How Rock Layers & Fossils DISPROVE Evolution

Dr. Andrew Snelling's presentation reveals that the assertion made by atheists about rock layers and fossils disproving the Bible is misguided. In fact, rock layers and fossils actually disprove the theory of evolution.
Check out Dr. Snelling's new book, The Genesis Flood Revisited: answersingenesis.org/store/pr...
========
Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (Christianity-defending) ministry dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ effectively.
On our KZbin channel, you’ll find answers to your most pressing questions about key issues like creation, evolution, science, the age of the earth, and social issues. We desire to train believers to develop a worldview based on the Bible and expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas and their implications.
You’ll hear from top teachers such as Ken Ham, Bryan Osborne, Dr. Georgia Purdom, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson, Tim Chaffey, Bodie Hodge, Dr. Gabriela Haynes, Dr. Terry Mortenson, and more.
Please help us continue to share the gospel around the world: AnswersinGenesis.org/give

[@bar4d2ock]

Many religious people believe in evolution, u ain’t gotta ignore reality to be able to be religious

[@freemind..]

Bar4d2ock - _"u ain’t gotta ignore reality to be able to be religious"_ *True, but you DO have to ignore reality to believe in evolution.*

[@Eternal27]

The problem begins when we approach with everything to fit a certain interpretation. The best way is to approach with scepticism.

[@gregoswald7723]

You said, "The problem begins when we approach with everything to fit a certain interpretation." Which side are you on?

[@Eternal27]

@@gregoswald7723 We as Christians I don't think it is our obligation or mission to try to explain everything. For Christ did not send me (us) to baptize, but to preach the gospel-not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. 1 Corinthians 1:17 NIV

[@leehogg4624]

@@gregoswald7723 I didn't know being honest, truthful and correct had a side . maybe you need to rethink a little.

[@gregoswald7723]

@@leehogg4624 You said, "The problem begins when we approach with everything to fit a certain interpretation." There are , as I see it, three sides. 1. The Young Earth Creationists. 2. The Old Earth Religious. 3. The Old Earth non-Religious. Each "side" believes it is the honest, truthful and correct side. Each side can't understand how the other sides can possibly believe what they believe, when the Bible or the Science or both, make their position so clear. You originally said, "The best way is to approach with skepticism." But then later you responded with, "I didn't know being honest, truthful and correct had a side ." It appears that you are not looking at your own "side" with skepticism since you believe it to be "honest, truthful and CORRECT..." So I guess you think that others should look at their own side with skepticism, since they are not correct. Let me ask you a simple question: How do you know that the world and everything in it, wasn't created this morning, 5 minutes before you "woke up"? You, your house, your car, your friends, the Bible, all created this morning. Your "memories" were created this morning too, which make you believe you have lived for years and make you believe you "know" stuff. How do you know God didn't create you and the world this morning? God can do anything. In case you are wondering, I am on the side of the Old Earth Religious. I believe there is a very good chance there is a God and there is a very good chance that the Earth took millions of years to get to where it is today. And, I look at all three "sides" with skepticism.

[@leehogg4624]

@@gregoswald7723 that kind of question ....how do I know the world wasn't just created is a diversionary tactic. We can only know so much. But we can use our knowledge to give a best fit answer to many questions. For example, is the bible correct ? Is it factual , did Jesus exist and if so are the accounts verifiable . Straight away the bible is looking very shaky, that's without even doing any research. I have done research , I've looked at both sides and the case for Christianity looks worse as the scrutiny increases ....plus the other religions, are they correct and which denomination do you choose ?

[@lylecarbutt1478]

So I don't see how this video demonstrates what was said in the title. I listened to a man completely ignore plate tectonics. He also ignored the process of fossilization. He ignores the many different environments in the rock record. The desert environments are at odds with the idea of a global flood. The swamp, river and ocean environments above and below don't indicate a flood. The fact that marine organisms are found in marine rocks and terrestrial organisms are found in terrestrial rocks and not mixed also don't align with his presentation. There are many other other issues with his presentation and others have pointed those out.

[@taveshju8655]

But why are there no fossils of humans to assertion that men lived and we're buried along with all these creatures? Just curious

[@jrbalibay]

A likely cause is in Geneis 6:2 -- "that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose." It's interesting that there's a defined distinction between "the sons of God" and "the daughters of men". If the "sons" were men/human of Adamic descent, then why were they not plainly indicated as such? The term "sons of God" in Hebrew can contextually mean "angels"; the book of Job, written earlier than Genesis, also used the same phrase to mean the same thing (ref Job 1:6; 2:1). Like Adam, they were also directly created by God, but they're immaterial (without physical bodies) and were not created from the dust of the earth. God created creatures "according to their kind" (1:21, 24-25). Hence, angels and mankind were of different created kinds. And when God specifically commanded man (male and female) to "be fruitful and multiply (1:28)", it meant that the earth be populated by HUMANKIND through the physical union of man and woman. God's judgment (Gen 6:1-7) was against the wickedness -- NATURAL EVIL -- that He saw in what has multiplied across the earth -- "There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. (Genesis 6:4)". The "giants" were brought about by the union between "the sons of God" (angels) and "the daughters of men" (humans). This is an ABOMINATION to God because they are not part of His original created order. When God said, "I will destroy man..." (Gen 6:7), "destroy" meant "to erase", "blot out", "wipe away". Given the (lack of) human fossilization, I believe that God was literally dead serious in His judgment such that He "erased" / "blotted out" / "wiped away" any trace of the abominable HYBRID (angelic-human) population from the earth...except Noah and his family of seven people. God was specific about "the wickedness of man", and did not cite the same abomination to have occurred among all the other creatures, so they were not "erased". --- "For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly..." - II Peter 2:4‭-‬5 c

[@jamespriddy8275]

There are human fossils. We have The Ice Man of Italy, a complete mummy, and we have many prehistoric human skeletons in the Rising Star cave in South Africa.

[@macrontellsjoe9571]

You want to find human fossils in a seabed alongside fish fossils?

[@MarcusHitch]

@@jamespriddy8275 A mummified remain, whilst commonly referred to as a fossil, is not fossilised. Why don't we find fossilised humans amongst the dinosaurs? Why do we find no mammals at all before about 200 million years ago?

[@MarcusHitch]

@@macrontellsjoe9571 No, but wouldn't we find them on all levels of the fossil record. We don't. We find no mammals at all before 200 million years ago. If you'll forgive me, you seem to have fabricated a straw man here to avoid confronting the problem.

[@SK-bw2cv]

Psalm 9:10 And those who know your name put their trust in you, for you, O Lord, have not forsaken those who seek you.

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

@@mountkeen8701 Woody Allen had already died and met his Creator. His isn't an atheist anymore.

[@lizcutajar9352]

​@@newcreationinchrist1423 amen

[@lilboygthorns7373]

@@newcreationinchrist1423you’re assuming that Jehovah exists and is still alive today, which itself is a massive leap in logic

[@ronbernardi]

John 10:6 Jesus Identified as an intimate object. Jesus ahead of his time. Today males identify as female. Jesus identified as a door. Even asked people to knock.

[@seokjinniesunite4339]

Shut up

[@RutherfordBeehayze-kw2mz]

I've never been shown this level of detail concerning fossils...in school, any evidence, any fossils that contradict the grand narrative are simply left out of the text books. It's absolutely a crime against truth itself. I love this channel, thanks to everyone who's responsible for sharing the truth with the people. God bless you all.

[@Fordry]

​@All About Britain what was speculation exactly?

[@RutherfordBeehayze-kw2mz]

@All About Britain I didn't say anything at all in regards to that. I don't know why you're arguing with me and I can't seem to figure out what argument you're even making since we're talking about completely different aspects of the video.

[@RutherfordBeehayze-kw2mz]

@All About Britain Perhaps this might clarify what I'm saying. I was referring to the plethora of fossils dated tens of millions of years old, fossils of non extinct animals. We are to believe that a modern animal A somehow evolved from animal B, yet animal A is STILL present, walking, flying or swimming across the Earth today. If an animal evolved into a completely different species, then why do we still observe the original creature today? Somehow evolutionary pressure caused the sea sponge to evolve into a plethora of new species over millions of years, but we still have sea sponges.

[@Scorpion-my3dv]

It's nice to see through the fog of lies that evolution fills us with, isn't it?

[@SK-bw2cv]

Don't expect to get truth from the secular world!

[@frankruppert8692]

One question....with all the fossilized remains found throughout the world based on the Flood as described in Genesis, why are there no human fossils in you presentation. If the flood happened in such a rapid time frame, there would be millions of human fossil remains as well in these rock layers. Please help us understand!

[@frankruppert8692]

The Flood was brought down upon the Earth because of the behavior of humans as Punishment. The concept of Human time has no correlation to the concept of God's Time. Reasonable thinking would therefore deduce that there should be all types of creatures fossilized in the Rock layers including mammals and humans. The Great Flood theory "Has To" to coincide with the existence of man and mammals or the story of Noah and the Ark is just that a story! Realistically Noone knows the truth. How about we all look within, find what gives each of us " Individual Peace" and then move on. Respect the choice others have made if different from yours and let us all coexist in the here and now. Faith should be an individual choice. There has been enough blood shed in the name of Religion to last for the rest of eternity. No matter what your choice, Believe it, Live it but never make anyone else suffer in any way because of it!

[@jeffyorton3304]

It is so intellectually satisfying to hold to the biblical view of origins, sedimentary rock layers, and fossils. It is the only explanation that is logical and scientific... with all the physical evidence fully supporting it.

[@paulgarrett4474]

Is that a joke? It's hard to tell with creationists.

[@neptica9926]

If you know he’s a creationist why do you think he’s joking?

[@paulgarrett4474]

​@Neptica that's the point, he could be an educated person, sarcastically mocking the professional liar in the video. The claim in the original comment is almost too stupid to be made seriously, but with creationists it's so hard to tell.

[@betsieswartz]

It is kinda hard to tell with these nut jobs.

[@MarcusHitch]

I kinda want to know what @paulgarrett4474 asked... is this biting sarcasm, or wilful ignorance.

[@julieturcios41]

We used to visit my grandma in West Virginia, deep in the valley, she had a river and creek on her land and you could go to the banks and just about every rock you broke open had shellfish fossils in them.

[@julieturcios41]

@globalcoupledances geology of Virginia? 🤔 I have never found any while living in Virginia since living there for 12 years. But West Virginia a lot. It took us 5-6 hours to get there from Maryland, where I was raised.

[@mathusq9614]

@@globalcoupledances wikipedia

[@BobSmith-ew5oi]

Just shows millions of years ago that land an ocean and only natural to expect to see marine fossils.

[@hpinchen9451]

@@BobSmith-ew5oinot millions of years! Recent history…😏

[@danielvermeer3363]

​@julieturcios41 deep in the valley I believe was where they were found.

[@chrisreeves8037]

Our region in Texas receives 17 inches of rain a year, except one Sept when it poured 17 in a week. The river rose 20 ft and the current cut across the meander. The result was a 20 ft berm of silt. Later the county road crew cut a path through the fresh alluvial. I was surprised to see deposition akin to 1000 years, or such. The dirt particles had settled by specific gravity, but it looked like rock strata in our Science books which they called the geological record.

[@chrisreeves8037]

@@mountkeen8701 Obviously not, I was just saying that it was possible that the creationist POV had some credence. I say that because in Intro Bio the evolution chart was tacked up in the lecture hall. I noticed a missing link in every phylum. So I enrolled in Bible Intro. It took as much faith to believe the Word as evolution. Thanks

[@Jewonastick]

@@chrisreeves8037 "I noticed a missing link in every phylum"..... Yes and if that missing link was found you's end up with two new missing links. Whats your point?

[@chrisreeves8037]

@@mountkeen8701 I first learned about deposition HS Bio. The flood mentioned above was two years after this class. A couple more years pass, I enroll in Intro Bio and Geology (1978). These classes are in same hall; hence, the evolution chart on the wall. In short I am trying get folks to think, practice writing, and read others POV.

[@imafeltersnatch7634]

Considering that Texas is #1 in the Bible belt I'm not surprised at your ignorance

[@imafeltersnatch7634]

@@chrisreeves8037 Why not just encourage people to read scientific articles? POVs are pretty worthless at making sound decisions regarding the fields of science

[@antiHUMANDesigns]

And why do you think they don't show ALL of the fossils in the geological column? Could be possibly be that there's no way you could feasibly fit that many illustrations on a single page? Are you not aware of how crazy many different fossil species we have found? You say it's to "tell the story", which is sort of correct, but it's rather that they tend to show you the index fossils, or which major groups of life appear at those different layers, so they show you only examples of species from those groups.

[@shawntalley7676]

Nonsense.

[@prschuster]

This video is like a fairy tale for adults.

[@statutesofthelord]

It is strange that many Evolutionists will look at a 71% blue globe, and then assert that there isn't enough water to cover the whole world.

[@manuelwatts1864]

Not when the 29% results of continental plate tectonics prove otherwise ...

[@statutesofthelord]

@@manuelwatts1864 Manuel uses "prove" like it was fact. That is not being truthful, Manuel.

[@Specogecko]

Because there isn’t enough water…. What kind of logic are you using?

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

​@@manuelwatts1864 plate tectonics don't prove anything of the sort. The only thing they do is give atheists a theory that can just as easily be explained by the Flood of Noah.

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

​@@Specogecko perhaps you didn't know there's water underneath the Earth's crust as well. 🤔✝️🙏

[@williamthrasher8540]

As a young child, one the trips were we visited my grandparents farm which haft of it was in KY and the half in TN. My mother took me for a walk around the farm TN side, There was an area on a hill side that had many fossilized sea plants laying out top of the ground uncovered. So I ask Mom were these came from and she told me from Noah's flood. I have never had a problem believing the book of Genesis or the rest of the Bible.

[@bootycalled2780]

I have some heartbreaking news to tell you, there is no Santa Claus. Sorry I had to be the one to tell you, but now that you're 12 years old, I think it's time you started thinking like an adult. I'm sorry your mom didn't tell you, that was very unfair of her.

[@andretison9671]

As a young child, I remember waking up on Christmas morning and seeing lot of wrapped gifts under the tree. My parents told me Santas Claus brought them during the night, coming down the chimney. Many years later, I wondered how Santas Claus could come down the chimney since our house didn't have a chimney. But I saw in a book that same story, and I realized my parents told the truth! I'm 61 years old now and still believe in Santa Claus.

[@bootycalled2780]

@@andretison9671 it's a Christmas miracle

[@ashtonchretien]

@@bootycalled2780 you can mock God all you want. Ik he’s real, easy to prove and just as easy to prove how being a atheist is literally the most retarded thing imaginable. Thinking 1+1=3 is smarter then thinking nothing created everything 😂

[@keepthechange2811]

It's pretty obvious ain't it.

[@shparto1118]

The speaker pushes his narrative, manipulating the audience with big claims made over selected information, and draws conclusion based on false statements. To be honest, everything in this video is at best disengenuine - nothing in it disproves evolution. Watching this is a waste of time. To illustrate, everything listed at 09:00 is a fallacy and even so can still be disproven. For example, cetaceans went from aquatic to terrestrial and then back to aquatic - with changes that can be traced over time, or over "layers", but with key elements that link them back to certain classes. Also, you can't make up a story about what happened to an animal before it died when looking at its fossil and then make a claim based on that story, it's a false statement which leads to fallacy by definition. For instance, the two fish he showed - he assumes they were both alive and therefore rapidly buried. Well, they could've got stuck and died. Even if you assume rapid burial, it doesn't connect back to the flood, you can't flood a marine animal and a flood most certainly wouldn't bury the ocean in dirt. EVEN if it did, he only showed two examples out of tens of thousands. And finally, animals don't turn into fossils in the blink of an eye after being put in dirt or flooded with water. YOU can go out there and WITNESS evolution yourself - see TREY the explainer's "rapid evolution". If you go against evolution, you not only end up embarrassing yourself like this guy, but also going against your faith. Evolution can't be disproven - so what? Does it hinder your faith? Do you need to put your own logic between the Bible and God's creation in order to believe? Take God's word as he gave it to you even if the things you see seem to go against it, that's the point of faith.

[@user-ru7vo6xq7h]

Great comment and I agree with everything. However one point that you missed is that flooding and storms do generate sedimentation in the marine environment. Most preserved sedimentary rock that formed on the continental shelf was the result of the erosion/deposition of sediments from these storms. Flooding can also cause rivers to overflow which generates an influx of sediment into the marine.

[@harryfve5]

If the flood created all the layers, then why aren’t all the fossils in the same layer? Why are there so many different layers. It only lasted a few months. Where are the human fossils?

[@osmosis321]

There are SO MANY problems with believing the flood narrative as a literal historical event. It's a purity test of faith because you have to dismiss pretty much all of science to believe it.

[@filipskalic3376]

Because event like that was extremely violent . Mountains came down left and right. Genesis is oversimplified need to know basic, noahs point of view that doesn’t explain or describe all events surrounding flood timeline. Fallen ones (angels, aliens) lived in flesh with humans up that point and everything was destroyed. Noah doesn’t explain how earth was repopulated too , but as a believer in almighty God i believe He personally knows stuff about dna engineering ❤

[@user-ru7vo6xq7h]

@@filipskalic3376how would the arc survive if the flood was strong enough to collapse mountains?

[@Warriorking.1963]

So, where's your Nobel Prize? Disproving evolution is an automatic win mate.

[@Warriorking.1963]

@@UserRandJ So where's you peer reviewed papers, you Nobel prizes, your fame and fortune? And while you're at it, maybe you can explain how anything in modern Biology works as it's all based on evolution which you say is wrong? And what's you beef with evolution anyway? Even if you could prove it wrong, it doesn't get you any nearer to a supernatural creature who created the universe.

[@luis-sophus-8227]

@@Warriorking.1963 Yes it would. And your claims regarding "nobel prize peer reviewed papers fame and fortune" are merely appeals to authority. Even though this channel offers very biased information it's still a fact that supernatural exists

[@japowey8958]

what about coral? it can’t grow as large as it is now in only 6000 years. not to mention that coral only grows in VERY specific conditions being warm and calm water. idk about you but a great flood doesn’t sound warm or calm to me

[@japowey8958]

@@farplenorp yes it is because every single coral species alive today grows WAY TOO SLOW to be as large as the ones in big reefs today. if there was a flood it would have killed all coral worldwide so it would HAVE TO had grown to it’s size today in 6000 years. by every study done, disregarding christian studies because they start the study with bias and they all go against every other study done by real scientists, coral CAN NOT grow that fast. there’s a plethora of other reasons with the coral but i’m not going into that. the christian “science” book called “origins linking science and scripture” by ariel roth published in 1998 claims the fastest growing species of coral can grow from 26.4-43.2 cm per year. which he cites as from a 1968 paper called “comparative growth rates of some reef corals in the caribbean.” the max growth rate in that paper? 16.8cm a year. wildly different than roth’s claim and WAY to slow to support a 6000 year old earth. roth blatantly mis-cited the paper. now why would i trust other christian science books when it is so clear that they misrepresent information?

[@chainingsolid]

The catastrophic plate tectonics model would include a fair bit of warming up of the oceans so you would have more warm water in the past.

[@Prince_Az_Myr]

What are you talking about? Coral doesn't grow slowly, we've seen the great barrier reef grow bigger than recorded in 36 years.

[@japowey8958]

@@chainingsolid it would have to be calm. and it would have to be the PERFECT salinity. if there was a global flood i doubt it would be calm but even if it were all the water would mix causing the salinity of the ocean to fall because it is being diluted by fresh water. coral is VERY sensitive to a change in salinity and would die.

[@japowey8958]

@@Prince_Az_Myr citation needed. but yeah it probably has considering we’ve been polluting the ocean with sunscreen that destroys coral for decades it makes sense that the GBR has grown at a record pace recently since we’ve been switching to mineral sunscreen which isn’t harmful. but coral doesn’t grow fast it has a maximum rate of 2cm a year for non branching species which has been studied repeatedly. reefs just can’t be as big as they are if they started 6000 years ago.

[@olsmokey5256]

I'm in construction and we order crushed Lime stone from Gravel Quarries for various building projects and I see fossils in the stone ALL THE TIME

[@jeffreyk5734]

Those are Mud Fossils. A term that doesn't even officially exist in the Scientific Community yet. But they have to be aware of it and the concept by now. Lots of people have borrowed bits and pieces of Roger Spurr's extensive research with his having received no credit for it.

[@jonathonfrederick2062]

Starting watching this thinking it would be funny. I wasn't disappointed

[@1Ethiopia_Getahun.]

I learned about Christianity through (GodLogic Apologetics) channel and (Answers in Genesis) channel.Thanks God For the Blessings of these channels

[@Rydonittelo]

What bible translation are you reading?

[@SaintRegime]

Big fan of GodLogic. Testify is another great channel. InspiringPhilosophy has done some great work rebutting silly arguments against Christ. And some amazing longer videos. Can I recommend Mike Winger for in depth studies of the Bible and understanding the theology and teachings within? He's always very clear on when he speaks his own opinion. Has grace for other viewpoints. Studies hugely before speaking on a topic. Always shows his sources. And best of all.... Really Loves Jesus.

[@hisnameisiam808]

​@@monteclark1115 poor aron. Jesus loves you monte.

[@hisnameisiam808]

​@@SaintRegime good suggestions.

[@Gary-fq8cx]

You dont know anything about science do you?

[@jerrylong6238]

Atheist do not hate this, and evolution is already a proven fact. give it up.

[@heihei3453]

So what is his explanation for the KT boundary line loaded with an unusually high amount of iridium?

[@hifijohn]

God had a big bucket of iridium that he accidentally spilled.

[@yoyeo1900]

It doesn't need explanation. It's only called a boundary in aid of supporting a predetermined hypothesis.

[@yoyeo1900]

@@nathancook2852 That's the fault of your argument. It's explained with a creator. Your science fails even when the outcome is known.

[@antiHUMANDesigns]

I wonder why these rhetorics always leave out Genesis 6:6, where it says God _regretted_ making humans. Doesn't fit very well with the idea of an infallible God, does it?

[@reldintv]

It's not God who made the mistake, it was the human. He regretted, but it was not a mistake. God has no power over your thoughts or your choices, man was created with free will.

[@antiHUMANDesigns]

@@reldintv That's not how "regret" works. If he regrets making humans, it means he's not sure he should have done so, or even thinks he shouldn't have. God can see the future, can he not? Supposedly, he has a detailed "plan". If so, then there is absolutely no free will in this scneario, since otherwise God could be wrong about the future.

[@reldintv]

@@antiHUMANDesigns nope, the complete thought is this. God regretted when He created man because they chose to live Evil. If humans just live righteously, God would not feel any regret when He created man. If man has no Free Will or Freedom of Choice, then man could not fall from sin. whether man finds joy or not in following Gods command, man has no choice but to obey God if we don't have that freedom of choice, then we are not humans but are robots that can be easily be controlled by its creator.

[@antiHUMANDesigns]

@@reldintv Indeed, God regretted the result of his creation. One again, this implies tha the wish he hadn't made humans. That's literally what it means. If someone can see the future, then the future is set, which means no one has the freedom to make other choices, because then God couldn't know the future.

[@greenguitarfish]

Excellent example of 2nd Corinthians 10:5. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

[@jerrylong6238]

@@mountkeen8701 Well, that is the mind set of theists. They live in a make-believe reality so it's easy for them.

[@highpriestofgavinalmightyh1304]

Except not. Evolution is not spontaneously morphing into an entirely different species. The closest to such a phenomenon would be metamorphosis. While metamorphosis does occur in nature, it is not synonymous with speciation. Speciation occurs when organisms of the same species are separated and endure separate natural pressures over many generations which result in genetic and physiological changes significant enough that the descendants of those organisms can no longer interbreed. The offspring of those organisms have become separate species in other words. Regarding time scale, it depends on what particular organisms we are speaking of. Simple single celled organisms can evolve very quickly as they have generation after generation within a single day. When doctors tell us to complete a regiment of antibiotics, they are telling us that because failure to do so may result in the strongest most resistant organisms surviving and passing on their genes in the form of much stronger more resistant infection. Again, evolve does not mean an organism spontaneously changes into another organism. Evolution is population mechanics/genetics over time. Humans did not come from any modern monkey or ape. Our ancestors were humans until we go far back enough we don’t recognize them as humans. There are literally libraries of data regarding natural selection. We in fact do have bones and fossils from prehistory to corroborate this. Hypothetically, even if we didn’t, there is still ample evidence of biological evolution in genetic code (and no, that does not refer to code as a computer programmer would understand it). You’re attempting to create a false dichotomy; either you believe deities exist, or you believe natural phenomena occur. I remember this sort of fundamentalist evangelical indoctrination from the 1980s and 1990s. One may believe in deities while also understanding the scientific process, and how we came to know it. Conversely, one may not believe in deities, but believe in fantastical or dubious claims such as those intrinsic within astrology or solipsism. Evolutionary biology is not a religion. This was confirmed even in the legal system in the 2005 Kitsmiller vs. Dover decision. Unfortunately, fraudulent organizations such as Answers in Genesis and Living Waters ministries have purposefully confused the definition of evolution as it pertains to biology.

[@rudysimoens570]

@@highpriestofgavinalmightyh1304 brilliant remark! The so-called "believers" deliberately misrepresent evolution because it is too corrosive to their silly supernatural beliefs! We are nothing but a species of apes nothing more nothing less! And do those "believers" really believe that the homo sapiens are the only species of apes that can survive their own death by going to an imaginary hell or heaven? It's an insult to my intelligence and it should be an insult to the intelligence of everybody else!!!

[@imafeltersnatch7634]

Who authored Corinthians?

[@imafeltersnatch7634]

Impressive that you choose a biblical character from 2000 years ago in an attempt to argue against modern science. No doubt that you have a crayon illustration as evidence

[@htos1av]

This is what we called "Sunday School", as a kid in the Baptist south. A revolution in science has occurred, it's back to it's faith based roots.

[@betsieswartz]

Yet another reason why the South is the worst region of our country

[@woodystube1000]

I watched this video hoping it would be entertaining. I was not disappointed. It reminds me of a video a few years back in which an evangelist explained how god made the perfect food by way of the banana. He had no clue the banana as we know it was genetically engineered. Gold!

[@M.A.Vazquez]

Lame

[@globalcoupledances]

Yes, Ray Comfort is a good comedian

[@TouchedByArod]

Its weird calling it a gmo. It was selectively bred.

[@toddduchesne1749]

I don't like bananas 😕.

[@granaFPS]

petition to stop disseminating false information on medias.

[@raymondking1175]

“Every aspect of Nature reveals a deep mystery and touches our sense of wonder and awe. Those afraid of the universe as it really is, those who pretend to have nonexistent knowledge and envision a Cosmos centered on human beings will prefer the fleeting comforts of superstition. They avoid rather than confront the world. But those with the courage to explore the weave and structure of the Cosmos, even where it differs profoundly from their wishes and prejudices, will penetrate its deepest mysteries.” Carl Sagan

[@daddybandit4431]

What was his take on the origin of the "bing bang" again?

[@MineCraft-nz9pg]

“Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshipped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever. Amen. That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires…” (Romans 1:25, 26)

[@TimsWildlife]

Carl Sagan over superstition every day!

[@zpt4862]

@@MineCraft-nz9pg Man wrote the Bible and you are letting it run off with your mind into the world of superstition

[@MineCraft-nz9pg]

@@zpt4862 ??? Whats your problem?

[@wochfps4386]

So basically because the book says so … no madder how hard you try it’s always circular

[@laetitia9652]

The Bible that goes back 4,000 years hasn’t been wrong and it’s A book of knowledge way before science books

[@Tuoni996]

@@laetitia9652 It was written by man who said they were divinely inspired by god to write it. You want evidence that they were divinely inspired by god to write the bible? Well I have bullet proof evidence. It says right in the words that they wrote that it was divinely inspired. You can't question that though you have to just take it on faith. I rest my case!

[@Rikitangoable]

@@Tuoni996 that's the whole point of faith

[@Tuoni996]

@@Rikitangoable That's what scares me about religious nuts. Believing on faith the words of men written thousands of years ago. Then they point the finger at someone of another faith claiming the men who wrote their book were wrong. You've got to blindly take on faith the words that men who wrote MY book wrote or you'll spend eternity in a really bad place. It's ridiculous.

[@Rikitangoable]

@@Tuoni996 that to me is like taking one bad apple and calling the rest of them rotten

[@claudehaynes6419]

"If your only tool is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail" - Maslow This lecture dismisses plate tectonic, volcanos, tsunamis and asteroids. The point he does not address is time. How long does it take to form rock? How long does it take to create hundreds of feet of strata. You can hammer your point home by excluding contrary evidence.

[@smashdragon182]

I think people are forgetting that radiometric dating has been used to give a decent estimate of the age of fossils. If you want to debate the accruacy, read independent/peer-reviewed studies

[@pakkiderm]

If you are to believe that the fossils all came from the Biblical Flood, why are there no fossils of any humans? After all, we are told the earth was flooded because of them?

[@smashdragon182]

@@pakkiderm There were no humans around when dinosaurs roamed the earth

[@marcusmuse4787]

the age of the universe is now 26 billion years old that's double from 13.7 billion. so, nothings written in stone here.

[@delanagracejohnson6282]

Question: where are the fossil records of animals we have now? And why did Noah not bring the dinosaurs with him on the ark ?

[@wavemaker2077]

What made you think that dinosaurs were not included in the ark? Are you looking for the biggest dinosaurs inside the ark? Noah doesn't need to bring the biggest one. Noah was told to bring animals of their kind. So seven pairs of dog will suffice. Seven pairs of cats will suffice. Did Noah collect all of them from all over the world? No. The bible said that the animals went to Noah by themselves. Why are there soft tissues of t-rex dinosaurs found in their bones if they are 300 million years old already? Did the soft tissues miraculously survive for 300 million years or are those dinosaur bones not really that very old as scientists want to claim? You know which is the more plausible answer. There are even stegosaurus carved in the Angkor Wat temple. That is proof that the humans who built the Angkor Wat have seen the stegosaurus which is supposed to have lived 160 million years ago. Was the Angkor Wat built 160 million years ago or was the stegosaurus alive on the 12th century (when the Angkor Wat was built)?

[@paulgarrett4474]

​@@wavemaker2077 you should get your information from actual scientists rather than creationist propaganda outlets. Everything you wrote here is wrong.

[@randomusername3873]

​@@wavemaker2077 no t-rex was alive 300 millions years ago, they appeared hundreds of millions of years later, lol

[@wavemaker2077]

@@randomusername3873 lol. Scientists found soft tissues from the bones of t-rex. Time to wake up. We have been lied for too long. You are so fast asleep that you think everything that was thought to you especially about science is correct.

[@bobwilkinson2008]

There was no ark or flood. Please grow up.

[@raindustbowl]

-Never got the jab, never got the fear, three years later, I'm still here with a tear about the fear. But in the love and fear of God, is perfection of love, with the protection of eternal direction. Go to heaven in Christ where God dwells, do not go to hell where evil swells misery, confusion and contentious strife.

[@mobrocket]

What does the jab have to do with God?

[@MisterHowzat]

​@@mobrocket Nothing. He only made word associations. There is no logical progression.

[@brendaann727]

''For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.'' John 3:16-17🙏🕊

[@brendaann727]

@@mobrocket - He means he trusted God with his life instead of a shot.

[@reidwhitton6248]

Millions trusted God before vaccines but millions perished. Did your parents just trust God or did they take you to the doctor and get you vaccinated as a child?

[@Javier99999]

This guy: fossils can only be produced in the rare occurrence of a catastrophic event. This guy: só why don't we find direct evolutionary lines every step of the way?

[@dcferwerda]

The problem with the logic that the dinosaurs didn't pre-exist before Adam and eve, is that if the dinosaurs were fossilized during some great flood that you claim, there would have been people there as well during that flood and they would have also been fossilized as they would have all been killed except for the ones who survived on Noah's ark. ...

[@davidcole1475]

Sure they did. Dinosaurs existed millions of years ago. Man between 50,000 and 100,000 years.

[@bisken6547]

Can't remember the verse, but in the bible there is something about a behemoth that was one of God's first creations, and the description was really close to a certain dinosaur

[@jnewgot]

@@bisken6547 Close before or after we learned they looked more like birds?

[@davidcole1475]

@@bisken6547 No. The best explanation of leviathan and behemoth is the crocodile and hippo. Dinosaurs and humans were not contemporaries.

[@hord81]

​@@davidcole1475 "Behold, Behemoth, which I made as I made you; he eats grass like an ox. Not a crocodile. He makes his tail stiff like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together. His tail is large like a cedar tree. Hippoes have a very small thin tail. So its not a hippo. From Job 41.

[@GoneCarnivore]

I don't care how old the Earth is or what anything or anyone has to say on this issue. Whether the earth is 8,000 years old or 800 Trillion is pointless. There is a God and he created Everything.

[@vampirehunter533]

Yes I totally agree.

[@Censoredbyyourcult]

Whether you believe in a god or not is irellevant, Earth's measurably old. Period.

[@drewdrake9130]

Your God did not create itself, right? There's one thing your god did not create. Maybe there's more!?

[@Censoredbyyourcult]

@@drewdrake9130 I wanna know what it created everything from. There was nothing and suddenly there was a lot of stuff. Did he create the entire universe out of nothing?

[@marcusmcmahon9650]

Genuine question: if all the dinosaurs were wiped out in the flood, did Noah not take any dinosaurs in the ark? If not, why not? If they did, then why did the dinosaur ancestors die off and not the other animal species?

[@ninecowsh9228]

Interesting hypothesis. Now it’s time to test it. 1) If a massive flood killed all living creatures including humans why don’t we find lots of human fossil among the other fossils? 2) if the earth is 6000 years old why can we then find a 9500 year old tree (Old Tjikko in Norway) 3) the current isotope composition on the earth and radioactive decay rates of elements dates the earth much older. Even IF that rate has mysteriously been speeded up the energy released would literally have vaporized the earth if it was all to happen in 6000 years.

[@neptica9926]

As for points 2&3, Adam and Eve weren’t created as babies so why do you think the Earth and everything on it would be created as newborn? Haven’t checked the veracity of the first one yet.

[@alwayslearning8365]

Lots of good points here. 👍

[@ninecowsh9228]

@@neptica9926 there’s another problem. If the flood resets the human population to around a handful of persons, how did it reach the 150-300 million only 2000 years later? That’s a factor of ~30 million in 2000 years. Note that in the following 2000 years until today the population only increased by a factor of ~50 despite the highest growth rates ever observed in human history.

[@OskarKudla]

Main problem is you're using reason to question unreasonable statements.

[@SPBurt1]

Excellent points all. no doubt. I think it is simply important to point out all the issues with evolution, whether geological, cosmological or biological. I don't necessarily think the flood in the absolute biblical sense is the answer either. Problems in current theories are abound. We have already seen since JWT hit space that current cosmological models are full of issues. Dogma in current accepted science is also a thing.

[@Dock284]

I am genuinely confused. All your claims are either easily disproved or make no sense anyways. Evolution is a proven fact that you actively chose to ignore.

[@tommontgomery604]

Nice lecture very passionate, informative and convincing, I almost forgot I am a geologist 😂

[@davekearney1944]

@@globalcoupledances I think he did, but not in so many words.

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

@@globalcoupledances too bad 500 million years ago never existed 🧐

[@SuperNinjaChef]

​@@newcreationinchrist1423 😂

[@davekearney1944]

@@globalcoupledances LOL. But seriously now - On the grand scheme of things it's a really new book. Our universe is about 13.7 billion years old. The oldest section of the bible, the pentateuch, was compiled by 4 different authors about 3000 years ago, a few hundred years after the biblical "Moses" is presumed to have died. Whether or not he actually existed is unproven and open to debate. So after a stretch of just under 13.7 billion years, bible literalists and young earthers got into the game...late.

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

@@globalcoupledances does it now? We would disagree

[@all88888]

So who wrote genesis?

[@brandon_945]

How about light from very distant stars measured by parallax that had to have travelled thousands of light years to reach our eyeballs?

[@JohnjOcampo]

We can't even travel past our moon and you creatures want to tell us how old the earth is by using your "reliable" theories lol.

[@brandon_945]

@@JohnjOcampo yeah it’s called mathematics

[@JohnjOcampo]

@@brandon_945 it's called a theory.

[@brandon_945]

@@JohnjOcampo math is not theory

[@JohnjOcampo]

@@brandon_945 your basic understanding of the cosmos is.

[@thisisthenewcovenant6058]

I remember climbing a mountain in Ireland, It was loose rock near the top, pulling myself up with my hand on a rock set into some brush , it came loose and caused other rocks to fall..to my amazment in the soil beneath was a collection of seashells..and a lot of them, not brought by birds etc..too many ..and if they were there millions of years I wonder why they havnt turned to dust..mmmm..praise God for his revelation..

[@samrowe2889]

What? Sorry I read and reread your comment I'm not wrapping my head around your misunderstanding of how things work were they fossils seashells or just normal sea shells I guess we can start there

[@davekearney1944]

​@@samrowe2889 Did you attempt to find out how they got there, or did you make an assumption?

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

​@@davekearney1944 evolutionists have their own assumptions on it but is just as easily explained by the Flood.

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

​@@anonymous01792 they're all over the world. Sea fossils on mountains.

[@SK-bw2cv]

We have the standard of God's word to help us understand. How blind we used to be.

[@gregoswald7723]

Let me see if I have the timeline right... -All animals and plants, in the fossil record, existed before the flood. -The rain fell, and water rushed downhill. -The torrent swept along rocks, sand, plants, animals etc.. in its path. -The torrent stripped away any top soil down to bare rock. -The rain water flooding over the land wiped away all the terrestrial animals and plants, sweeping them eventually out to the rising ocean. -Everything remained suspended in the ocean water, including the rocks, sand, and dead plants and animals. -The ocean covered the land. -The rocks, sand, and dead plants and animals floated back over the continents. -The first layer of sand, rocks and silt settled out. -Then the trilobites settled out. -Then more sand, rocks and silt settled out. -Then one group of Dinosaurs and plants settled out. -Then more sand, rocks and silt settled out. -Then a different group of dinosaurs and plants settled out. -Then more sand, rocks and silt settled out. -Then mammals and a different group of plants settled out. -Then more sand, rocks and silt settled out. -Then different animals and a different group of plants settled out. -Then more sand, rocks and silt settled out. -Most items settled out in their designated layer except for things like sharks and stromatolites. Once they started settling out, they settled out during all the remaining settlings. -The coccoliths that make up the cliffs of Dover all settled out together creating a 350 ft thick layer, mixed with thin layers of flint. -Some types of sand and silt settled out globally. Others only in one spot. -Some plants and animals settled out globally. Others only in one spot. -Then as the water "subsided", it eroded the Grand Canyon, and other valleys, exposing all these layers. -Then after 150 days, the Ark landed on dry land. Other than several settling steps in between each of the settling steps I mentioned, What am I missing?

[@frosted1030]

The part where there isn't enough water on Earth to do anything like that?

[@gregoswald7723]

@@frosted1030 What? You're saying there isn't enough water to float rocks and sand and bones so they can land back on the continents? IF there isn't enough water on Earth to cover the Earth, then why are the "climate change" people worried about "rising sea levels?" Besides, the flood water didn't come from the Earth, it came from the sky. From the "Firmament." Firmament; From the old Norse "Fir" or wood, then from Old English "Ma" being short for mama or mother and "Ment" which is from the French derivation of the Latin "mentum" meaning, "result or product of the action." So "Firmament" means literally, "the result or product of the wooden mother's action." Obviously, the "Firmament" is a large wooden container in the sky which provided the water for the flood (the "mother" of the flood). I can't make it any clearer than that!

[@davekearney1944]

@@frosted1030 Don't mention that please. Somebody will then bring up all the water that was stored in the firmament, and then it all gets even more tedious.

[@frosted1030]

@@davekearney1944 It sounds like the old heat problem. Just a cop-out.

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

@@frosted1030 nice presupposition

[@ryanlink-cole6718]

The title of the video should be "How I show you I don't understand fossils"

[@DeKapitein]

I have a question about Genesis 35:5. Why did god allowed the murder of innocent men by the sons of Jakob? They were not responsible for the rape of Dinah.

[@SK-bw2cv]

The only thing we can rely on that is trustworthy enough is the bible. Psalm 143:8 Let me hear in the morning of your steadfast love, for in you I trust. Make me know the way I should go, for to you I lift up my soul. Proverbs 3:5-6 Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths.

[@teddycooke8723]

We can trust it because it tells us to trust it😮😮😮😮

[@SK-bw2cv]

@@teddycooke8723 so are we to assume we can't trust it because you don't? Apparently you have a big ego.

[@eeveeofalltrades4780]

Science, when done right, is simply a way to discover the way God designed things to be

[@SK-bw2cv]

@@eeveeofalltrades4780 evolution is not the way to go to figure it out

[@eeveeofalltrades4780]

@@SK-bw2cv yeah, I know that

[@Scorpion-my3dv]

Isaiah 55:11 So shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

@@mountkeen8701 *see got questions They actually recently did a video on that

[@klopchi6772]

Spoken like a true saturated in water and buried in the darkness.

[@kimhansen5253]

Where are the catastrophically buried human fossils?

[@worldhola5090]

Creationists hate this comment: Where did the life come from? Creationists: Well Bible says.... God did it. Scientists: We don't really know, but we can assume how it could be formed. This is the difference with religion and science. Religion does not care about the scientific questions, but scientists care. Religion is not humble on what they think they know, but scientists are very careful of what they know.

[@James_Bee]

You know what I dislike? "Atheists HATE this" in thumb nails and titles. Do better.

[@daysnottime999]

Hehe

[@Gearedfilm57]

The other thing to me is that all the layers of the earth have to come from somewhere. They act like dirt just falls from the sky and covers everything

[@coryanderson5210]

That’s what blew my mind when I started asking questions. They just accept it as “scientifically established”….

[@davekearney1944]

Please do some reading. No reputable scientist has ever said that dirt falls from the sky. It sounds like something you've heard from a creationist geologist. Get both sides and decide for yourself.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

"They act like dirt just falls from the sky and covers everything" Well there's a surprise! That's how it works in my house.

[@BrianJonesOneClearChoice]

Have you ever seen the aftermath of a flood? really! Dirt is moved by the force of water. but yes dirt is moved by air as well just not as much. geologist talk about sediment all of the time which is dirt! This is why we find citied under dirt . God bless you!

[@maddmama232]

​@@thomasmaughan4798 😂😂😂word

[@passthetunaporfavor]

Rock layers of the same age have the same fossil fauna in them around the world. It's how geologist correlate the age of rock strata. There's also a geological feature called an unconformity. This is where erosion has worn off millions of years of rock strata and you have a much younger strata directly on top of really old formations.

[@filipskalic3376]

Top of giza pyramids have erosion too

[@filipskalic3376]

Millions zillions of years

[@jasonh.8754]

If the fossils were all formed at once they would naturally all be in one single layer across the world which is obviously not the case. Simple logic supports evolution & geology over creationism.

[@mehmetsimsek4794]

I dont get that either. That was the first thing that came to my mind, when I heard this layer argument. Not just in one place, it should be everywhere

[@Scorpion-my3dv]

09:16 what do the fossils show?

[@angelacahill9460]

Wow! Interesting food for thought. I told someone 24 yrs ago, "I don't believe we evolved from apes", and he said, "Neither do I". Neither one of us was religious at the time. It was just from observation. New subscriber.

[@karltrapson]

I spent 6 years studying Anthropology at a university full of people who automatically believed we came from apes and that the world was hundreds of millions of years old. They had no idea how to process it when I openly said I don't believe in these flimsy theories because they weren't used to being questioned. Their arguments unravel the more questions you ask about the subject.

[@Emiliocab47]

@Karl Trapson They just believe we have a common ancestor, which is very likely if you look at the skeletons of a human and Chimpanzee. By the way we also have a vestigial tail.. why would god do that ?

[@RozkminTo]

@@Emiliocab47 Why would God do what exacly? Made tailbone so people can tell it's vestigial ?:P

[@jerrylanglois7892]

Evolution does not teach we evolved from apes, it teaches we share common ancestor with them, which is why our DNA is 99% identical to them.

[@Emiliocab47]

@@RozkminTo I was replying to Karl

[@gardinselmer1005]

You may as well have made the title: The Earth is flat? Or maybe: The Moon is made of cheeze.

[@mwg911hk]

Evolution is an easy way to explain things we don't have a clear answer for.

[@dant1239]

The chalk cliffs disprove everything you said, do you really think that all of those microscopic shellfish were deposited, over 300 feet, and then solidified into rock in just a a few thousand of years, keeping in mind that they were discovered and were there well before today, I don't know when they were first discovered, but given that dover was first settled in 1066, that further reduces the time for the formation of them if they formed from the flood, which leaves you with less than two thousand years....less than two thousand years for an incalculable amount of microscopic shellfish to all accumulate in the same area to a depth of over 300 feet, if they all were deposited by the flood (those conditions wouldn't allow for that) why were they concentrated in that area and not scattered all around the world?

[@titussy8769]

May Yah continue to bless you more brother.....

[@elbombero420]

Jah bless

[@Scorpion-my3dv]

God's word is going to stand long after this world is dead and gone. Good job AIG

[@wyett123]

That's weird. It doesn't even stand now

[@SK-bw2cv]

​@@wyett123 we beg to differ.

[@wyett123]

@@SK-bw2cv of course you do. Yet you're the one picking and choosing what gods word is. From the very foundation of the Bible where some of "gods word" was purposely left out. To y'all ignoring where wearing mixed fabrics, eating shrimp or working the sabbath is a sin. Of which working the Sabbath you should be put to death.

[@msmorgan45]

@@wyett123 Let me guess, you think you are a talking Monkey, lol!

[@wyett123]

@@msmorgan45 😶 No! Humans are primates. -typically having flexible hands and feet with opposable first digits, good eyesight, and, in the higher apes, a highly developed brain: includes lemurs, lorises, monkeys, apes, and man. Do you think humans aren't animals?

[@markcripps259]

OK interesting but if everything was destroyed in Noah's flood where are the human remains? Surely if it was a sudden cataclysmic event then marine life, terrestrial animal remains including human fossils would have been found together?

[@antiHUMANDesigns]

Yes, human remains wearing clothing and tools and such from that era would be abundant, mixed in with the other fossils. Neither do we find any human structures at the same depth as ancient pre-historical animal fossils...

[@thomaswing8925]

Attempted to find something like a "Please fact-check" button to no avail. How embarrassing for mankind. Yeah, answers in genesis, hail all invisible space ghosts here!

[@antiHUMANDesigns]

"Citation needed" button would be awesome.

[@jlouutube65]

Awesome!!!

[@calvindement5951]

Great to hear truth for a change. God Bless

[@paulgarrett4474]

Except none of it is true.

[@pakkiderm]

If you are to believe that the fossils all came from the Biblical Flood, why are there no fossils of any humans? After all, we are told the earth was flooded because of them?

[@wesleydrake8472]

So the lineage of the 5 million + Terrestrial species that exist today can be traced back to just the animals that could fit on the ark?

[@wesleydrake8472]

That would be an evolutionary explosion worth talking about!

[@dinohall2595]

And they're going to conveniently ignore the fact that a rate of evolution that fast more than allows all life on Earth to have evolved from a common ancestor, probably in even less time than real scientists say.

[@klarag7059]

Great talk! I’m still tickled by our brother’s accent; as a fellow Aussie I would normally only hear his accent in an outback cattle station or perhaps a pub, not with the university city folk. It makes me wonder what the story of his life is.

[@JustMe-mn5hk]

Story of his life is, he's a con artist!

[@uhvoid8433]

​@JustMe-mn5hk why?

[@MournfulMystic]

He worked in Australia for years for Creation ministries b4 going to USA about 20 years ago

[@mickw5704]

@@JustMe-mn5hk Says Who? YOU? And you are?

[@JustMe-mn5hk]

Yes me, me and thousands upon thousands up actually true scientist! Have a wonderful day

[@greasy7494]

21:40 I have a problem! Scripture states Job 38:4 When father created the heavens and the Earth that they were so beautiful that the stars and the sons of God sang for joy! So then what happened to make the earth covered in water and without form and void?

[@TrevDawgRS]

Hate to break it to you, but Evolution has more evidence supporting it than anything else a human can discuss. You can perfectly link together every single species on the planet and show exactly how they are related, and trace exactly how each evolved or changed over time from a single cell. It's called the tree of life/phylogenetic tree. You can use physiology and DNA to connect the dots. The fossil record is just something you can add on top to make it nearly undeniable, but there's enough living species to come to the same conclusion. There is no other example of anything we can talk about that is like is. Quite literally billions of pieces of evidence that all support each other and point to the same answer. And I've only touched the tip of the iceberg evidence wise. In my eyes if God exists, denying evolution is denying God's work. Religion should try to find a way to work with it, not against it.

[@notanothershrubbery]

I was reading a comment that was critical of this presentation and made very good points. It was deleted between the time I read it and the time I clicked the reply button. If you delete comments that don't agree with your point of view, you are not very confident of your position are you? Also, reptiles don't give birth. They lays eggs.

[@paulgarrett4474]

Actually some lizards are now evolving to give birth to live young. Isn't evolution amazing!!

[@SkyfallenVT]

As an atheist myself, I love fossils and rock layers. When you start researching them, and your not trying to prove God. These rock layers and fossils prove evolution. Never trust a single source! Do the research for yourself. Sky - Your friendly atheist.

[@eddyvos2628]

No it doesn't prove evolution.

[@SkyfallenVT]

@@eddyvos2628 Would you care to expand on why you think this? I would love to hear your thoughts!

[@eddyvos2628]

@@SkyfallenVT Expand on what exactly please ? Thank you for your reply 😊

[@SkyfallenVT]

@@ChickityChicken So I would always suggest you look more into it yourself. Trying to explain a very complicated process in comments is hard to do. So in trying to keep it short, these molecules did a specific process. Breaking down some (food). Though this process the molecules would find a better way (faster and/or better absorption). Those that did this process better survived longer and was able to reproduce and thus the cycle continued. Hope this helps!

[@SkyfallenVT]

@@eddyvos2628 Sorry Eddy, I completely missed that you replied to me. When I asked about expanding on you idea, I was attempting to direct us to a more narrow subject to talk about. I’m happy to start if you’d let me know what subject you’d prefer to discuss.

[@Tony-dp1rl]

This is so wrong, and such bad science, that as a Christian I am totally embarrassed for you.

[@johnnypickle2253]

A true Christian is one doesn't blindly listen to other Christians because they are Christians.

[@waldwassermann]

What if we replace the word sin with motion and what if we understand that the purpose for all motion is love?

[@devincarlton7855]

How would I explain freshwater fish to an atheist

[@roncannon681]

So I have to wonder. If the fossils were made by a quick and catastrophic event. Why does he continue to point out that there was no fossils beneath that layer. Things could have died and did die before the catastrophic event(flood) but with out that event the fossils wouldn't be made

[@Juraikken]

Things that die in a normal process are not fossilized though.

[@BoneFrossil]

@@Juraikken So that means some would still exist, not none.

[@Juraikken]

@@BoneFrossil but none exist beneath the layer of fossils. Hence the lowest layer is the flood year.

[@arohk4415]

There never was a global flood, stop believing in fairy tales.

[@filamcouple_teamalleiah8479]

How did the birds survive a global flood?

[@bonniew.5064]

They were in the ark, remember? Noah used birds to be able to tell when the waters had receded enough to come out of the ark. 👍🏻

[@monkeyman193]

They didn't, birds aren't real!

[@tone9358]

The real question is how did plants & freshwater fish survive the flood

[@MarkNOTW]

They floated in their nests

[@filamcouple_teamalleiah8479]

@@MarkNOTW Seriously? And how long before that nest becomes water logged and sinks. A nest is not a raft.

[@antiHUMANDesigns]

Dude, Jesus didn't write the bible. Various mostly anonymous authors wrote various books, many of which were compiled into the bible. Trusting the bible doesn't mean "trusting Jesus", it means trusting some sometimes anonymous authors, some of which explicitly state that they're only reporting what they've heard, for example. And neither is it about "trusting secular scientist", since science isn't about scientists, it's about what the evidence and experiments demonstrate. Everything about their method is completely transparent, you can read how they did the tests, and you can repeat the tests yourself. Many of those scientists are Christians, by the way...!

[@Stigtoes]

I don't understand how 40 days and nights of rain caused sea creatures to be buried so catastrophically and so quickly that they didn't have time to eat their food. Why didn't they just carry on swimming in their new home.

[@GSpotter63]

Here is the most often used equation for getting the age of an igneous rock from the results of an AMS (Accelerator Mass Spectrometry) data set. D = D0 + N(t) (eλt − 1) t is age of the sample, D is number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the sample, D0 is number of atoms of the daughter isotope in the original composition, N is number of atoms of the parent isotope in the sample at time t (the present), given by N(t) = Noe-λt, λ is the decay constant of the parent isotope, equal to the inverse of the radioactive half-life of the parent isotope times the natural logarithm of 2. Tell me how can anyone know D0 "The number of the daughter isotopes in the original composition", when the origin of the original composition supposedly took place millions or even billions of years ago before anybody was around to take the measurement? I must also point out that the D0 in this equation is not a product of the equation but a requirement of the equation. Without it, it won’t work. When testing modern rocks; rocks whose formation was observed, the daughter isotope percentages at formation vary wildly and are in fact never zero. This happens for two reasons 1. Because the melt itself (lava) can contain varying amounts of the parent and daughter isotopes. 2. Because the rate at which the rock cools can have a large effect on how much of the daughter isotope gets trapped in the matrix before it solidifies. If levels at rock formation in modern observed samples vary then one must accept that rocks from the past acted in like manner. Making the assumption that there are no daughter isotopes at formation for older samples when this is clearly not supported by modern samples is disingenuous at best and an outright lie at worst. If the starting ratios are not known then there is no math that can find the date. The dates used and accepted by supporters of evolution are in fact nothing but guesses based off of unproven assumptions. Show me an equation that can give an accurate date from the results of an AMS without relying on the unverifiable daughter isotopes being zero at solidification. If you cannot then your belief in the dates it provides is called faith. Isochron methods use the same data from the equation above to make their plots and as such suffer from the same dilemma... *The goal of the isochronic method is to identify and eliminate samples with possible contamination in situ or during handling and does nothing to eliminate the mathematical and logic errors inherent in math in first place.* All that has been achieved by Isochron methods is a plot made of even more errors. There is no mathematical way one can determine the level of a coefficient without knowing the starting values of the variables used. The only reliable constants in the equations used are the decay rate of the isotopes (see Appendices A. at the bottom of this paper) and the rate of the passage of time. Without the starting ratios of parent and daughter isotopes math cannot determine an accurate date. You can find the oldest and youngest possible date that a sample could be by plugging in starting ratios at both of the extremes. But the dates obtained would give such a wide spread as to be useless. In fact you can obtain just about any date by simply plugging in whatever starting ratios will give you the date you want. Assuming that the ratios are zero for older unknown samples when every modern sample shows this to be wrong is..... Self induced ignorance. The level of self dilution displayed by those promoting the accuracy of radio dating is absurd. Appendices A... Apparently researchers at Stanford and Cornell have shown that some radio isotope decay rates can be affected by magnetic fields and ray interaction... The results of this research add even more question to the accuracy of the standard radio dating equations. May God open your mind as well as you heart.

[@area-xp3sw]

Man, you really unpacked it. Are you studying the subject or is this purely out of interest that you know all of this?

[@GSpotter63]

@@area-xp3sw I was just searching for the truth and found something about AMS dating that just does not fit.... Looked into it in more depth and found why... I have talked to quite a few so called "experts" in the field and not a one could explain this discrepancy. The truth is out there you just need to look.

[@PepaNovak-fn3lh]

Do you know all dinosaur fossils have carbon-14 in them? infact the amount is delta 2-3 which is less than 35000 years old. they cannot be older than 50000 years because C14 has half life 5730 years. there would be zero C14 left even after 100000 years. The reason they didn't carbon date dinosaur bones is they thought that they would find EXACTLY NO C14 (because of the ASSUMPTION that they would be old) . This is very rare that someone gets the permission to carbon date them.This also explains why we find dinosaur tissue and even blood cells , osteocytes etc . There is LOADS OF C14 in dinosaurs. Also diamonds and coal have C14(less studies on those so far). WHICH IS WHAT YOU SHOULD EXPECT IF THE EARTH IS YOUNG, AND COAL WAS CREATED FROM DEAD PLANTS AND ANIMALS WHICH WERE RAPIDLY BURIED.(yes, you can very quickly create coal under high pressure). Also if the earth were young this automatically solves the 35000 years -6000 years discrepancy(since c14 couldnt fully form in the atmosphere to as much as it is now yet when the dinosaurs died)

[@jvowen6555]

A good geochronometer must either have little to no initial incorporation of the daughter isotope or must have a fixed ratio from which the radiogenic and nonradiogenic proportions can be determined. For example, common-Pb (or the natural occurrence of non-radiogenic lead) includes radiogenic isotopes (206, 207, 208) as well as non-radiogenic isotopes (204). If the ratio of these is constant or measurable, then we can separate the radiogenic from the non-radiogenic to extract meaningful age information.

[@GSpotter63]

@@jvowen6555 "If the ratio of these is constant or measurable" And how can you be sure of this constant? Constant over what time frame, a few observed hours or days? Certainly not over millions of years. Clearly this is an assumption... One that cannot be confirmed... Even with this method the starting ratios must still be assumed.. If there was any parent isotope in the mix at all it would invalidate the results...

[@brandonmacey964]

The atheist KZbinrs won't even acknowledge the curious facts brought up in this video. They are afraid that if they give one inch to creationists then we are all headed for a theocracy. Fear is the mind killer

[@bigdaddyleroy1915]

they are definitely headed somewhere. they might want to go ahead and be fitted for their millstone.

[@jamiesimms7084]

@@norbertjendruschj9121 why is that funny, unless you know a person's mind why jump to conclusions?

[@jamiesimms7084]

@@norbertjendruschj9121 I am responding to you responding to Brandon Macey´s post so obviously I have read it. You have not answered my question? I asked why it was funny? I assume you have a problem with this person quoting from this book then?

[@bigdaddyleroy1915]

@All About Britain speculation is what evolution, big bang, and abiogenesis are.

[@brandonmacey964]

@All About Britain semantics police diatribe alert

[@keithnaylor1981]

Fascinating but two ads within 11 minutes killed it for me.

[@g7enn89]

I'm curious: is there also fossilized human beings found? 🤔

[@paulgarrett4474]

Yes, but never in the same geological layer as any of the organisms mentioned in this lecture. Almost as if they existed at completely different times.

[@jnewgot]

I lose interest when they say the science is wrong and instead of using the scientific method to deduce it they compare to their theory and announce their theory is right.

[@MichaelSeethaler]

The guy gave tons of observable evidence. You can’t repeat history in a laboratory, but have to see which worldview makes best sense of all the evidence.

[@jnewgot]

@@MichaelSeethaler We repeat history in laboratories pretty consistently. He gave observable evidence, yes but nothing that is rational or proof of his claims, all he did was point to something claim it meant X and then said this proves Y is false but that's not thee scientific method, and it's pathetic to try to reduce rational thought to that level.

[@jesusdelmas]

​@@jnewgot observable evidence is science too men, i dont know why you use your tone. S cience is too big to just name it

[@jnewgot]

@@jesusdelmas Doing 1 part of a complex system is not "being scientific". Edit: As for the "tone", that's your reading bias, I have literally no control over that.

[@paysonfox88]

​@@jnewgot as with all these cuc's, they're too busy digging into the ground to prove the existence of God and not digging into the human heart. They will achieve nothing, they will change very few minds, and no hearts. I would tend to side with the people who laugh at these apologist trying to prove everything. The proof that God exists is more like David Wilkerson prophesying that in less than one generation, there would be five hundred fires burning out of control in the Middle East during a war. He predicted that 1981, and during the Iraqi war in the early 90s, 501 oil wells to the number we're burning out of control in Kuwait. The proof that God exists is the fact that the church in China still exists. There's a lot of crazy stories about how the believers their get together while being infiltrated by government agents and still they're not caught because nobody communicates where the next meeting will be, yet they all know where to show up because God tells them. It is an experience, and extremely unlikely coincidence has piled on top of each other to such an extent that other explanations fail. You will find nothing in the natural world that definitively proves or disproves how it was or was not created.

[@jae1297]

Only thing more that you could have said that totally refutes evolution is to show how there are large fossils that extend through more than one stratum (polystrate fossils) which show no erosion and dispute that each layer holds only certain types of creatures.

[@orionlax626]

How exactly does that refute evolution?

[@JohnjOcampo]

​@@orionlax626 where are these hybrids? Did we all of sudden went from swinging on trees to making fire?

[@orionlax626]

@@JohnjOcampo I don't think you understand evolution or even know what a hybrid is. Maybe read a book on it?

[@JohnjOcampo]

@@orionlax626 i understand it perfectly and i knew I'd be waiting for an answer, typical atheist who believes his past family ancestors were fishes and monkeys lol.

[@orionlax626]

@@JohnjOcampo You don't understand perfectly. Stop being so arrogant and do some actual research on the subject.

[@HeyArnold-pq8je]

The question is, if we were to post a link to a video debunking this video. How fast would you remove that link from your comments section?

[@macrontellsjoe9571]

Your "evolution" has been debunked and your lies revealed. Cope harder.

[@jody2873]

Try it

[@jody2873]

- South Park wins that race

[@iamtheoffenderofall]

Listening to these mental gymnastics is like listening to a flat earther.

[@felixrodriguez539]

I understand the viewpoint you're presenting, but I'd like to address some concerns and misconceptions in your argument. Selective representation of fossils: It's important to note that museums and textbooks aim to provide a comprehensive overview of the fossil record, rather than a biased selection. While it's true that not every fossil can be displayed, the purpose is to represent the overall pattern of the history of life on Earth, which supports the idea of evolution. Fossil sequence and the flood: The ordering of fossils in the rock layers is not arbitrary, nor does it support the idea of a global flood. The concept of geologic time, including the division of Earth's history into distinct periods, is based on extensive scientific evidence from various fields, such as radiometric dating, sedimentology, and paleontology. The consistent pattern of simpler organisms in lower layers and more complex organisms in higher layers supports the evolutionary view rather than a sudden event like a flood. Biblical creation and the fossil record: The claim that the Bible's account of creation is more accurate than the scientific consensus is not supported by the evidence. The six-day creation story from the Bible is not in line with the vast amount of data that has been collected in support of evolution and the age of the Earth, which is estimated to be around 4.5 billion years old. Lack of transitional fossils: While it's true that not every transitional form between species has been found in the fossil record, there are numerous examples of transitional fossils that demonstrate the gradual changes between species over time. Examples include the evolution of whales from land mammals, the development of birds from theropod dinosaurs, and the series of hominid fossils that trace human evolution. Stasis and the fossil record: Although there are instances of stasis in the fossil record, this doesn't negate the evidence for evolution. Stasis can occur for various reasons, such as stable environmental conditions or the lack of selection pressure. However, there are plenty of examples in the fossil record that show significant changes in morphology, supporting the idea of evolution through natural selection. The scientific evidence supports the evolutionary perspective rather than a young Earth creationist view. The fossil record, geologic time scale, and transitional fossils all provide evidence for the gradual change in species over time, consistent with the theory of evolution by natural selection. While the Bible may provide spiritual guidance for some, it is not a reliable source for understanding the natural history of life on Earth.

[@piotrrajmundkoprowski4732]

C'mon man;) you really think you can argue with beliefs? Especially if this can make you immortal?

[@gator7082]

You should post examples of changes in morphology and transitional fossils.

[@mr.mayhem4054]

Where did DNA and genetic information come from to produce the amount of variety and support evolution?

[@rtan8707]

Pls provide an objective experiment that was done where one specie turning into another specie. Darwin claimed all sorts of imaginative theories like monkey becoming man to fish becoming man proving that he cannot even stay in one lane and unable to prove any of it.

[@ducon0000]

Bravo

[@JeorgeJetsin]

Man I really dig this presentation and this theory I just have one question though which is say it were true Why don't we find fossilized human bodies amongst those fossils then? I mean if the flood happened because you know man was just being evil and God had to you know wash the earth because of everything the man was up to I'm just curious why we have yet to find a single man blended in with these fossilized crinoids in marine life and dinosaurs and all that? It'd be great if there was a sound answer to that cuz I definitely like this theory more than other ones that make less sense anyways just my thoughts.....

[@dannyajr]

How about man seeing the flood waters rise moved to higher and higher ground until there was no where to go drowned then just rotted away, unlike the sea creatures and animals that couldn't

[@GossAug]

They did find wooden ship like shapes made with wood found in the Middle East on one of the highest peaks on the planet…

[@freemind..]

John James - *If human fossils were found, do you think we would be told about it? Any and all evidence that might possibly support biblical narratives is rejected with extreme prejudice. Such a find would be hidden away or destroyed.. and probably has been many times.*

[@freemind..]

John James - *If human fossils were found, they would be hidden away or destroyed.. and probably have been many times.*

[@freemind..]

John James - *Fossilized humans would be hidden away or destroyed.*

[@MrTbiollo]

16:26 That's assuming the earth is a globe because it's very obvious the same idea would work on the Biblical flat earth. Dr. Andrew Snelling however totally nails it with regard to the Great Flood versus Darwin's Theory.

[@sergechankamtak7272]

Is something missing or gone unnoticed that it has needed millions or billions of years for rocks formations along with sedimentary processes which have eventually and more than once change their levels in techtonic movements of the earth crust? That's what has happened if we can find sea shells fossils on tops of mountains or in rocks formations overthere.

[@kerriwilson7732]

ACTUALLY no. Check out the fossil record at Joggins NS (Canada) on the internet. Simple evidence tying together 50+ feet of sedimentary layers.

[@ryanhague3892]

Science can always take two sides.. science used to believe and teach that the earth was flat to. If you want real proof that God exists, then ask God to come into your life. You have to be open to God being real for God to come.. we can't be parent'd if we don't come home right or wrong ? So think of God as a scientific experiment.. without all the information you actually cannot prove that God is not real. So on behalf of science believe in him whole heartedly reach out to him and tell him how confusing it is to even begin to believe and you could use a bit of proof...ask him to prove himself to you but do it with your heart. If you do it with you brain and the dount you already have then theres your answer. Tell him that you are willing and open and you want God to come into your life think of him through your heart try not to not think of him with your brain it'll get you nowhere.. I grew up protestant meaning I think I went to church twice in my life we never talked about God it wasn't in our house there was no Bible no pictures of Jesus nada... and when I was approximately 40 years old which is 12 years ago I wanted to know if God was real and this is what I did and sure enough I promise you with every fiber of my being and I swear on my my son's life God is real! O felt completely stupid talking to god bcz i disnt know him.. I may as well have been speaking Cantonese that's how foreign it was. I was sitting in a room by myself and I put my hands in the air and I said why can't you reveal yourself to me I don't see what the big deal. Everybody says you are real why can't you be real to me… and I was in no particular mood at all I was very mundane hum drum in fact very low of energy and I promise you that in the moment's going forward I felt this amazing energy come into the room. Well there was with this force entering my body and all of a sudden my mouth was pulled back to a smile as big as acheshire cat. He was literally pulling at my cheeks. I couldn't have frowned for a million dollars I was astonished at the feeling of love that was filling up my body. That grew and grew and I was like oh my Lord you are here I can actually feel your presence and it made me stand I was feeling so glorious and attached to that energy that power that was in that room the holy spirit as they call it.. as I now call it. Further more. ... why wouldn't you want to find out and have the greatest power the universe has ever given us which the creator of it all.. Why omit life after death when all you have in believing evolution is a worm filled body and nothing. An eternity of emptiness. What's the point of that? Where as I get to live forever.. in his kingdom. Why..bcz it's written his book. It says clearly that the only way to the father is through Jesus. So you don't get to go through life not believing in Jesus and get to go to God and heaven doesn't work like that. It is a blind faith that your loan is secured. It is true that faith that you will have a relationship with him that's all he wants. It doesn't need you to go to church he doesn't need you to walk around preaching all day religion to religion religion he just wants to have a relationship with you. I start everyday with gratitude and I thank him for my life I thank him for food clothing and shelter in my health I thank him for every blessing that I ever have every moment of breath is his gift. The fact that you were even born is a miracle and should be considered impossible since you were one of a few trillion sperm but you somehow managed to come out of your mother's room and land on some rock floating through infinite space you're already proving that God is real because mathematically it's already impossible. And everything written in that Bible is true. You know they found Noah's Ark. Ontop of Mount Ararat in turkey. They did a 3-D image and wouldn't you know it it is of perfect dimension the exact same footage and cubic circumference described in The Bible and in the exact location The Bible says it would be... Sure some local evolutionary scientists said it's just rock formation but yet other experts say no I'm sorry that type of formation at that altitude on that mountain is extremely impossible to explain.. The 3-D imagery also shown is things that were described to be on Noah's Ark. That were the nails of keeping the ship together and that type of material would not have been found on the top of the mountain buried for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years.. May you find God now.. its incredible once you do bcz I haven't felt along ever since and I've felt incredible moments with God.. Ps. Don't ever discount something just bcz its easy to do so... can you prove to me that you love your mom or your dad or maybe a child if you have one? Nope. You can't prove love to anybody yet it's real isn't it.. Do you know that the human brain is only a system's operator. That's all it does is operate all of your systems in your body and save memories and data like a computer. But science cannot explain the part about where hope comes from perseverance courage the willingness to go on the ability to heal ourselves the ability to push forward joy sadness, they the excitement of life or for anythig at all.. All those things come from your God. You know the instinct when you know something is gonna happen or you knew something would work out where you said to yourself ooh that doesn't feel right. You questioned it bcz something inside of you told you.. your brain can't do any of those things nor can sci3nxe explain where they cone from. Alll of those are your godshot moments that's God coming to you and you dont even know. Ask science to prove any of that... they cant.. ill pray for you.. humble yourself amd get on your knees, get out of entitlement and walk into gratitude. Ask him to come into your life. Sorry I've gone on so long but there's one more thing. You want to know what I've noticed in life is that when someone is at their most weakest moment of their life maybe their child is sick and hospital on life support or with leukemia I loved one is on their deathbed.. It's then do you see everybody on their knees saying please God if you are real please please save my child's life please God if you're real I've never asked you for anything in my life but I'm begging you now please come and save my child! Now why would an atheist do that? Because I believe that we instinctively all know where we are from and when we are at our weakest moment do we call out to our father. No one ever needs God unless they have suffered or are suffering it turns out.. But the Lord giveth and the Lord take it away... praise him. Good luck.

[@dannysitumorang6196]

The sedimentary process time is a theory. There was no proven evidence about the exact time. And the time is relative. For example, some chemical mineralization can happened in a matter of months.

[@dannysitumorang6196]

And perhaps in tectonic movements, depends on how we perceived the ground zero to the first creation which nobody knows. There are still mysteries unsolved. We should test ourselves. I studied geology. So often I questioned these kind of stuffs that seem hard to correlate. As time goes by, my faith has grown to have the better sense.

[@ryanhague3892]

Even the great Stephen Hawkins said before his death that with all that we know about mankind space the Earth none of it would be possible without "him"... May you find the Lord now

[@ChaChaDancin]

Evolution is a theory based on observation of the evidence. Creationism is based on trying to make the evidence fit a belief. The people who wrote Genesis didn’t write it as a science textbook. It is poetry. Those evangelicals who insist on a literal interpretation don’t understand the context or intent of the writing itself.

[@Censoredbyyourcult]

Yup. Science always follows the evidence, creationists start with a predrawn conclusion and handwave dismiss anything we know about nature through Science if it's inconvenient to them.

[@hazmat5118]

What is with the clickbait video thumbnails? I'm sure these topics are very very interesting to AIG staff and their followers but I can't say I've ever met a single atheist who had strong feelings about competing theories of the geologic history of the Grand Canyon. I would start with God, man, sin, Jesus, cross, resurrection, grace i.e. the key elements of Gospel and get as quickly as I can to the main point, then try and understand their questions and defeaters, which are most likely related to the social issues of the day or their issues with the church. As well, Dr Snelling did not mention atheists, hate or how much atheists hate this in the whole video, and he delivered in a very calm and measured style that doesn't match with the extreme thumbnail.

[@Effectivebasketball]

One of the main arguments against evolution is that there are no transitional fossils between different species. This is often used as evidence that evolution is not a real process, but rather a theory that has been created by scientists to fit the evidence. However, this argument is based on a misunderstanding of what fossils are and how they are formed. Fossils are the preserved remains of organisms that lived in the past. They can be bones, teeth, shells, or even footprints. Fossils are rare, and they are often incomplete. This is because the conditions that are necessary for fossilization are very specific. The organism must die in an environment that is free of oxygen, and the remains must be buried quickly before they can be destroyed by scavengers or the elements. Because fossils are so rare, it is not surprising that there are no transitional fossils between all known species. However, this does not mean that evolution is not a real process. There are many examples of transitional fossils that show how different species have evolved over time. For example, there are fossils of horses that show how their teeth have changed over time as they evolved from grazing animals to browsers. Another argument against evolution is that the religious community was cheated by science. This argument is based on the belief that the Bible is the literal word of God, and that it contains all the information that we need to know about the origin of life and the universe. However, this argument ignores the fact that the Bible was written by human beings, and that it is therefore subject to human error. The Bible was written over a period of many centuries by different authors. These authors had different cultures, different languages, and different understandings of the world. As a result, there are many inconsistencies in the Bible. For example, the Bible says that the Earth is flat, but we know that the Earth is round. The Bible also says that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, but we know that the Earth is billions of years old. The fact that the Bible contains errors does not mean that it is not a valuable book. The Bible contains many important moral teachings, and it can be a source of comfort and inspiration for many people. However, we should not use the Bible as a scientific textbook. Science is based on evidence, and the evidence shows that evolution is a real process. In conclusion, the argument against evolution based on fossils and the assumption that the religious community was cheated by science is not a valid argument. There are many examples of transitional fossils that show how different species have evolved over time. The Bible is not a scientific textbook, and it should not be used to challenge the evidence for evolution.

[@johnpick8336]

Outstanding Presentation !

[@pakkiderm]

If you are to believe that the fossils all came from the Biblical Flood, why are there no fossils of any humans? After all, we are told the earth was flooded because of them?

[@greener4898]

This was incredibly insightful! One question I still have is where then are all the humans destroyed in the flood? That’s been something that puzzles me. Shouldn’t we see them in the record also? Thank you and GOD bless!

[@ApacheNL1]

Probably deep under the ocean.

[@rubenbordea]

Scientifically and historically it was never and it's not possible to be a global flood so that erases the Bible authenticity.. PS I was a hardcore believer.. I opened my eyes and brain now

[@larrymorrison1025]

Great question. I REMEMBER WHÀT JESUS SAID: AND THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE ,ALSO, THAT HE WAS the truth, light ;and HEcame to set them free.HOWEVER; EVOLUTION IS TRUE .

[@larrymorrison1025]

GREAT QUESTION. THANKS FOR ASK ING..

[@arisderociel2989]

Since humans are likely to have lasted nearly to the zenith of the flood (day 150) they probably weren't slammed into the earth and buried instantly the way the fossils were. The explanation I've heard is that they probably drowned and decomposed in the highest waves, which then receded and took those remains back out to sea to be eaten and broken down. More torturous death, and very little evidence, unfortunately. Hope this helps

[@amccann99]

Its not like, "oh it turned the final year of this era, so out with those animals and in with the new ones", of course there's going to be animals, fish, etc mixed into different eras. Do people still actually believe "day" meant an actual 24 hour period?

[@engineergaming3830]

In creationist belief humans existed alongside all the animals so why don't we see human fossils with dinosaurs? Also why should it alvays be catastrophic? What about mud slides? 9:22 yeah it took millions of years for this simple cell to be this complex

[@davidfoster2112]

Can we trust an overwhelming body of scientific thought, as opposed to an old book? Er, yes!

[@Tuoni996]

A 2500+ year old book written by man that claim that you just have to take it on faith that god told them to write it and then point to the very book they wrote saying that it says god said they wrote?? Can't be wrong. No siree

[@betsieswartz]

bUT i’Ts GOd’S wOrD!!!!!!!!!

[@JosiahFilm]

As an old world creationist, these are of the most easily refutable arguments I've ever heard. God creating the world via scientific processes, over millions of years make him look more glorious. Science does not infringe on his power, rather it amplifies it.

[@mehmetsimsek4794]

One of the things they will never get. They dont even think a bit. Still most of the population believes a creator, most of the scientists still believe in god. Most of scientific theories, discoveries,developments made by theists even most of the time directly from clergy, including the ones they fiercly object. Yet they talk like science is enemy of God and lead by atheists

[@RobertSmith-gx3mi]

Atheists love watching folks with a fifth grade knowledge of scientific theories get them so wrong. Don't ever change, you're too entertaining. By the way, if you have disproven evolution, when do you pick up your Nobel prize?