Darwin’s Theory of Evolution Is FALSE (It’s Time to Replace It) | Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson

Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson presents "Replacing Darwin: The New Origin of Species" live from the Creation Museum. For more info, read his newly released book: AnswersBookstore.com/replacing....
For 150 years, Darwin’s idea of evolution has dominated the scientific community. It has also directly assaulted the text of Genesis. Could modern scientific discoveries overthrow Darwin’s reign? Watch this talk to find out how recent findings are rewriting a century and a half of “settled science.”

[@winstonshipman8734]

Darwin said himself , that if we did not discover fossils that showed a "Common species" between groups his theory would be wrong. They never did. His theory was developed as they were digging in the tar pits and finding " more primitive species of existing species". He presumed as they kept digging they would see the species come together . He thought they all came from a common species. We never did find that "Common species" so he himself would have said his theory was wrong.

[@walkergarya]

Liar. We have found thousands of transitional species.

[@korbendallas5318]

I never heard about this "common species" before, probably because I only look into today's Theory of Evolution. Creationists for some reason focus on a very old and obsolete theory, that no biologist is interested in.

[@jounisuninen]

@@walkergarya Why nobody can see those fossilized transitional species in publicity? Paleontologists say that the fossil chain of whale evolution is the most perfect one we have. The origin of whales has been called a “poster child for evolution”, where it is believed that around 55 million years ago, certain land mammals lost their hind-limbs and evolved into fully aquatic whales. The vertebrate and whale expert Phillip Gingerich states that we only have “fossils illustrating three or four steps that bridge the precursor of whales to today’s mammals.”

[@tylerreed3754]

@@walkergarya No, you haven't.

[@walkergarya]

Anchiornis ~155 million years ago Although many feathered dinosaurs are known, Anchiornis is the first to be found that probably predates Archaeopteryx. The feathers were "not obviously flight-adapted" (Hu et al, 2009). Archaeopteryx ~145 mya The famous Archaeopteryx had feathers and was probably capable of at least gliding, but it also had dinosaur-like teeth, claws, and a long bony tail. Its skeleton was "almost identical to that of some theropod dinosaurs" (Coyne, 2009). Precisely how closely related it is to the main line of bird evolution remains the subject of controversy (Xu et al, 2011). Confuciusornis ~125 mya Confuciusornis had a bird-like tail and a pygostyle, which is a feature of modern birds. It retained dinosaur-like claws (Prothero, 2007). It had strong shoulder bones, but was probably not capable of true flapping flight (Senter, 2006). It may have glided. It is the earliest known bird with a toothless beak, but other lineages continued to have teeth for a long time. Sinornis ~110 mya? Sinornis "still had teeth, an unfused tarsometatarsus, and an unfused pelvis" (Prothero, 2007) but resembled modern birds in other ways, with reduced vertebrae, a flexible wishbone, a shoulder joint adapted for flying, and hand bones fused into a carpometacarpus (Prothero, 2007). Vorona ~80 mya? The legs of Vorona are all that we have (Benton, 2005), but they show a combination of bird characteristics and maniraptoran (dinosaur) characteristics (Forster et al, 1996). Ichthyornis ~80 mya A strong flyer, Ichthyornis was very nearly a modern bird (Prothero, 2007), and yet it still had teeth. @@tylerreed3754

[@Suresh-bx1iv]

I am very happy to hear the voice of the bible is true

[@RandallWilks]

The bible is neither a source of morality nor a truthful account of history. The Jewish Tanakh (adopted by Christianity as the "Old Testament" was written by Hebrew Priests and scribes during the Babylonian Exile (597 BCE to 538 BCE, a factual event) and shortly thereafter. It was influenced by Mesopotamian legends and mythology.

[@vishaldive3777]

Bible is the world of God. Sufficient, authoritative, infallible, complete revelation of God. Through out history many have tried to disprove, dismissed the Bible through history, evolution, sociologically but so far they haven't been successful.

[@kylonsanders4139]

@@RandallWilkswe’re living in 2023 after the death of who?

[@tauqeer_]

​@@kylonsanders4139God apparently

[@juanitoatiwag4074]

Look at Genesis 1:1_31 the origin of life is there . That didn't exclude science

[@truthgiver8286]

also that the sun and stars orbit the earth not very scientific at all

[@aeronblitz9347]

​@@truthgiver8286 yeah, Bible never claims so.

[@truthgiver8286]

@@aeronblitz9347 I did not say the bible did. Answers in Genesis the people who produced this page make these claims. I'm pleased you know it's false.

[@dimitrismanolopoulos5499]

@@truthgiver8286 when and where they made such claims?

[@dongeonmaster8547]

31:24 The number of species didn't increase. The knowledge of species increased.

[@Thisismetman]

I🎉pup

[@dongeonmaster8547]

30:24 Asking how we might "design" creatures to live in specific environments based only on superficial surface features like the color of the fur ignores the internal physiological flaws of these species "design" that make sense evolutionarily but not if they had an intelligent designer.

[@vishaldive3777]

As every species has flaws because we live in a fallen world, a curse world, universe by GOD, so every species might have some flaws. But still its intelligently designed by God.

[@rockmusicvideoreviewer896]

@@vishaldive3777 give me a break. you have o proof of this god thing

[@rockmusicvideoreviewer896]

@Darwins Myth U only made assertions. With no evidence to back it up.

[@adelinomorte7421]

@@vishaldive3777 ***well ! of course the intelligently designer that oversees the the evolution is GOD using the OMNIPOTENCE that only God have.***

[@xX0IRIDIUM0Xx]

Excellent research Nathaniel. Eye thinks evolution is laughable. 😵

[@dunneyd]

Eye like the one about the virgin Mary getting pregnant lololol and, wait for it...the resurrection.lolololololol

[@thecrew777]

I really enjoyed this. The dominant recessive stuff I learned in Junior High but I didn't get as far as basic basic DNA information: like, there's more there than we can account for and we don't know what the information is. (You guessed it, I went through high school many years before 1997). It's like putting a map at the end of your nose and describing what you see, then pulling the map back an inch, then 6 inches, etc. The picture gets fuller, richer. There is an amazing amount of information there, we also have a good reason to continue to look. I sent this off to my geeky grandson who wants to become a theoretical physicist. I think he might be able to come up with a few challenging questions after he understands it fully, so I sent him the link to the book as well.

[@eastelamonius4001]

When he said I AM A CEEATIONIST, I was out ASAP. And deleted.

[@luisdasilva3879]

Creation is clear like water . God ,The Greatest Architect . Great video 💯

[@adelinomorte7421]

*** "you are false, you have to be replaced" those words of mine and yours, has the same power, or no power at all.***

[@selvinaguilar7767]

Great presentation!!

[@garywalker447]

A pack of lies is not a "great presentation".

[@vishaldive3777]

​@@garywalker447 As a christian we don't BELIEVE the magical theory of evolution.

[@j-robertdrouin4871]

Add to your statistics that many Catholic priests agree with Darwin and disagree with the Old Testament. I asked some of them why they used Old Testament stories in their Sunday sermons. And the answer was: These stories serve to teach the values presented by the Bible. Their veracity doesn't matter.

[@ianmonk6211]

some times we got to get to the crux of the matter. stop pontificating stop changing the definition of science which is observing some thing testing and repeating it We do not observe evolution happening today and have never seen it in the past. we cannot repeat it or test it There you go it's a theory that cannot be proved scientifically.

[@eddyeldridge7427]

How do you explain agriculture then? You not understanding the science doesn't mean its not true.

[@Rico-Suave_]

Watched all of it 1:01:57

[@korbendallas5318]

Funny how the title is the very first thing that's misleading. If only you lot could find honest arguments.....

[@somenygaard]

Is it painful to be so intentionally blind and deny a creator?

[@korbendallas5318]

@@somenygaard Are you talking to me? I'm not denying anything. Why should I believe a "creator" exists?

[@dongeonmaster8547]

26:52 Assuming the numbers are accurate and Darwin only had 15%of the evidence his theory would still be correct. Not because of what he thought and wrote in his book but because of ongoing science that has accumulated evidence even before Darwin wrote his book to the current day. Darwin didn't have the whole picture. The scientific community recognizes that. This guy knows this. Modern Evolutionary Theory goes beyond Darwin's foundational work. Talking about Darwin as if his work is the only thing evolutionary theory is based on is disingenuous from any scientist who clearly knows better.

[@ianmonk6211]

only evolution scientists believe their lies. Real scientists disagree with evolution because of the lack of evidence.

[@buddyforbes7157]

I think the emphasis was that even though many today recognize a lot of things have been discovered (DNA, the fossil record or what's missing) and we know a ton more than Darwin, they still cling to his outdated beliefs, not because of evidence but because it touches on almost faith-like reliance to his theories. They want to believe despite Darwin's basis on so little and now, we have the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[@korbendallas5318]

@@buddyforbes7157 Who clings to what now? It's _creationists_ who talk about Darwin all the time, not biologists.

[@wmgthilgen]

OK, I'm over the age of 73 and have had over the year's, access to numerios dictionaries. And though I've only had to look up the word "THEORY" once in my earily youth. I was forced to look it up again. After this and a couple of other video had stated that some one THEORY is false. And found that what I had learned so many year's ago in regards to the word "THEORY". still applied. These indivduals who making these claims, apparent have never looked up the word. And in a sense though they are not referring to what they believe is actually a THEROY, they are simply lambasting someone else's. Which gives their theroy less credit of being possible than the ones they are claiming to be false.

[@michaelgarrow3239]

Man- I was going to say the same thing more or less, but you said it so well. 👍

[@truthgiver8286]

Yes but Darwin's theory of evolution is based on available evidence Nathaniel Jeanson's is based on magic.

[@wmgthilgen]

@@truthgiver8286 THEORIES are only derived from the minds of those who based on the available evidenced at the time it's available and continues to be a THEORY until such time as someone else using new found evidence that differs from the original comes on with a new THEORY. THEORIES are just that, THEORIES. THEY either stay THEORIES or become FACT'S. Which usually at some point in the future are altered when new evidence is provided to be FACTUAL. Thus, there are only THEORIES and no such thing as FACTS. Using Arithmetic, one and one equal two and that's a fact. However Arithmetic is just one of many forms of Mathematic's. When another form of Mathematic's can prove that one and one equal something other than two. WHICH one do we take as factual. Based on one's agenda, which is generally based on funding. Fact's can and are altered to fit the agenda. So basically one and one doesn't equal two and yet it does. WIth the population at or about almost 8 billion people. All having simular but vast different agenda's. There are only theories and never facts.

[@truthgiver8286]

@@wmgthilgen Theories are based on the available evidence and can be disproved but do not become fact. They can gather more evidence to support them but they remain theories because some new evidence might be found tomorrow that changes everything and theories are amended or disproven depending on the evidence. The theory of Evolution is accepted by 97% of the scientific community. There is no scientific evidence for creation so it is not an accepted theory.

[@royleftwich8579]

B n n8

[@jeremyjasonpage5863]

Amen brother 🎉

[@georg7120]

What is the evidence for creation?

[@tylerhall95]

The creation.

[@georg7120]

@@tylerhall95 So there is no creation.

[@tylerhall95]

@@georg7120 right, just cumulative advance by continued accident??

[@georg7120]

@@tylerhall95 Sounds more reasonable than creation.

[@tylerhall95]

@@georg7120 reasonable? You believe you are an accidental cluster of cells and electricity with objectively no purpose. There is no good, bad, right, wrong, happiness, misery, intelligent, or ignorant - purposelessness. Yet here you are on a KZbin forum arguing the nature of reality with a stranger. I guarantee almost nothing about your life suggests that you believe that, yet you think you’re reasonable? That’s a wild take.

[@tibbar1000]

Did I miss his point? What conclusion did he reach that seriously challenged the theory of evolution? Creatures do evolve. Personally, I never saw this as a threat to religion, but if I really wanted to attack evolution I think it’s weakest component is the insistence on a single origin for all life, but even if that were false I think the theory has been valuable .

[@theamazingshazbob]

Changes within a kind where a kind splits into a variant of a kind has to do with genetic bottlenecking, like inbred cheetahs are of the cat kind, but don’t gain genes, they lose them. Losing genes causes problems, which is not the same as evolution. It’s like if a human family starts losing their feet due to inbreeding, the Darwinists would say, “they’ve evolved to not suffer from foot fungus.” The alleged hybrids of species are actually capable of reproduction, the whole thing boils down to this: the biblical concept of kinds is technically more accurate than species, and ESPECIALLY more accurate than “race” which may have been the objective of darwinists. To create the pretext for “sub-humans” who are only 3/5ths the human of a white dude.

[@tylersburden2593]

How has the theory been valuable ?

[@tibbar1000]

@@tylersburden2593 if you are serious and want a polite discussion I will answer you tomorrow after I get some sleep. If you want to start a fuss I will ignore you tomorrow after I get some sleep.

[@tylersburden2593]

@@tibbar1000 all discussions I have are polite my friend. I'd like to hear your opinion. Additionally, I think evolutions weakest point is found in genetics. There is not a single incident or reference to a situation where matter produced completely new information from nothing.

[@ianmonk6211]

@@tylersburden2593 it is valuable to the liars posing as scientists earning money from our taxes To those of us who don't buy the lies and work for a living it's an expensive waste of our money

[@dongeonmaster8547]

25:16 "Darwin's writing a book many people consider the bible" What an ignorant statement. Or, more likely not ignorant but intentionally misleading.

[@IAMhassentyou]

Amen AIG 🙏

[@jeremyjasonpage5863]

God made animals people and plants 😢

[@korbendallas5318]

Evidence?

[@IAMhassentyou]

Do everything without grumbling or arguing, so that you may become blameless and pure, “children of God without fault in a warped and crooked generation.” Then you will shine among them like stars in the sky as you hold firmly to the word of life. Philippians 2:14-16 The unfolding of your words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple. Psalm 119:130 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” Matthew 4:4

[@korbendallas5318]

But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:18

[@IAMhassentyou]

For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Hebrews 4:12 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path. Psalm 119:105

[@korbendallas5318]

But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:18

[@RandallWilks]

GENESIS - THE BIG LIE! TRUTH is determined by EVIDENCE, not by what anyone says and not by words in an old book. GOD WAS A TREMENDOUS INVENTION AND A GREAT BENEFIT TO MANKIND. Before man created God, they felt really stupid. Confronted with any question, all they could say was "Gee, I don't know" and no matter how hard they thought, they couldn't think of a better answer. Then someone came up with the brilliant idea of God. It was wonderful, it obviated the need to think about anything. The answer could always be "Gee, I don't know, it must be God." Problem solved. The "God concept" alleviated the need to think about mundane things and they could concentrate on serious questions, like "How many bibles can we sell?" There was no incentive for human intellect to advance beyond that of ancient goat herders. Religions need to perpetuate ignorance in order to preserve their influence. It is quite likely that the "god concept" originated with Homo erectus as an explanation for thunder.

[@spamm0145]

The most sophisticated sequence of code embedded in your DNA is Gods signature. A single cell in your body has the complexity of a city like New York, this is one cell out of billions, each cell has trillions of moving parts, a Boeing 747 has a measly 5 million. A human genome has 3.5 billion parts and is sequenced with extreme precision and the odds of these bits of INFORMATION arranging themselves by chance are higher than all the molecules in the universe. DNA is subject to genetic degradation and this will cause the extinction of man in ten thousand years. Going back thousands of years means humans were superior in every way, strength, resistance to disease, natural intelligence, etc. Man has only been here thousands of years and genetic degradation proves we can't have been here millions of years. You may want to study some of history's geniuses if you think intellect was limited due to goat herders. Sir Issac Newton for example, believed he was unlocking the secrets of God's work and remained deeply religious all of his life. Many of the greatest most famous academics were believers of God and as science reveals more about our world the evidence mounts that it was designed. You seem bitter, resentful, and closed minded by your world view. Research the unbelievable complexity of everything that makes you a human being. Your mind and body processes more instructions than a modern day super-computer that takes up floors of a building and requires millions of watts, the creator managed this for you with just 20 watts.

[@vishaldive3777]

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if, at bottom, there is no purpose, no design... nothing but blind, pitiless indifference," Dawkins famously wrote. On the other hand, if atheism were correct, humans would be the byproducts of blind forces which had no intention to produce rational creatures. From evolutionary philosopher Daniel Dennett’s perspective, “the human mind is something of a bag of tricks, cobbled together over the eons by the foresightless process of evolution by natural selection.”2 But if our minds were not designed, why would we trust them? In a happenstance evolutionary world we would not expect our minds to guide us to truth. As C.S. Lewis recognized, “… the [evolutionary] Myth asks me to believe that reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of a mindless process at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. The content of the Myth thus knocks from under me the only ground on which I could possibly believe the Myth to be true. If my own mind is a product of the irrational … how shall I trust my mind when it tells me about Evolution?”

[@jounisuninen]

"TRUTH is determined by EVIDENCE, " - Good! When are we going to get evidence for evolution? And please don't push the intraspecific variation we all can see. It has nothing to do with evolution. Show us empirical evidence for a new unforeseen species emerging from some existing species.

[@throckmortensnivel2850]

Dr. Jeanson, you're going at this backwards. Darwin didn't just challenge the current view (of his day), he presented a theory to replace the current view. It doesn't matter what people think. In the end, a theory will stand or fall on it's merits. The reason Darwin's theory stands is that is is remarkably successful at explaining the organisms of the world. But you don't have to debunk it. All you have to do is present a theory that is more successful. People may take some time to accept it (as they should), but if it is successful at explaining the organisms of the world, it will ultimately succeed. The problem you have is just saying "God did it", is not an explanation. It's a statement backed by nothing. Develop your theory, then present it.

[@YECBIB]

Whackadoodle 🤦‍♂️✝️

[@jounisuninen]

"The reason Darwin's theory stands ..." - The problem is, it doesn't stand anymore. Look how writes @brunobastos5533 He is clearly evolutionist who is trying to recover from the evolution delusion. "All you have to do is present a theory that is more successful." - What do you mean by "more" successful? Evolution theory is a total farce. Any theory is more successful - even Father Christmas.

[@korbendallas5318]

@@jounisuninen You have a lot to learn about the matter. Until you do, please elaborate on your fantastic claims. What evidence do you have?

[@jeremyjasonpage5863]

God loved Darwin enough to die for him!

[@korbendallas5318]

Evidence?

[@IAMhassentyou]

For the word of the Lord is right and true; he is faithful in all he does. Psalm 33:4 Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them. John 7:38 In God, whose word I praise- in God I trust and am not afraid. What can mere mortals do to me? Psalm 56:4

[@korbendallas5318]

But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:18

[@IAMhassentyou]

Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you. James 1:21 So is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it. Isaiah 55:11 He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your ancestors had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord. Deuteronomy 8:3

[@IAMhassentyou]

@@PhilipK635 did you see why that was spoken in the Psalm? Because that is what they had done to the Jewish people. So he is calling for "an eye for an eye." God to do to them what they did to the Jews.

[@korbendallas5318]

But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves Numbers 31:18

[@IAMhassentyou]

@@PhilipK635 the OT was eye for an eye. The NT is not.

[@IAMhassentyou]

@@korbendallas5318 John 3:16

[@IAMhassentyou]

@@korbendallas5318 The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God endures forever. Isaiah 40:8 As for God, his way is perfect: The Lord’s word is flawless; he shields all who take refuge in him. Psalm 18:30 Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. Matthew 7:24

[@larryclark9380]

Outstanding lecture. Looks like I have another book to read.

[@PJToxophilus]

That makes 2

[@IAMhassentyou]

The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God endures forever. Isaiah 40:8 As for God, his way is perfect: The Lord’s word is flawless; he shields all who take refuge in him. Psalm 18:30 Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. Matthew 7:24

[@korbendallas5318]

But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:18

[@donnafletcher5386]

Darwin himself went back to the Bible on his deathbed. Unfortunately, his ideas caused years of controversy. Reality is one has to want to know God the Creator and God will reveal himself. Those that want to oppose God's plan will do it in any form they want to. So in reality the people of that time when Darwin spoke up his ideas weren't forced to believe what he claims. It just goes to show who brought into his falsehoods weren't wanting to connect with God the Creator. Darwin misunderstood the difference between kind and species. That's how this got really messed up and non-god-fearing people brought into it.

[@garywalker447]

No he did not. His family who was with him said he NEVER recanted. Lady Hope NEVER saw Darwin on his death bed.

[@RandallWilks]

*WHY DO CREATIONISTS LIE - About Charles Darwin?* Well, for one thing, he has been dead for 130 years and they feel pretty safe in doing so. For another, despite the initial success and popularity of his book "On the Origin of Species" not too many people read it these days and they can misquote and fabricate to their heart's content. While no creationist would be caught dead actually reading the book, creationist websites have a ready supply of misinformation available to those whose lack of integrity allows them to do so. Darwin actually made it easy for creationists to lie and distort what he said. One whole chapter of his book was devoted to possible objections to his theory. It was Darwin's teaching method to propose a contrary argument, then reason why it was not a valid objection. Creationists, however, would quote mine the first part and omit Darwin's reasoning since it didn't suit their agenda. They would use his proposed objections to claim he had doubts about his own theory. Some creationists are so dishonest as to resurrect a bogus claim from 100 years ago that Darwin recanted his theory on his deathbed. To their credit, Answers in Genesis (AiG) has advised against using that claim since it is so clearly bogus. Nonetheless, I predict there are those so completely lacking in integrity that they would stoop to resurrecting it. The main reason why creationists attack Charles Darwin to the total exclusion of the hundreds of thousands of scientists who have published their work in peer reviewed scientific journals is that he is the face they can put on evolution. They symbolically disinter his body and use it as their whipping boy. Since their belief system hinges on authority figures, they assume those engaged in science do as well and they focus on Darwin in the assumption that he is regarded as some supreme authority. Authority in science comes not from a person, but from the evidence. *Truth is established by EVIDENCE, not by what anyone says.* It would not matter whether someone's name was Albert Einstein, Stephan Hawking or Richard Feynman, if those scientists could not produce evidence to support their ideas, they had NOTHING, and they knew that very well. If newcomers to science do not know that to start, they had best learn quickly. Pretending to know something you don't is a severe liability in science. However, pretense is part and parcel of every religion known to man. Science is not a fiat from some 'authority', nor is it someone's musings. It is a body of work that is repeatedly confirmed and examined by others doing similar work. The authority in science is the evidence itself..

[@RandallWilks]

Thank you Donna, for proving my prediction correct.

[@jeremyjasonpage5863]

Darwin suffered after his daughter died 😢❤

[@thecrew777]

Who doesn't?

[@brunobastos5533]

for record Darwin theory is no longer the one that scientists use and for long time , unlike creationists, science is always looking for the best explanation

[@dwight3555]

And the best explanation is that we're all descendants of magical monkeys that by random chance became humans without ever leaving a single trace of this "evolution" that is supposed to have taken millions of years at the minimum. Macro-evolution is a myth, mutations can never create new genetic material, and life seeks to recreate itself as faithfully as possible, not to change. The only ever examples of beneficial mutations that have been observed have come from the deletion of genetic information, no creation has ever been observed. It is impossible for anything living to, of its own, gain genetic information. The chances a random mutation would create a single valid protein are so astronomical they're inferior to 1 divided by the number of atoms in the universe, and then you have to consider that everything would need to generate and assemble itself at the same exact time to not die instantly. Oh and then there is the problem that transitive species don't exist. Crooks just find 2 skeletons and arbitrarily declare that one descended from the other with no evidence for it, obvious fakes like the Archeoraptor, the man of Piltdown or Nebraska man (a literal single pig tooth) are common examples. And even if macro-evolution could happen, for a random mutation in one individual to be propagated to the entire population it would require that it gives such an advantage that the entirety of the rest of the species die off except them and they mate with all the females, literally requiring an extinction event every single time a new beneficial mutation containing new genetic information is generated (which once again is not even mathematically possible and has never been observed). I'm not telling you to believe anything in the bible, I don't, but evolutionists are just as much a cult as they want you to believe Christianity ever was. They make up some baseless beliefs, and use censorship, lies, propaganda and faked evidence to make you join their death cult, whose only purpose is to convince you that you don't matter, that everything is random, and that we're all the exact same. It was literally created only to serve as a new foundational myth so that people working and dying in horrid conditions due to the Industrial Revolution wouldn't rebel. There is a reason all communists regimes (including the proto-communist "french" revolution) hate Christianity and their first action is systematically to brutally murder every priest they can find, because people who believe they have divine rights and come from something greater do not let themselves be enslaved so easily.

[@korbendallas5318]

@@dwight3555 I didn't get past the first sentence. Either you never looked into the ToE or you are dishonest about it.

[@jounisuninen]

" Darwin theory is no longer the one that scientists use ..." - This confirms what I write above ... 😂 Evolution theory is not a scientific theory because nobody even knows what it means.

[@korbendallas5318]

@@jounisuninen Biologist _do_ know, it's usually creationists who get it wrong.

[@brunobastos5533]

@@jounisuninen you don't know what it mean. Evolution still very alive what no longer is in use is the one that Darwin came with, because unlike the bible Evolution keep getting refined because of new discoveries like genetics . While bible never change is narrative even with zero evidence and changes with people taste

[@duncanvincent6078]

Lying liar lying.

[@davidbarnard1409]

Any Christian who can debunk the theory of evolution using real science would win a Nobel prize for science. How many Nobel Laureates are there amongst the creationist communities debunking evolution. None. That's your litmus test of whether the theory of evolution is legit. That's your litmus test of whether young earth creationism is legit.

[@gr3ywolf144]

The question is: IF a Christian/creationist were to come up with evidence to refute evolution; would they be taken seriously?

[@davidbarnard1409]

@@gr3ywolf144 if they can do it using science, then they would be taken seriously. Most religions make claims of how creation occured. The burden of proof to support an extraordinary claim lies with the religion . They must provide extraordinary evidence

[@nathandurant2825]

Not really because it's unfalsifiable, can't be proved therefore can't be disproved

[@davidbarnard1409]

@@nathandurant2825 creationism is disproveable. We know the earth isn't 6000 years old. We know humans didn't come from a garden . We know women don't come from a man's rib. We know humans share a common ancestor with the great apes. Science proves things which contradicts the claims of creationism. If creationism were true then science would confirm the wierd and wonderful claims of creationism

[@nathandurant2825]

@@davidbarnard1409 thank-you parrot, how much do I owe you

[@Sams911]

the beauty of being a Roman Catholic in this day and age, is we don't have to deny science to still worship and believe in God... This guy is delusional.. Darwin was right, and evolution IS God's creation at work.

[@YECBIB]

Whackadoodle 🤦‍♂️✝️

[@walkergarya]

@@YECBIB "Whackadoodle" does not refute anything, but it does show how lazy you are.

[@jounisuninen]

"we don't have to deny science to still worship and believe in God... " - Catholic Church has rejected God's word, as Bible tells God created everything in six days. Catholic Church is for moneymaking., not for manifesting God's word. Bible tells that sin came to world by Adam. Sin brought death to the world that was created without death. God also says that the last enemy that is going to be destroyed is death. Evolution means endless suffering and death. How can you combine God and evolution? Darwin was wrong and it is empirically proven. ”A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.” (Wikipedia) Question: How many times has evolution been successfully tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method? Answer: Zero times! No new life forms have ever appeared during the 100 years of empirical tests. Tens of thousands generations of test organisms have been used, simulating the assumed mammalian evolution millions of years back in time. In laboratories and breeding we can artificially produce only intraspecific variations. Science doesn't know evolutionary mutations that would've transformed a species to another species. All known mutations have been non-structural like sickle-cell mutation, lactose tolerance, wingless flies, antibiotic resistant bacteria, metabolic changes, colour changes etc. New life forms have never appeared. We indeed don't have to deny science to still worship and believe in God. Naturalistic science is only atheistic science, not all science. If we insist that science must not reject any theory in advance, methodological naturalism is not science at all. Naturalist research needs preconceptions like “there is no God”. Thus it breaks one of the most important principles in making science, namely the requisite for "no prerequisite". Holding a preconception as the guiding principle of study makes atheistic research a pseudoscience, an ideology or a blind type of religion. Creationist research has critical rationalism as the method of scientific research. Critical rationalism rejects no theory for ideological reasons. Whether a research points to a natural solution or to a supernatural solution it is accepted, based on evidence.

[@us3rG]

What's Jesus without Genesis? Lol

[@walkergarya]

@@us3rG Just a dude, like everybody else, if he was ever real in the first place.

[@oliviadumais1408]

At the beginning of the book, I was sad to find that even if you bring a lot of interesting and acurate knowledge to the audience, you missed a whole thing: You literally forgot to mention that Rosalind E. Franklin (a woman!!) is the person who took that first ever X-ray image of a DNA you put in your book p. 35... Plus, there is right away on the next page (p.36) a big picture of the two probably briliants, but still the ones ill-intentioned who laughed at the face of Rosalind E. Franklin (because she was very clever as a woman in science) and who just stealed her researchs right at the moment she died to put their name on it. By the way, I am a God's follower, but it is pretty clear that a lot of people who doesn't believe in Jesus and God's will yet won't either put their lives into God's hands by reading your book because a lot still think that (sadly, but I understand why): believing in God is pretty the same than keep women forgotten and in the background [this is the way religion has been shaped into the West: with Rome philosophy and the Catholic's massive movement; a thousand years of reign]. Sadly, you are not only a Western believer in God; but a man too. That mistake in your book just won't help.

[@zingaferd23]

Is it just me or does it seem like he basically described why evolution is a thing just to say it's wrong because Dawkins work is old and even though the science has made great advances in our understanding of genetics and instead takes his information from an 2000 year old book that contradicts itself constantly. Not only did he waist an hour of talking to say there was awnsers to questions in his book and if so why not mention one of these amazing arguments to show the content quality of the book unless there are no go points he just wasn't people to buy his book.

[@555atU]

The Royal Society in 2016, which Dawkins is a fellow, basically evolution needs a new theory. The more they dig, the more Darwinism is unlikely....like 1/10⁷⁷ unlikely.

[@sandrasaunders1815]

Obviously you will take some time ( like he said) to discover the truth in the book of Genesis. Blessing and peace to you.

[@RandallWilks]

@@sandrasaunders1815 We know the bible is not factual because the Genesis story is just that, a story. It has no more validity than any of the other 3000 or so creation stories that have sprung from the human imagination. More than that, the story of Israelite enslavement in Egypt, their subsequent escape under the leadership of a man named Moses and the conquest of Canaanite cities under Joshua, are total fabrication by Jewish priests and scribes during the Babylonian Exile. For the last 200 years, biblical scholars, Egyptologists and archeaologists have searched for any evidence for this biblical legend and found NONE. Most of those who have gone looking conclude that it never happened. Fundamentalist 'true believers' have paid vast sums of money to charlatans who will stoop to fabricating their own evidence such as "chariot wheels in the Red Sea".

[@kylehardy2235]

“One of his most controversial ideas is…” lol one sentence in and he’s already lied. Evolution isn’t controversial.

[@paulthompson9668]

That's the beauty of the scientific method. If you want to replace the theory of evolution with something better, present your hypothesis and test it then see if your test validates the hypothesis.

[@toma3447]

Yes it is. There is no proof. There is scientific proof that all the animals appeared at the same time.

[@kylehardy2235]

@@toma3447 Well let’s see your model?

[@paulthompson9668]

@@toma3447 I'm an open book. I completely embrace the scientific method. I've seen articles published in peer-reviewed journals providing evidence for the Theory of Evolution. I'd be interested in seeing the opposing view so I can compare and come to my own independent conclusion. Tom, please let me know what the scientific proof is that all the animals appeared at the same time.

[@kylehardy2235]

@@toma3447 Don’t let us down Tom.. link the journals…

[@nupsi6]

Why do these people embarrass themselves like this? I mean really ... Making a video that clearly demonstrates that they have literally no understanding of the topic they are trying to ridicule ...

[@thecrew777]

Not all topics are combative. This one is not. It's a request for challenging questions - if you were able to watch to the end.

[@nupsi6]

@@thecrew777 Ah, so you publish something, to a world wide audience, making bold claims in there ... and then you simply declare that it is not applicable to challenge what you said. Sorry no, that is deeply dishonest. You clearly demonstrate that you (or the author or that video) have very, very little understanding of the topics you try to ridicule. THAT is what I pointed out. And I have the right to do so. You published, I just reacted. You are the one who should have responded on a content level proving me wrong. Instead you just try to declare disagreeing opinions unwanted. That comes close to censorship. I would not be surprised at all if you suddenly remove my comment in a few days. Because you don't like it if people point out the nonsense you publish.

[@IAMhassentyou]

For the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding. Proverbs 2:6 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” John 8:31-32 You are my refuge and my shield; I have put my hope in your word. Psalm 119:114

[@korbendallas5318]

But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Numbers 31:18

[@IAMhassentyou]

@@korbendallas5318 The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God endures forever. Isaiah 40:8 As for God, his way is perfect: The Lord’s word is flawless; he shields all who take refuge in him. Psalm 18:30 Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. Matthew 7:24

[@oscargr_]

Harvard is embarrassed.

[@aeronblitz9347]

says you

[@fridge3489]

Because?