Matt Powell Answers the "Phylogeny Challenge" in 1 minute!

✅THE BIBLE WAY TO HEAVEN
• "THE BIBLE WAY TO HEAV...
________________________________
✅CONTACT MATT POWELL
[e-mail]
________________________________
✅BECOME A PATREON OF THE CHANNEL:
/ mattpowellofficial
____________________________________________
☑️ FOLLOW MATT POWELL ON OTHER PLATFORMS
☑️ KZbin: / @mattpowellofficial
☑️ BRAND NEWTUBE: brandnewtube.com/@MattPowellO...
☑️ UTREON: utreon.com/c/mattpowellofficial/
☑️ ODYSEE: odysee.com/@mattpowellOFFICIAL:9
☑️ TIKTOK: www.tiktok.com/@mattpowelloff...
__________________________________________________
✅SUPPORT MATT POWELL'S FREE DOCUMENTARIES AND VIDEOS
paypal.me/mattpowellofficial
(leave a message when donating on what you would like to donate towards)
________________________________________________
⚡ABOUT MATT POWELL⚡
Matt Powell grew up in a Christian home in Durand, MI. As a child, he struggled with his faith in God due to being continually challenged by the teenagers on the bus route to church. Some of them didn't believe in God, but they would come to church just for the treats and the friends they made. Matt ended up becoming agnostic at a very young age as a result. His parents had issues with him as well. When he was 11 years old, his parents introduced him to the Creation Science Seminar Series by Dr. Kent Hovind. Dr. Hovind's work brought Matt to an understanding of the truth of God's Word. One week after listening to the Creation Series, he went to a tent revival at Antrim Baptist Church in Fowlerville, MI, and heard a powerful sermon by Jason Kendrick on salvation. Matt trusted Christ as his Savior after the first service of the revival.
[Dr. Kent Hovind's Seminar #1🔬: • Video ]
When Matt turned 19 years old, he received basketball scholarships from over 40 different colleges and universities across the USA. He attended college at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan in 2015. During his time there, some of his friends and colleagues fell away from faith in God. This bothered him deeply... As a result, he quit the basketball team, and began preaching the Gospel of Christ. He has always loved basketball and was looking to become a professional basketball player before becoming a public speaker: • Matt Powell's Basketba...
Matt Powell OFFICIAL began on January 17, 2018. He has had a burden for the lost college students and the youth across America. Matt was lambasted across the internet when he joined the Creation vs. Evolution debate. One of the first people who attacked him was "The Raging Atheist" - an atheist youtuber who's career was destroyed by Powell on November 20, 2018 when the Movie "SCIENCE falsely so called" was released. • "SCIENCE falsely so ca...
Matt has gone on to debate many well known youtubers and PhD's, and takes down their arguments by simply using the Bible. Ultimately, his goal is to get people to Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. He doesn't like to do debates, but he says that he's willing to if it means that he can get people to abandon irrational beliefs.
_________________________________________________________
⚔️FULL DEBATES⚔️
Matt Powell vs. Raging Atheist [Full Debate - "Does God Exist?"]: • Atheist Vs. Christian ...
Matt Powell vs. "The Preacher" [Full Debate - "Sinless Perfection"]: • Sinless Perfection Deb...
Matt Powell vs. Dr. Kenny Rhodes [Full Debate - "YEC vs. OEC"]: • DEBATE || Matt Powell ...
Matt Powell vs. Smokey Saint ["Eternal or Conditional Security?"]: • Matt Powell Debate || ...
Matt Powell vs. Mr. Jones [Full Debate - "Creation vs. Evolution"]: • DEBATE: Matt Powell v...
__________________________________________________________
🎥FULL MOVIES🎥
💎 "ETERNAL or not" (2017): • "ETERNAL or not" || Fu...
💎 "SCIENCE falsely so called" (2018): • "SCIENCE falsely so ca...
💎 "THE SACRED NAME" (2019): • "THE SACRED NAME" || F...
💎 "THE ATHEIST RELIGION" (2020): • "The Atheist Religion"...
___________________________________________________________
✔️CREATION SCIENCE & BIBLE VIDEOS✔️
✔️Bible Way To Heaven: • "THE BIBLE WAY TO HEAV...
✔️Eternal Security Sermon: • Most Important Message...
✔️5 Proofs of YEC from Space: • 5 Powerful reasons Cre...
✔️3 Top Proofs of Noah's Flood: • Top 3 Proofs of Noah's...
✔️10,000 Dinosaurs Buried in USA: • Great evidence of Noah...
✔️Dinosaur Blood\Soft Tissue Found: • Issuing a challenge to...
✔️The First Church of Atheism: • This video is why many...
✔️Surfing Monkeys is "perfectly plausible": • Helping evolutionists ...
✔️10 of Evolution's craziest theories: • 10 of Evolution's Craz...
✔️Powell's opponents admit defeat! • Matt Powell's opponent...
✔️Matt Powell OWNS Raging Atheist: • Atheist Attacks Christ...
✔️Matt Powell OWNS YFN Atheist: • Christianity vs. Darwi...

[@YoungEarthCreation]

Well said Matt. That is what is so funny about this entire thing. This very subject was actually a falsified prediction of evolutionism, yet now they use it as the best proof of evolution. Con men to the core! In 1975, prior to any detailed genetic analysis, Institute Creation Research founder Dr. Henry Morris asserted there would be common underlying design patterns to explain similar structures. He said: “The creative process would have designed similar structures for similar functions and different structures for different functions.… In the creation model, the same similarities are predicted on the basis of a common purposive designer.” Evolution predicted the exact opposite! In 1963, Harvard’s leading evolutionary theorist Ernst Mayr predicted that looking for similar DNA between diverse organisms would be pointless. He claimed that random genetic changes over millions of years explained the differences in creature’s traits and that those many changes would have obliterated genetic similarities. Today we know their prediction was wrong, and this falsification has turned around and as I said earlier is today used as their best evidence for evolution when it was a total failure on their part. This is why they had to invent a global bottleneck to save themselves from the genetic evidence. But ask yourselves critics, What Model has always had a global bottleneck? It sure isn't evolution. That's right, it's ours, the YEC model. P.S. They were never able to find this bottleneck using their fable made fossil record invented by a lawyer named Lyell who hated Biblical Creation. So the real question for a critic would be; “Why would a programmer use different source code for every piece of software, rather than use the same framework and language for each application?” The obvious answer to that would be, He wouldn't.

[@YoungEarthCreation]

@GodTvRadio Live Podcast Show | By Brett Keane they actually thought that was possible too! en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_primate_hypothesis

[@IronSharpensIron127]

@GodTvRadio Live Podcast Show | By Brett Keane 🤣😂 to bad

[@kinetic7609]

Not to mention that only protein coding regions share large similiarities. Non protein coding regions have great variability between species. The reason they never cared about this is because they used to think it was just junk.

[@YoungEarthCreation]

@@kinetic7609 yup! It’s also why they never use paternity tests to try to prove genetic relation to anything else because it doesn’t exist.

[@YoungEarthCreation]

Why would he write a code that doesn’t look designed? Even biologist that are atheist like Richard Dawkins admits to it looking like it was designed lol maybe you haven’t noticed. lol the genetic code is so amazing we still haven’t figured it all out. Only someone who has never studied genetic and biology would ever try to claim was you just did. Look up just retrotransposons and your mind would be blown. Let alone epigenetics which is another entire branch of genetics that are just bringing to get understood. How about the functions for even just a small protein like zinc finger, it’s insane all it does. We can’t come anywhere close to building what we see in the biological world. Only an atheist would have such a bad argument. You think they use paternity tests to make phylogenetic trees to prove ancestry? Man you were robed by the education system, go get your money back! Asap! Here is the reality, when we use paternity tests what do the results show every single time? That’s right we’re related to a human. There’s no convergence to a missing Link common ancestor anywhere. This is why they do not use paternity tests to try and prove common ancestry because it doesn’t and cannot. The only place that exist is in the textbook and in the imagination of an evolutionist. You can believe it all you want but don’t try to call it science.

[@seanwyatt1611]

The phylogeny challenge is to identify created kinds. Or, more appropriately, describing how created kinds can be identified. This is just regurgitation of an old and unfounded assertion that kinds are created. This is like math class, Matt. You can't just state an answer, you have to show your work so we all know how you got there.

[@Kitten_in_a_scaryplace]

If you go back a few hundred thousand years there weren't "cats" and "dogs" there where organisms that resembled civets. Now imagine one group of these little guys goes north and one group heads south. After they have been apart for a decent amount of time (say 20,000 years) and those "mutations" will add up until they aren't the same. Give them even more time and you have cats and dogs, which aren't really THAT far apart on the family tree.

[@rockcommunitychurchthe139]

If you go back a few hundred thousand years, there wasn't an earth!

[@rockcommunitychurchthe139]

@@jonathan4189 appear to be older? Really? Come on man!

[@rockcommunitychurchthe139]

@@jonathan4189 How old do they 'appear' to be exactly?

[@rockcommunitychurchthe139]

@@jonathan4189 that's if you believe the world is billions of years old!

[@rockcommunitychurchthe139]

@@jonathan4189 based on dendochronography, "estimated" doesn't mean is, I disagree with the theory

[@douglubzinski571]

If you only believe the earth is a couple thousands years old I can see why it so hard for you to accept science which takes tens of thousands of years.

[@iwkaoy8758]

Why dew evolutionist a so she ate evolutionism width science as a hole? If some one bee leaved de earth was flat, that does ant mean day don't bee leave inn science as a hole. It does ant mean day don't bee leave indie law of gravity ore physics. It own Lee means day don't bee leave inn a round earth. Evolutionism is ant de owner of science.

[@preape]

@@iwkaoy8758 wow! I hope you did this as a joke! However a very bad one.

[@iwkaoy8758]

@@preape Why dew evolutionist tri two attach evolution two science as a hole? If you don't bee leave inn evolution,you don't bee leave inn science,does that make cents two you? That's like say yin if you don't bee leave that was pass interference, then you don't bee leave indie NFL. It own Lee mean you don't bee leave indie faith of evolutionism. Evolution is ant science at isle inn knee way bee cause theirs know Ed v dents four it. Own Lee huge leaps of faith bee cause of variety inn species.

[@preape]

@@iwkaoy8758 we attach evolution to science because it's part of science. It's called biology. Also the geological evidence is there to show the world is more than 6,000 years old. Also science. Hmmm. I see you were sleeping in science class and English class.

[@iwkaoy8758]

@@preape Yes, a part of scientist bee leaves, Knott observable Ed v dents. Win did eye claim de world was 6,000 years old? Stop make king a some Shawn's width out proof like evolution. If evolution was scientific,witch it's Knott, it steel does ant represent science as a hole. If some one does ant bee leave inn evolution, It does ant mean day don't bee leave inn science at isle. Evolutionist use variety inn any moles as proof of evolution,but isle de changes inn any moles comes from losing features,Knott gaining dim. Example- isle dog breeds de send from wolves,but what dog breed has a buy de part ore features wolves don't have? Yuken breed wolves two Chihuahuas buy losing features,but you kent breed a group of Chihuahuas back two wolves bee cause that genetic information is gone four ever. Evolutionist use recessive genes inn any moles as proof of evolution.

[@Niefisiujmitu]

Matt, you're just so wrong about everything you've said in this video.

[@Muhammed-xe6hn]

Just think about this: Humans bread dogs selectively to have certain traits (stubby nose of a pug for example) because they think it's cute or in the case of a Dachshund because they are better at hunting. They did this by selecting the dog with the best traits and breeding it, then out of the offspring selecting the one with the best traits and so on. This is a fact and it cant be denied because we are still doing it today. The reason this works is because every time you have new Baby dogs, they're slightly different. Let's not get into why they're different because that might be too complicated for people like you but I think we can all agree that this is the case and that traits of the parent dogs get passed on to the offspring. Now let's imagine there weren't any Humans to select which dogs get to reproduce. In that case the only thing hindering a dog from reproducing would be how good it is at doing just that. So a dog which is better at reproducing has a much higher chance of doing so than another dog which is a little worse. The "good" dog would then reproduce and in the process pass on its traits to his children. I think we can all agree that this is the case up to this point. Now for a little controversy. I suggest we call this form of selection "natural selection" because it happens on it's own, without human intervention. Now think this through over multiple generations of dogs. Over time, the dogs which are better at reproducing (which by the way also includes surviving itself because you cant reproduce if you're dead) would have more children and thus pass their traits down to their offspring. The offspring would always be slightly different than their parents and the best dogs out of that offspring would then pass their traits down more often. If this happens over many generations of dogs then the dog would always get slightly better at reproducing. Now because this process is very lengthy to describe I suggest we give it a name to make it simpler. How about "Evolution"? Now the really interesting part of all this is that you can try all of this out in your own backyard. All you need to prove that traits get passed on to offspring is a couple plants which grow rather quickly and a lot of free time. I suggest using peas because some monk (lol) named Mendel already had some good success with them. To prove that traits get altered slightly in offspring I suggest getting a bunch of rabbits (because they f like rabbits) and just letting them do their thing. After a few generations you will see that they aren't all the same as the ones you started out with. As far as proving evolution goes, well that's a little harder since Humans don't tend to live long enough to see it in something as slowly reproducing as rabbits but I think the pandemic did a really good job of demonstrating it. The Virus changed a bit, the changed version did slightly better and spread throughout the population et voila you have a new variant. Perhaps this is less compelling evidence to you than some book wrote some 3000 years ago but that's fine by me. The problem is that when you start spreading pseudo science as if it were a fact people will actually start believing it and because Humans dont go through natural selection because of our scientific and medicinal advancements we will actually get collectively dumber as a species. If the church would have been taken for fact all this time we would still be burning witches and you wouldn't have been able to post this video with a phone which is built on hundreds of years of accumulated knowledge and science.

[@ezekielanderson9055]

No one disagrees with all that. Even the Bible agrees. It says animals will bring forth after their kind. Birds produce other birds. Snakes produce other stakes. Etc. The problem is, you evolutionists see these small changes and you ASSUME and IMAGINE that large changes happen. No one has ever observed these large changes, because you say it takes millions of years. But when you say stuff like "over millions of years", that's when you leave science and enter Spongebob Imagination Land. And you conclude that all organisms are magically related. So your argument is, small changes happen; therefore all life is related. So dumb 🤦‍♂️

[@YoungEarthCreation]

@@ezekielanderson9055 they know it’s faith based but are to depressed to admit it. We already have the genetic boundaries that they said couldn’t exist. It’s over for them now

[@Muhammed-xe6hn]

@@ezekielanderson9055 Well then what's your argument? "I read it in a book so it must be true!!11!" There's simply no point in trying to explain anything to you guys. Try reading a peer reviewed study for once and maybe you'll get the concept of basic reasoning. If you agree with me about the dog part then you must agree that we have seen these large changes for ourselves. Well at least over multiple generations of humans. I'd say the change from Wolf to Chihuahua is pretty significant.

[@ezekielanderson9055]

@@Muhammed-xe6hn So you think something can only be true if it's in a peer reviewed study? So you think if a bunch of people say a thing, it's magically true? That's called the appeal to majority fallacy. So when I say "2+2=4", that's not a peer reviewed study. So you cant believe it. But let's say the people writing a peer reviewed paper make a typo and say "2+2=5". Based on your logic, you must believe them. The Book I read was written by God. And God makes no mistakes. So everything in the book is true, unlike your majority opinion fallacy

[@michaelmancarella7518]

@@Muhammed-xe6hn "Don't read that book read this book!" -You

[@Vision-sz9hw]

People who hate God purposefully have their eyes and ears shut off from any truth and logic. The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked. Jeremiah-KJV

[@Trollsagan69420]

Common designer you say? Hmmm, then why don’t whales get to breathe underwater like the fish, or any of the aquatic reptiles I wonder? They’re supposed to be commonly designed like fish after all! Hmm gee, quite the mystery! It’s almost like it wasn’t designed and it was just natural selection doing the bear minimum.

[@russellarson4690]

How does this in any way answer the phylogeny challenge? Misleading and dissapointing as usual.

[@randallalexander9209]

First like first comment.

[@matthewhall7976]

Congratulations and respect for this..👍❤️👍 God bless you and your loved ones man..🙏

[@stephentaylor356]

@@matthewhall7976 this is what you respect someone for??? I guess that explains why you're a fan of Matt Powell...if just being the first person to type out a comment earns your respect then being willfully ignorant of science would be pretty impressive to someone like you.

[@Trollsagan69420]

Are you expecting a dog to produce a raccoon? Do you even know what evolution is?

[@walterchristley4898]

One minute and twenty seconds of ignorance and lies.

[@hollybarnes4177]

I kept waiting for there to be any point in the video where he actually answers the challenge- which is to define how to identify a "kind," or to show where in the phylogenetic tree you can draw a definitive line and say for sure that one side of the line does not show the same morphological traits as the other side of the line. This man literally just regurgitated the Design propaganda and never addressed the challenge even in passing. I'm not even sure why I'm disappointed at this point. This is just sad.

[@christianwarrior249]

We're living in the last days! ✝️

[@speedingatheist]

Yeah, about 2000 years and counting. Any day now, huh?

[@stephentaylor356]

@@speedingatheist hey...just because literally every single generation of Christians have said that and always been wrong just means they gotta get it right eventually, right??? I mean, if a broken clock is right twice a day, surely the Christians can get it right once in 2000 years...right???

[@TLO129]

Jesus said he was gonna return 2000 years ago. Where is he? He's not coming. Time to accept youve been stood up.

[@raintalon6138]

Jesus is inside you. And he's coming.

[@ratkinguk1942]

🤣🤣🤣

[@choosejesus1910]

Amen!

[@TrashPanda_123]

💯 thanks for the message!

[@pajamajordan2991]

It’d be great if Christians could stop lying about stuff as simple as whether or not they address a challenge within their video.

[@andrewsaulters2793]

Keep it up brother. You are doing God’s will. May God continue, providing you with wisdom.

[@GoodNewsGospel777]

Excellent bro.

[@2027Judah]

Keep it up, Matt

[@jeromem4923]

👍🙏

[@IronSharpensIron127]

Keep it up brother!

[@scottymeffz5025]

I'm sorry... does anyone find this compelling? He did not answer the challenge. He asserted, with zero evidence, his own beliefs.

[@matthewhall7976]

your channel should have way more subscribers Matt Powell.. You're always factually accurate and to the point and occasionally hilarious.. Thnx for the videos you make, God bless you and your loved ones man..👍❤️👍

[@stephentaylor356]

He's never factually accurate. Even a cursory understanding of evolution conflicts with everything Matt says. Ask a biologist about biology, ask Matt when you want to know the best way to apply clown makeup.

[@hozn]

Well put Mr. Powell. It was nice meeting you at DAL last month.

[@N0nPluzUltra]

That a sinner can become a son of God is proof for evolution. John 3:5-7 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

[@mmaimmortals]

Common food source is the reason for commonality in DNA, homologies, etcetera. If we didn’t share the DNA in common, our bodies would have no way of processing the food we eat. It has to match. Molecular binding has to do with the shape of the fold. Having the correct fold in the organism’s molecules is how the food source molecules bind where they need to bind and do what they need to do. For this, you need vast similarities in DNA across the plant and animal kingdoms. It is precisely this level of integration that we know we are designed, not evolved.

[@mmaimmortals]

@@hylaherping9180 Not sure exactly what point you’re trying to make. But plants do recycle ... plant material... And use it for growth, developmental cycles, etcetera, much like animals use the same material for grown, metabolism, energy, cellular repair, and so on. So it makes really good design sense that plants and animals have a percentage of DNA in common.

[@mmaimmortals]

@@iloveyoursnottyattitude6137 Does design preclude evolution? Not in the strict logical sense. But in the Biblical version of creation, it does. If God had used evolution to bring current life about, it would have been easy to have said so. Instead, the account given is diametrically opposed to deep time and macro evolution when taken as plainly written.

[@mmaimmortals]

@@iloveyoursnottyattitude6137 I think “plainly written” is a better way of saying “literal interpretation “, but yes, that is my position.

[@TickedOffPriest]

The idea of common design never once crosses their minds.

[@stephentaylor356]

Only because it's demonstrably wrong. Unless you're suggesting god 'designed' us with ERVs in the same place as several other primate species. An odd thing to do, since they don't appear to do anything at all, aside from demonstrate that we have common ancestry.

[@jasonelliott1722]

They argue "similar DNA" without realizing DNA itself proves design.

[@addersrinseandclean]

But Matt evolution says dinosaurs can surf ( perfectly plausible ) 🤣🤣🤣

[@stephentaylor356]

So how did dingos and kangaroos get to the land down under after leaving Noaks impossibly big boat???

[@tomwaldenofficial]

"I can't agree more with you Matt". -Tom

[@scottymeffz5025]

You agree with blind assertions? Cool beans

[@ryandaniel4571]

Short! To the point! Excellent! 🙂

[@stephentaylor356]

You forgot to mention fundamentally wrong on every conceivable level...

[@ryandaniel4571]

@@stephentaylor356 no, I didn't. Because it isn't.

[@ThePosiview]

@@ryandaniel4571 any peer reviewed evidence? Nah, didn’t think so 😂

[@ryandaniel4571]

Peer reviewed peer reviewed peer reviewed, blah blah blah!

[@stephentaylor356]

@@ryandaniel4571 yeah, it's silly to rely on collective knowledge to figure anything out, better to just blindly assert it then pretend like you're right no matter what. You and Matt keep playing make believe. The rest of us will be doing real science if you ever get tired of playing at the kiddy table.

[@elizabethsullivan4560]

Well professionally done! God bless you

[@stephentaylor356]

You call this professionally done??? I would want someone to do any amount of research and actually know what they're talking about before I would call it 'professionally done'. The only kind of profession Matt has is being a professional clown.

[@jasonwolfe2991]

If you're not on tiktok already you should make short creation videos like this for that platform as well.

[@stephentaylor356]

Because there's never enough stupid people with bad takes on TikTok. I guess Matt does belong on the platform that brought us the tide pod challenge. At least he would be with his intellectual equals then.

[@YECBIB]

You mean a beetle can't mate with an orange or a horse with an anteater or a fish with a tarantula? 🤪 Who knew!? Only evolutionists Imagination.

[@MichaelAChristian1]

Orange BEETLE! The newest imaginary transition.

[@YECBIB]

@@nathancross6833 The Bible talks about kinds.

[@stephentaylor356]

Nobody who believes in evolution ever said any such thing. Resorting to a poorly constructed strawman to feel like you've won some kind of victory is a pretty pathetic look.

[@YECBIB]

@@stephentaylor356 OK....so tell me, where is your evidence,troll? Trolls come out at night.

[@stephentaylor356]

@@YECBIB the evidence is in every one of a billion responses to this half baked strawman. Ask a biologist what evolution is and how it works...nobody has ever claimed that an orange and a beetle can mate. Where your evidence that anyone who understands and studies evolution has ever said that this happens??? I'm willing to bet you've got none. Try harder because this is pathetic.

[@michaelgallick4617]

Hi Matt! "Your becoming a great teacher of the Words of the Lord from the KJB"! Would so like you to teach us more! Kent don't mind! "The more, the merrier"! "I/we love listening to you and how you come across in explaining and debunking"! Bless you and your family"! With ❤ and🙏's!

[@jjphank]

Take that ra…See that? that Just Happened!!!

[@alphabeta1337]

Evolution is a big myth

[@TLO129]

Evolution is a verifiable fact of population genetics. It is supported by a vast body of objectively verifiable data, and has never been contradicted once. To say evolution is wrong would be to deny reality.

[@stephentaylor356]

Young earth creationism is the real myth. Evolution has supporting evidence by the truckload. YEC has clowns screaming that theirs is the only explanation but you have to ignore how biology works to accept it. It's pathetic how little you people understand about how the world actually works so you can keep clinging to your silly myths about magic men in the sky.

[@donniev8181]

"A man who thinks halfheartedly will not believe in God, but a man who truly thinks has to believe in God" Isaac Newton

[@vesuvandoppelganger]

Matt Powell didn't answer the phylogeny challenge. The answer to the phylogeny challenge is species. Species are what was originally and separately created.

[@stephentaylor356]

The only thing Matt Powell has ever answered is: 'What's the dumbest and most uneducated thing ever to come out of a creationists mouth???' It's impressive how he answers that every time he opens his mouth and more stupid tumbles out.

[@TLO129]

Wrong. Because speciation occurs, and has been directly observed, which counts as MACRO evolution. So for the bible to correct you have to accept a level of phylogeny, and you have to define the cutoff point, and every creationist has only managed to fail trying.

[@vesuvandoppelganger]

Can you give a specific example of a new species arising through random mutations in the genome of an animal?

[@TLO129]

@@vesuvandoppelganger Absolutely. There are countless examples of speciation events. The african wild dog is speciated from all other dogs and wolves because it can NOT interbreed with the parent stock. There a varieties of finches on the galapogos island in the process of speciating. The kaibab and aberts squirrels are examples are an example of allopatric speciation. House mice in vastly different situations on the faroe islands have speciated according to the population density of which island they are on. There are 4 types of speciation currently known. Allopatric, Peripatric, Parapatric, and Sympatric. All 4 of which have been directly observed MANY times.

[@stephentaylor356]

@@vesuvandoppelganger lotta specifications there...might that be because you're trying to dismiss valid examples you've been given in the past??? There is no single transitional species you can point to because every species is a transition from what their ancestors were into what their descendants become. If you're looking for a literal crocoduck or for a fish to give birth to a ferret then you don't understand evolution or what it actually proposes. I encourage you to read a book or watch a video by an actual biologist instead of a professional clown like Matt Powell.

[@redfaux74]

DNA is a blueprint. Similarities in a blueprint point to a Designer. To a great intellect. Blueprints don't evolve. Changing them (even in minor ways) leads to a complete new blueprint or disaster. Especially random ones. Just ask anyone who has ever had to follow one. Blueprints must be carefully and painstakingly plotted out. The pipes, electricity, vents, structure, types of materials, openings, weights MUST be carefully thought out ahead of time. Great amounts of math are involved. Nothing about a blueprint is random. Nothing. Nothing assembles itself. The concept is devoid of all logic. Add life, random billions of years, various weather problems, unknown astrological events, darkness.... you have only disaster as a result. Life MUST be cared for at all stages. The more primitive it is, the more care you need. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a complete buffoon. Only an imbecile would "imagine" some random organism would pop into being and it had the needed food source and proper digestive system in place to process that food successfully. Everything MUST be planned ahead of time and on time. No exceptions.

[@stephentaylor356]

A great intellect that puts the food and air intake in the same tube. Brilliant, like putting the waste disposal and reproductive areas together, or wrapping the giraffes laryngeal nerve all the way down and around the aortic arch before bringing it back up to the brain instead of taking a direct path. If god designed everything he did a shit job...was he drunk or...???

[@redfaux74]

@@stephentaylor356 - Then quit breathing. If you don't like multi purpose engineering then stop typing. Your eyes have multi purpose functions. Only use them to see color. Obviously your brain cannot multi task. You atheists have the most stupid arguments. You despise intellect and crave nonsense.

[@redfaux74]

@@jonathan4189..... and any imbecile could read the 4 Gospels and see Jesus HEALED the diseases, not caused them. A casual reading of Gen 1 and you'll see His creation was without death and disease. You cannot have it both ways.

[@redfaux74]

@@iloveyoursnottyattitude6137 - It's not an analogy at all. DNA is literally a blueprint. A 3D blueprint. The DNA inverts upon itself depending upon the current need of the cell. How do you think organs and systems are formed in the body? With information from the DNA to tell EACH and every cell exactly what to do and how to do it and when and at what stage. It is literally a blueprint.

[@ezekielanderson9055]

Great video. Evolution debunked once again

[@stephentaylor356]

Matt's existence does seem to debunk evolution, I'll grant you that. But he's is, in fact, a human being. His lack of understanding on the subject of evolution is the result of willful ignorance, not being some lesser animal with only the ability to mimic human speech and no discernable cognitive capacity.

[@ezekielanderson9055]

@@stephentaylor356 Can you justify any of those claims?

[@stephentaylor356]

@@ezekielanderson9055 the claim that Matt is a human being and not some kind of man shaped muppet with literal yarn for brains??? No I can't justify it...he really does seem like an empty headed clown.

[@stephentaylor356]

@@ezekielanderson9055 ohhh you mean the claim that he doesn't understand evolution??? That one's easy...watch anything he's ever said about it. He shows a fundamental lack of understanding with every word. Compare what he claims about evolution to what an actual biologist claims. They don't match up. Now, you can choose to believe the guy without a degree in biology...or any field relevant to evolution...or you can choose to believe the biologist who spent years of dedicated study to understand the science. Better still, you can study biology yourself. If evolution isn't true then you should be able to use that training to pick it apart way better than Matt can...right???

[@ezekielanderson9055]

@@stephentaylor356 Not just the claim about evolution. Justify literally any of your claims. So you think that because Matt disagrees with biologists, therefore everything he says about evolution is magically untrue? Why not the other way around? The biologist doesn't agree with Matt, so why isn't everything biologist says magically untrue? And Matt disagreeing with biologists is the whole point. Matt is trying to get people to realize that they've been indoctrinated by so called "experts" and that evolution is a dumb pseudoscience. I'm sorry, but your argument "Matt disagrees with a biologist" just doesn't hold up. Why not try to debunk his actual arguments instead of making dumb fallacies? Or you can't do that?

[@braddisen38]

Why would God design a biological function perfectly for one animal and then design the same biological function a different way (worse way) for another animal? In computer code we have libraries of functions, that are used over and over again for all software. It just makes sense to use the same proven design in multiple organisms. God bless !

[@speedingatheist]

Why would your magic man design a beetle with perfectly formed wings under fused wing covers making the wings useless? Evolution, it works in mysterious ways (for simpletons).

[@stephentaylor356]

No, that makes no sense. We do have code libraries to use when we program but we aren't omnipotent or all knowing. Are you saying god is so stupid that he sometimes forgets how this or that gene is coded and needs to have a shortcut to help him??? How dare you blaspheme against god almighty by suggesting he in any way mentally or emotionally limited like humans are??? Also, how do you figure it's 'proven' design if you think everything was made at once??? This only makes sense if you're being wilfully ignorant of science because you think you can't believe if your god if you don't. Which is beyond insulting to any Christian who understands science and accepts it and the way in which god operates.