is false, it still doesn’t prove the Yahweh is true..

[@thatguy2521]

❤️❤️❤️hope you the best

[@Notarabbit911]

And, even if there is a higher being that created everything, it still wouldn't be your biblical god

[@thatguy2521]

@@Notarabbit911 how would you even know that wouldn’t the thing that knows and creates everything know about the sentient things they created and wouldn’t they want to interact with them

[@thatguy2521]

@@davidwelch5186 because theirs evidence that Yahweh is real that hasn’t been disproven

[@nickroberts-xf7oq]

I love the way Brother Ken breaks things down. 👍 💯 % ✅️ 🎯 📖 ❤️

[@nickroberts-xf7oq]

@Oldtinear No, you've been brainwashed by the education system to believe in the religion of evolution for which there is zero truth !!!!!

[@michaelg377]

@@Oldtinear The laws of logic are immaterial in nature, and exist outside of your material chemical reaction brain - yet your chemical reaction brain has to obey those immaterial laws. This is one example that refutes your atheistic materialist worldview my friend. A worldview that can't explain things that it should be able to explain if it were true (ie. a materialistic worldview having to explain immaterial phenomena) is a faulty worldview. This is a problem for Atheistic Scientific-Naturalism. It's not a problem at all for a biblical worldview. *Do you believe there was a "Big Bang" and all of math, logic, and science happened?*

[@michaelg377]

@@Oldtinear That's because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and that nothing created everything accidentally with mathematical precision for no reason - *there was a "Big Bang" and all of math, logic, and science happened - Atheist Magic.* Can you see the problem? "Where do laws come from? From sentient beings." - *Not from human beings, no, unfortunately, Jupiter will continue to revolve around the sun whether you "think up" a rule for it or not.* The immaterial laws of logic and nature are immaterial mathematically precise realities that exist outside of your chemical reaction brain my friend. But yes, they did come from a sentient being - God created those immaterial mathematically precise laws on which your entire worldview ironically relies. *"This is what the Lord says: ‘If I have not made my covenant with day and night and established the laws of heaven and earth..."* (Jeremiah 33:25) "Where do the properties of matter come from? We do not know. We do not even know that the 'come from' anything or anywhere." We do know - it just can't come from a Naturalistic (atheist-friendly) source because those laws of nature contradict each other and break down at certain points. Consider the 1st law of thermodynamics which doesn't allow energy to come into existence from nothing, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics which doesn't allow it remain usable forever - so if our universe can't have a beginning from nothing, and it can't have just existed forever, then how can you logically explain the beginning of our universe? You can't. Have you ever wondered why Atheistic-Naturalists have to invoke such wild and sci-fi sounding theories to sustain their "natural" (atheistic) beliefs on our origins? *Infinite* alternate universes, an *eternal self-existent* singularity, alternate unobservable metaphysical laws of nature, *pre-existent* phenomena... they have to attribute supernatural qualities of God to "nature" in order to "naturally" explain our origins. This is the Atheist's Natural-Supernatural (!) worldview. It's an internally inconsistent and self-refuting belief system... the only way for nature to create itself is if nature is *pre-existent - like God.* *"The evidence of God... has been clearly seen since the beginning in all that has been created, so they will have no excuse"* (Romans 1:20)

[@michaelg377]

@@Oldtinear My friend, you just don't get it. By reducing immaterial laws like the laws of logic which exist outside of your chemical reaction brain to "properties of matter" (!) you are making a simple logical category error. Otherwise, *what is the chemical composition of logic?*

[@davidclark573]

The discovery of dinosaurs living 250 million years ago and finding insects in sap over 400 million years old blows the Genesis creation story out of the water.

[@joejohnson8656]

Dude, keep listening. I think you missed a ton. There’s plenty more for you to read and watch

[@davidclark573]

@@joejohnson8656 People who do not question the bible are the ones missing a ton. Answer this: Why would the god that created the universe kill Aarons two sons for the menial infraction of not preparing the alter properly for people to donate gold? Time for you to read the bible

[@francescoc9976]

​@@davidclark573 Where did you read this... are you able to trace it?

[@beckycantrell5547]

@@francescoc9976 read Leviticus 10. They burned incense but God had not ask them to do it

[@beckycantrell5547]

They offered strange fire to God. I’m not sure what is meant by “not preparing the alter properly “