Schools Teach This as Scientific Fact, But It’s Verifiably WRONG

[@genegroover3721]

Awesome job explaining the Truth. Keep up the good job!

[@earthisasphere]

The truth is Calvin either doesn't know anything about evolution, or he is lying to you. Don't get your science from apologetics channels.

[@eugenetswong]

I agree, Gene. He did a great job focusing on the loss of information, and not increase of it.

[@MountKeen]

@@eugenetswong A couple of questions for you. According to Calvin and his cronies at AiG, *all* humans alive today are descended from 8 people who got off a very big boat around 4,000 years ago. Now if you did basic genetics at school you'll know that 8 people have between them a maximum possible of 16 different alleles for each genetic locus. That means, if Calvin is correct that "most mutations are deleterious" and that "no new genetic information can appear through mutation", there can't be any human genetic locus anywhere today with more than 16 alleles, since that is the *maximum* that could have stepped off the ark. *But* today we find human genetic loci (such as hemoglobin or the HLA complex) that have well over *400* different alleles. Weird eh? Since there could have only been 16 possible on the ark, and since there are over 400 now, and since 400 is more than 16, that means that somehow the genetic information *INCREASED* from the time they got off the ark until now. My questions for you are: 1. If genetic mutations always produce a *LOSS* in information, like Calvin and his cronies keep telling us, then how did we go from 16 alleles to over 400 alleles (maybe in creationist mathematics, 400 is not larger than 16)? 2. If these new alleles did not appear through mutations, then how DID they get here?

[@KB-cm5gu]

Great coverage of the topic. Thank you for putting this all together.

[@frankguetta9529]

He’s utterly clueless. He’s lying to you.

[@avgejoeschmoe2027]

@@frankguetta9529 sad, how much in denial you are. Even when faced with actual facts.

[@firecloud77]

@@frankguetta9529 Without elucidation, your claim is only a claim. Do better.

[@HS-zk5nn]

@@firecloud77 thats all he can do - opinionate

[@mirandahotspring4019]

If you want lies and deliberate misinformation.

[@TravelingInFaith]

Thank you

[@ElectricBluJay]

Well done. Keep up the good work!

[@PrehistoricFarmsYT]

merry Christmas y’all!❤

[@sciencerules2825]

Thanks, same back at ya! 🥰

[@PrehistoricFarmsYT]

@@sciencerules2825❤

[@strategywizard]

Merry Christmas!

[@eugenetswong]

Merry Christmas, everybody! MAGA Christmas, too.

[@PrehistoricFarmsYT]

@@eugenetswong merry CHRISTMAS! We are saying marry Christmas!

[@avgejoeschmoe2027]

It is now well known that parents pass down an average of 100 BAD mutations to their children. It causes LOSS of DNA information. Think of it this way. If I keep taking pages out of a book, eventually I have an unreadable book. But I still started with a book. Tearing out pages didn’t "write" the book. The Author, "wrote" the book.

[@littleacorn2244]

100 mutations but not bad. Most are neutral, some are deleterious and tend to get weeded out, the few beneficial ones tend to accumulate. Amazing how creationist still can't grasp such a simple concept.

[@avgejoeschmoe2027]

@@littleacorn2244 do you realize that it takes the population of the world, in one generation , to generate even a few perceived "beneficial" mutation? I'd say that is a losing battle, wouldn't you? "tend to get weeded out" ???? hardly, how many Congenital disorders does the human race deal with now? here is a short list. Here are some examples of congenital disorders: Structural anomalies These affect the structure of body parts, such as: Cleft lip or palate Heart defects Neural tube defects, such as spina bifida Limb abnormalities, such as extra fingers or toes Functional or developmental anomalies These affect how a body part or system works, such as: Nervous system or brain problems Sensory problems Metabolic disorders Degenerative disorders Other congenital disorders These include: Down syndrome Clubfoot Hernias Fetal alcohol syndrome Sickle cell anemia Sturge-Weber syndrome Hemophilia

[@johnglad5]

​@littleacorn2244 There is not onesingle mutation that increases the information. All those neutral ones build up and destroy the original information.

[@sciencerules2825]

@@johnglad5 There's certainly a big creationist lie. Gene duplication followed by additional mutations to the copy are empirically observed to increase information content in a genome.

[@sciencerules2825]

@@avgejoeschmoe2027 Tsk tsk. Still too ignorant to understand beneficial mutations spread through and get fixed in a population through genetic recombination. Have you even set foot in a college science class in your pitiful life?

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

God bless you, AIG 🙏🙏🙏✝️🕊️ Love you guys

[@frankguetta9529]

You love liars?

[@MathiasVIKING0403]

​@@frankguetta9529no ,but I loath sky daddy screaming atheists for sure. Especially the ones who obviously can't stand creationist views and are unable to contain themselves.

[@earthisasphere]

@@frankguetta9529 Most YEC's are liars, or very ignorant. They have to be to believe what they claim to believe.

[@earthisasphere]

@@MathiasVIKING0403 Evolution and creation do not preclude one another. However, a young earth is precluded by most scientific fields.

[@MathiasVIKING0403]

@earthisasphere dude I have had this conversation with you on this very channel many times. Uninterested in conversating with the same ghost trolls that haunt all these creationist videos. You, Mirandahotsprings, and jockyoung clearly can't stand creation science and anyone who holds its science as their personal view. Well,it's not up to anyone of you to motivate others to become sky daddy screaming atheists and haunt every comment they make or agree with from others. I guarantee none of you have a single PhD or doctorate between the entirety of you. Not that it matters really that you do. Doesn't make you educated or wise by any means. Especially when the angle of approach by all of you that I mentioned,is insulting and narcissistic at times. Get off creationists nuts for lack of a better phrase! Go find an edifying hobby that isn't attempt at dragging others down?

[@PrehistoricFarmsYT]

Ty AIG!❤

[@avgejoeschmoe2027]

Genomics has convinced me of Creation. Genetic entropy solidified it

[@Glop1177]

Genetic entropy isn't real.

[@avgejoeschmoe2027]

@@Glop1177 go see for yourself, I DARE you..... It is now well known that parents pass down an average of 100 BAD mutations to their children. It causes LOSS of DNA information Entropy

[@victorobanda769]

​@@Glop1177it is everything in this universe is degrading it's called entropy relate that to your concept.

[@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n]

@@Glop1177 Israel Ramirez Retired BiopsychologistUpvoted by Garwin Kim Sing , PhD, Viral Immunology and Drew Smith , PhD in Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology from the University of ColoradoAuthor has 4.1K answers and 28.6M answer viewsUpdated 1y Originally Answered: Is the human genome degrading over time and actually devolving? Yes, the human genome is degrading. This is a well-established, noncontroversial finding. This phenomenon is called “increasing mutational load” and is based on concepts developed by one of the great geneticists, H. Muller, roughly 70 years ago.[1]

[@avgejoeschmoe2027]

@@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n excellent comment , thank you

[@zerosteel0123]

They teach it because we live in a fallen world and we are getting close to the end of times. It will only get worse the closer we get to Jesus returning. I can't even imagine how bad it will be during the Great Tribulation itself.

[@frankguetta9529]

@@zerosteel0123 Jehovah’s Witnesses have a few videos on this where they’re hiding in a bunker whilst it’s all going crazy “out there”. Pretty paranoid stuff. You might like them.

[@jockyoung4491]

They teach it because it is fundamental science, and we don't want out children to be ignorant.

[@HS-zk5nn]

if Chucky Dee want such a broken lost man, he never would have come up with the greatest tall tale of the last 200 years.

[@frankguetta9529]

@ Ha ha. You clueless dolt. You’d be hating Alfred Wallace instead if Darwin hadn’t published his theory when he did.

[@Glop1177]

@@zerosteel0123 no they teach evolution because it is a supported fact of the natural world. If what you believed was evident then that's what they would teach.

[@heinpereboom5521]

The Bible tells us how people thought they knew and no longer needed God. Unfortunately, that is still the case. Science knows a lot and can apply it positively, but scientists do not know WHY it is possible for 1 scientific subject and many seem to forget that. Only God knows.

[@mirandahotspring4019]

What ignorant nonsense!

[@heinpereboom5521]

@@mirandahotspring4019 No one can tell us why we live, why molecules are the way they are. There are still countless examples in nature and in science. Maybe you have an example of which you can say why it works?

[@mirandahotspring4019]

@@heinpereboom5521 We evolved, get over it.

[@earthisasphere]

@@heinpereboom5521 Just because we don't have all the answers doesn't mean god did it. That is a horribly weak argument.

[@NigelM18]

​@mirandahotspring4019 simple question, do you believe God exists?

[@mikehorton3664]

as always, well done👍 God bless, matthew6:33, proverbs3:5

[@Dane_Booker]

I highly recommend everyone read Your Life, Your Game by Keezano. I’ve read it, and it truly changed my life. It beautifully shows how connecting with God and your inner self can lead to spiritual growth and financial success. A must-read. God bless! 🙏

[@jockyoung4491]

And how much do you get for pimping it?

[@OlegLankin]

Sounds like prosperity gospel.

[@avgejoeschmoe2027]

The genome is not what evolution expected. The examples of mutations we have are not of the types required for evolution to advance. Evolution has to explain how the four-dimensional genome, with multiple overlapping codes and chock full of meta-information, came about. Can mutations create the kind of information needed to produce a four-dimensional genome? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

[@littleacorn2244]

We don't have a "four dimensional genome".

[@avgejoeschmoe2027]

@@littleacorn2244 yes we do, you should do a little SEARCH before you comment, you look bad now A four-dimensional genome is a model of the human genome that takes into account the order of DNA letters, the DNA interaction network, the 3D folding of chromosomes, and time. The four dimensions are: First dimension The order of DNA letters, which spell out genes that tell the cell what to do Second dimension The DNA interaction network, which includes transcription factors, activators, repressors, enhancers, and specificity factors Third dimension The 3D folding of chromosomes, which is important for the genome's overall function Fourth dimension Time, which includes changes to the first three dimensions

[@BillG8718]

@@avgejoeschmoe2027 MODEL for conceptual purposes, not an actual four-dimensional genome. Unless you are counting time as a dimension in which case all matter in the universe is 4-D and your claim is meaningless.

[@earthisasphere]

Personal incredulity doesn't falsify anything.

[@KrisMaertens]

A 4 dimensional genome... Yeah,I'm sure you have more than 1 PhD,I think 4...

[@EmehIfeanyi-nz5lf]

AIG nice topic, I'm learning a lot from you than having a blind faith in Evolution

[@earthisasphere]

Religion, by definition, requires blind faith. Science, by definition, requires evidence, of which evolution has more than any other scientific idea you can think of.

[@EmehIfeanyi-nz5lf]

@earthisasphere Well I have seen evidences of The historical evidence of Religion , which is not Scientific and religion is not science but Evolution that claimed to be science but no observable Scientific evidence of it , it has not been observed by people, can not be repeated, only believe to have happened, just to support a world view. Thank you AIG for ur lectures , I thank God for you exposing these fairy tale called evolution.

[@rm2h]

@@earthisasphereevolution is still a theory.

[@SuperCilis]

​@@earthisasphereso why does evolution require more blind faith than any religion? Why does evolution require the dismissal of several disciplines like microbiology, genetics, etc?

[@i7Qp4rQ]

@@earthisasphere Yet again: All evidences are _interpreted_ . Evolutionists' interpretations are biased: "Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." -Richard Lewontin

[@Sayori393]

I learned all throughout school about evolution and it was so unquestioned that it made me begin to question my faith. It was like a complete echo chamber. So I am super grateful for videos like this that help me get back to reality and back to God.

[@katamas832]

Bish that's how 95% of subjects are taught in school lmfao.

[@frankguetta9529]

Of course you did. Now tell me of a transitional fossil you were taught and why it’s transitional.

[@TheSaintFrenzy]

@@katamas832 who’s Bish? 🤔

[@jockyoung4491]

Why would evolution make you question your faith? The two have nothing to do with each other. Evolution does not threaten faith.

[@jockyoung4491]

Yes, school assumes reality.

[@Vernon-Chitlen]

Imagine the 98 elements diluted in the 1.5 sextillion molecules per drop of warm little pond water, becoming arranged into amino acids. Out of the 500+ possible kinds only 20 particular became arranged in sequences as specific as 20 letters spelling protein words averaging 300 each. There are 12.6 billion of these 20 in only their left hand forms (except glycine) in the thousands of the different types of the 42 million proteins in the simplest cell. The encyclopedia britannica has 206.8 million of 26 particular letters, averaging 4.7 in 44, million words. Even separating out the 5 elements that amino acids are made of, nobody can make more than 1/2 of a complete set of all 20 specific amino acids and they are even 50/50 right and left handed...

[@littleacorn2244]

"Life is complex therefore GAWDDIDIT". That about cover your point?

[@Vernon-Chitlen]

@littleacorn2244 Not at all, it' couldn't originate in a perfectly sterile, barren, virginal, dumb as the rock of Jesus's empty tomb, warm little pond, primordial soup or whatever.

[@sciencerules2825]

@@Vernon-Chitlen Good old one-note Vernon back with his same ignorance based incredulity. 😄

[@redemption-ministries]

⁠@@littleacorn2244Kind of - how else can you explain reproductive systems, symbiosis, time, space and matter? Either nothing caused them, or someone created them.

[@Vernon-Chitlen]

@@sciencerules2825 More evidence then: we don't know how, can't demonstrate the prebiotic chemistry, but we KNOW there is no God?

[@Yeshua1158]

I always in joy your channel. Thought I very rarely see it. I am subscribed and have the notifications on. I look for it but can’t seem to find it. Great show and great books. God bless.

[@earthisasphere]

Looks as if Calvin's team has about as much tech ability as they do scientific knowledge, which would be very little.

[@ΓεώργιοςΝτέλμας]

Thank you so much

[@jimhughes1070]

80 or 90 years and billions of dollars spent by the smartest geeks on the planet... Not even one living cell😢 No credible explanations on how that first living cell could remain alive long enough to evolve into something else... By learning how to replicate itself 😎 The math ain't mathing... Every discussion on Evolution always begs the question that the evolutionist cult fears the most😂 Go back a few days... The question might be..."where did you get the dirt?"🤣 A theory does nothing more than explain your school yard guess... And certainly doesn't explain anything scientific😅 If science were involved, they wouldn't have to lie and say "their theory" is fact! 😎

[@sciencerules2825]

How long have medical researchers been working on a cure for cancer? Should we call them all frauds just out to steal grant money too?

[@HS-zk5nn]

yep its the biggest grift of one could say all time.

[@Glop1177]

@@jimhughes1070 you should look up the term "thought terminating cliché".

[@jimhughes1070]

@Glop1177 No need 😎... The definition is contained within the phrase.. 🤣 When men reach the limit of their ability to gain more knowledge on a particular Enterprise... They move immediately to something called "Theory"... And when that theory is 200 years old... And continues despite all evidence ... And having no scientific basis... What does the dogmatic believer in the theory do?... Insult those who realize they have not learned everything yet... Men have limits set upon their knowledge... The evidence is everywhere. Pointing out a limit is in any way being obstinate 🙏😎

[@Glop1177]

@@jimhughes1070 you should look it up any way and then really think about it.

[@t.hawkfitness3386]

"hasn't been observed while it's happening" sounds like another way of saying I have faith in something

[@globalcoupledances]

time also can not be observed

[@t.hawkfitness3386]

@@globalcoupledances Maybe but no one is going to debate time given the fact that events occur in time.

[@earthisasphere]

@@t.hawkfitness3386 Then you shouldn't have a problem accepting evolution as we have seen the evolutionary events happen via genetics and the fossil record.

[@frankguetta9529]

@@t.hawkfitness3386 Apart from time deniers who are stuck in a cult that says time doesn’t exist. Just like evolution deniers.

[@t.hawkfitness3386]

@frankguetta9529 I mean I'm not in a cult but I don't give credit to evolution because it doesn't seem plausible to say that a lifeless, chance gave life to intelligent creatures. That just seems more like a belief than a fact.

[@frankguetta9529]

Here is a guy who sets up a chess board in front of him to make himself look intelligent but couldn’t even get the set up correct. His understanding of evolution is equally pitiful.

[@BillG8718]

It's all a big con game with this guy. His faithful sheep are just too slow to realize it.

[@frankguetta9529]

@ Everything he says is from AIG’s website.

[@SillyDeity]

He's someone who has a long track record of dishonesty. He quote mines, misrepresents science and scientists, falsely portrays those who accept the science as racists or unreliable, he uses fallacious appeals to consequences and guilt by falsely associating evolutionary theory to atrocities, while conveniently ignoring the atrocities that are attributed to the god of the bible. Fallacious arguments are of course irrelevant when discussing evolutionary theory from the scientific point of view, but Calvin never actually engages in discussing the actual science. If he did, he'd be out of his depth in the blink of an eye.....and he knows it.

[@frankguetta9529]

@ He claims he used to be an evolutionist which we can all see is a lie. His only understanding of it is from AIG.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

@@frankguetta9529 You guys literally make no science points at all, you just insult. The fact is that evolution/abiogenesis is purely in the eye of the beholder, you believe in it, we don't, and YOU can't prove a darned thing about it. Nobody has ever doubted micro evolution, even farmers going back centuries knew about breeding programs. But claims of phylogenetic linkage of all organisms are like having 5 dots on a diagram and drawing Mona Lisa over it. It's a fable that we don't believe, sorry.

[@benice2497]

Thank you so much for doing this ministry!

[@LarsLarson-u1x]

Evolution is an absolute fact. Time to come to terms with that. Screaming "nuh-uh, my book!" to like 15 entire scientific fields slapping you in the face does't change reality. You can accept facts and still believe in your sky daddy. It's okay.

[@EpaphroditusBeltishazzar]

Thank you for providing no facts and just screaming "nuh-uh."

[@therick363]

⁠@@EpaphroditusBeltishazzarCalvin never provides facts for his claims

[@EpaphroditusBeltishazzar]

@@therick363 neither did OP.

[@IAMhassentyou-w5m]

Amen 🙏

[@scottbraun6484]

I've had this as a theory for years but I'm just a dumb highschool educated Marine. It's always bothered me that the genetic anomaly would have to be such that it would say the minimum not be a hindrance to reproduction. At best 2 anomalies would have to reproduce to pass on that mutation and it would still have to be beneficial to the offspring who would also need to pass it on.

[@sciencerules2825]

That's not how reproduction works. You get half of your DNA from each parent so only one parent needs to have a beneficial mutation to pass it on. Also most mutations which get passed on are neutral WRT reproductive fitness, they don't need to be beneficial. Thank you for your service BTW, nothing but respect. 🫡

[@jockyoung4491]

"the genetic anomaly would have to be such that it would say the minimum not be a hindrance to reproduction." Exactly. If a mutation hinders reproduction, it could not be passed on. Most mutations do not hinder reproduction. That is why we do NOT need more than mutation to make it work. If one mutation is passed on to multiple offspring, then THAT is how it increases in the population.

[@msmd3295]

And it is those “built-in” genetic variations that contribute to mutation & mutation can ultimately lead to new species. For example, I was recently viewing a program about ancient Egypt and how marriage within the same families produced debilitating genetic mutations. Diversification of gene pools helps sustain species & at the same time can contribute to new species. Just look at the human genome that is very closely related to other lower primates such as chimpanzees, macaques, bonobos & apes. If you can’t see any connection there between species you’re simply not looking. And if you’re not looking it’s probably because your head is chock full of the mysticism & supernaturalism of religion.

[@cloisteredoyster]

I think this is a trope......the difference between man and other primates keeps growing, plus of course there is the massive difference between a chimp and a man and that is his consciousness and language, which would agree with being made in the Image of God

[@jeannine1739]

Thank you for another good video. Merry Christmas, y'all!

[@kennethkatekovich9243]

excellent

[@noneyabidness9644]

Sum total of mutation has only been observed to be reductive to total nucleotides. By 80:20. So for every 1 increase to total base pairs, there are 4 lost due to mutation.

[@earthisasphere]

Uh, no. About 2% of all mutations are beneficial, about 2 % are deleterious, and about 94% are neutral, although even neutral mutations can add genetic info to the code. Stop just making up numbers.

[@noneyabidness9644]

@earthisasphere absolutely and historically incorrect. And also, did not address my comment, at all. Because you clearly do not understand it.

[@noneyabidness9644]

@@earthisasphere here is a hint, research indels and their ratios. I had to pay nearly a hundred grand for this knowledge, you gotta earn it by sweat.

[@earthisasphere]

@@noneyabidness9644 Oh, we already have one YEC on here lying about having an advanced degree. Looks like we found #2.

[@noneyabidness9644]

@earthisasphere son, I'll leave the lying to you, along with the projections. If you knew even basics, you'd be aware of these facts.

[@MountKeen]

A reminder that Calvin was nominated for this year's Golden Crocoduck Award. The Golden Crocoduck is awarded every year for the biggest breach of the 9th Commandment in pursuit of the Creationist cause. He didn't win but even to be shortlisted was quite a dubious honor for you Calvin.....well deserved

[@sliglusamelius8578]

@MountKeen Nice ad hominem, that's all you guys have.

[@MountKeen]

@@sliglusamelius8578 Ad hominem? Not at all!!! Simply pointing out that Calvin was nominated for an award!!! Are you not pleased for him?

[@sliglusamelius8578]

@ Make a science point if you can.

[@MountKeen]

@@sliglusamelius8578 Why won't you answer my question? BTW, I'm not making the claims here. I'm pointing out that Calvin was shortlisted for a reward. If you can point out the science that substantiates Calvin's claims please do so. He certainly doesn't. There isn't a single citation to a science paper mentioned in the video or in his description.

[@BlaineHeggie]

I once dkwroppshvqioue from Calgary to Edmonton and my car broke down in Red Deer! Maybe shoulda gone to Lethbridge! LOL!

[@PrehistoricFarmsYT]

The skull is a little creepy tho!😂

[@Kelly-oq9nh]

All of your presentations are so well done. May God bless you with good health, strength, and opportunity to continue to teach the world Gods brilliant creation. Thank you for your hard work and dedication.

[@therick363]

You are okay with him cherry picking and misrepresenting science?

[@SebastianMJSports]

Jesus Christ Of Nazareth Is Our Lord And Savior, He Loves You All, And He's the way. I love you all too.

[@earthisasphere]

Unlikely, but maybe. That doesn't have anything to do with evolution though.

[@SebastianMJSports]

​@@earthisasphere I'd say that it's pretty likely that something of higher power than everything made this rather than a very, VERY! Fine tuned and detailed universe.

[@tobias4411]

​@@SebastianMJSportsIf you had grown up in India, living with Hindu parents, what would you say about Jesus? I doubt you would say much about the Christian God. Does my assertion make sense? If not, why? Reflecting on this, isn't it remarkable that most people share their parents' religion, believing it to be the correct one? What are your thoughts on this?

[@avgejoeschmoe2027]

Improved diet and safer environment (hence longer lifespan) gives the APPEARANCE of the theory of darwinian evolution

[@frankguetta9529]

No it’s the fossil record in order of evolution coupled with mutations giving rise to new species that give the appearance of evolution.

[@avgejoeschmoe2027]

@@frankguetta9529 Mutations are a LOSS of information, think for yourself , the theory is ludicrous an organism (NO WAIT, it has to be a GROUP of the same organisms) will supposedly hang on to a USELESS mutation (one that makes part of an eye?) for a few MILLION YEARS and then those same GROUP of organisms have another USELESS mutation of another part of an eye (still doesnt work) for millions of MORE years... and this goes on for many, many, many more millions of years and mutations , until the eye just happens to start to work???? What a fairy tale! Now add to the mix many other parts of complex organisms; nervous systems, circulatory systems, immune systems, reproductive systems, repair systems and I can go on and on! THESE SUB-SYSTEMS ARE VERY COMPLEX. They just didnt all just start working! Evolutionists believe (that mutations that all were BENEFICIAL, took place over tens of millions of years) then just happen to begin working???!!! Why would a group of organisms all hang onto useless mutations for tens of millions of years of generations?

[@Vernon-Chitlen]

The fossil record is an artifact of the worldwide flood.

[@littleacorn2244]

For humans Improved diet and safer environment only began a few hundred years ago. Life has been here on the planet evolving for at least 4 billion years and possibly longer.

[@sciencerules2825]

@@avgejoeschmoe2027 _Mutations are a LOSS of information_ That's still one of the dumbest creationist claims of all time. Whatever one mutation can do another later mutation can *undo.* If A-->B is a loss of information then the reverse B-->A is a gain of information *by definition.* I see you're also completely ignorant of the *Neutral Genetic Drift* part of evolutionary theory. Go ahead and look it up while the rest of us are laughing at you.

[@davidreynal2985]

Thank you for your thoughtful presentation of challenges to evolution!

[@frankguetta9529]

*Thoughtless

[@jockyoung4491]

There were no challenges to evolution in this video.

[@Denis-lp3pz]

@@jockyoung4491 he said in the video that evolution through random mutations doesn't happen. Isn't it a challenge to everyone who believes in Darwinian evolution?

[@jockyoung4491]

@@Denis-lp3pz Calvin says lot of things - that doesn't make them true. Random mutations is only a PART of evolution. For evolution to improve design requires BOTH mutation and selection. Calvin even said that in the video. Then wasted a lot of time saying that neither could do it alone, which we already knew.

[@sciencerules2825]

@@Denis-lp3pz Calvin tells lots of lies about evolution in every video. None of them are a challenge to actual evolution.

[@terrilynch7845]

Thank you ❤️ ❤️❤️Jesus Christ is the reason for this season ❤️❤️❤️Merry CHRISTmas ❤️❤️❤️

[@ianmonk6211]

No he isn't saturnalia is . Jesus was born in the fall. He hates these pagan days using his name. Deuteronomy 12. 29 to 31. Jeremiah 10:1-6

[@ianmonk6211]

No he isn't saturnalia is. Jesus hates these pagan days using his name. Deuteronomy 12.9 Jeremiah 10.1-6. Jesus was born in the fall at the time of His annual feasts. We can work this out from the Bible. John's dad was doing his turn in the temple and John was conceived when it finished around July giving him a match birth. Jesus 6 months younger was born around September. Coinciding with the fall feasts

[@NigelM18]

​@@ianmonk6211wow, someone who gets it. I'm impressed. I've been saying this for years on yt and constantly getting censored. Let's keep christ is christmas is kinda hard to do when He was never in it to begin with. Keep up the good fight.

[@ianmonk6211]

@NigelM18 ty you too.

[@juliebaker6969]

The MAIN problem with the Little Red Riding Hood to Shakespeare thing is that it CAN'T work for genetics. Why? Because it allows too little change on to long a timeframe. There is a MAJOR difference between the alphabet and DNA. With the alphabet, the misspellings don't really MATTER as long as there is enough untampered with information to still get the gist. Unintelligible words can be ignored and not affect the storyline. But that isn't the case with DNA. ANY errors in the DNA is going to be read and applied..... NONE of it will be ignored. And the consequences of genetic anomalies can be catastrophic. Virtually ALL genetic mutations carry physical and or mental consequences that can be debilitating, it a VERY rare mutation or genetic flaw that has even negligible consequences, much LESS an immaterial one or (virtually unheard of) an improvement. And even ONE genetically nonviable link in the ongoing generic chain will prevent any subsequent offspring, so..... end of the line for any genetic information not shared with other lines. The reason the length of time matters is that the more time the more generations, and the more generations, the higher the chances of a catastrophic result.

[@jockyoung4491]

That's because it is a stupid analogy that is nothing like evolution works.

[@juliebaker6969]

@jockyoung4491 The analogy may be flawed, but the problem is that no matter HOW you slice it, Evolution DOESN'T work. It CAN'T work. Fred Hoyle, the scientist who coined the term "Big Bang Theory" once calculated the odds of Evolution/Big Bang being the REAL way the universe came into being. The odds he calculated with the knowledge available at that time was 10⁵⁷ to 1 against. For those who don't understand mathematical shorthand that's 1,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1 against. And that's was calculated 5 years BEFORE the discovery of DNA. And the discovery of DNA, and all subsequent facts learned ABOUT DNA have only served to increase the odds AGAINST E/BB being how the universe happened.

[@earthisasphere]

@@juliebaker6969 Personal incredulity doesn't falsify the claim. It is even more unlikely that your god exists, so your point is moot anyway. It doesn't matter what Hoyle, or any person for that matter claims. The fact is life is here, and we see species change. that is evolution. Trying to argue that doesn't happen is futile.

[@johnglad5]

And what you have just explained is why all things are on the road to extinction. Some mutations cause an immediate catastrophic result. The others build up till one more mutation is catastrophic. That is genetic entropy.

[@jockyoung4491]

@@johnglad5 "Genetic entropy' is not a biological term; it is something creationists invented. Evolution is affected by accumulated mutations, yes, but the lineages that are favored are the ones that have the most beneficial mix of mutations. Most mutations are neutral and can accumulate forever. That's how we can tell how long ago species diverged. Lineages that accumulate deleterious mutations will usually die out, but there will be other lineages that survive. And those that have beneficial mutations will increase.

[@Mark-ub7jc]

Excelsior! Excellent explanation, Thank you!

[@claireusilton4066]

Your best explanation for disproving evolution yet.

[@therick363]

Except he still hasn’t disproven the theory

[@HS-zk5nn]

it doesnt have to be disproven. it was never proven in the first place

[@earthisasphere]

@@HS-zk5nn Most honest, logical people who understand science would agree that observation of evolution means it is "proven". But, we all know you are not logical, scientific, or honest.

[@jockyoung4491]

@@HS-zk5nn And yet it is accepted as obvious by virtually all biologists. And will continue to be no matter how many creationists say "nuh-uh". That's what these people don't seem to understand. Evolution already won a long time ago.

[@HS-zk5nn]

@@jockyoung4491 virtually all is not all. and virtually all doesnt have anything to do with veracity. thats the best you have going for you? seriously? That's what you people don't seem to understand. Evolution the theory is based on a hypothetical organism.

[@iamadot7]

It would be fascinating to hear your thoughts on spontaneous occurrences of children born with extraordinary abilities, such as child prodigies with inexplicable talents.

[@cloisteredoyster]

I would say we are made in Gods Image so are devolving.......those instances are throw back to a higher state rather than an evolution to a higher state

[@nickma71]

I appreciate this channel and the host. They make every attempt to reason. As Paul did, he reasoned from the scriptures to the Jews after his conversion. (there was no "New Testament) but that is a tangent.

[@sciencerules2825]

This channel is only good for entertainment purposes. It tells some of the most ridiculous over-the-top lies about actual evolutionary theory anywhere. 🤪

[@earthisasphere]

If by "reason" you mean mislead about science, cherry pick, quote mine, and lie to people, then yes, they attempt to "reason."

[@nickma71]

@@earthisasphere Help the viewers with just one example.

[@sciencerules2825]

@@nickma71 This whole video is one big misrepresentation about how evolution actually works.

[@nickma71]

@ So it should be easy to give one example.

[@randallhansen9166]

Great boils down too GOD IS!CHUCKY D AINT!

[@earthisasphere]

Boils down to Calvin's lap dogs lap up his inaccurate drivel like always without so much as checking any of his claims.

[@HS-zk5nn]

chucky is the villain of a horror movie - both of them a lost and tormented thing

[@earthisasphere]

@@HS-zk5nn HS is a compulsive liar who doesn't even realize that Wallace came to the same conclusion at the same time in a different part of the world looking at different evidence. Or maybe he does know and lie about that too.

[@icrewheloso8588]

How do you think the dogs around chernobyl are doing?

[@KrisMaertens]

They are doing great,currently building a church,to thank their loving god.

[@icrewheloso8588]

You don't have to be sarcastic. I want to know his thoughts on the changes that the just reported in the news. I don't think they have super powers. I do think that they have adapted through breeding. Adaptation is not evolution. God made us all to be able to adapted to the changes in our environment. I wanted his opinion. Not some sarcastic remark.

[@KrisMaertens]

@@icrewheloso8588 perfect example of evolution: the dogs that are better at coping with these harsh environment survive,and breed,the others die...

[@KrisMaertens]

@@icrewheloso8588 adaptation is the main driving force for evolution...

[@icrewheloso8588]

@@KrisMaertens I did not say evolution. I said adaptation. So you have it wrong.

[@Bruce-s9f]

“Schools around the globe teach this as scientific fact”. Interesting. “Around the globe”. Unlike religion, which for some strange reason changes at national or regional boundaries. The Bible is only taught as "fact" in those countries where it was, historically, either written (in the Middle East) or imposed by brute force. The Japanese don’t seem to have the same problem. Or the Chinese. Or those Indians who haven't had Christianity forced upon them. I wonder why... To be fair, neither do most Christians. Calvin Smith continues to refer to Charles Darwin. There has been over a century and a half of research since “On the Origin of Species” was first published. Darwin’s observations have repeatedly been confirmed, using methods which he could not possibly even have imagined. His work has been expanded a thousandfold and, where necessary, updated and corrected. Does Calvin Smith wish to teach “as scientific fact” that the earth existed before the sun ? Where’s his “scientific proof” of that ? Or at least a tiny scrap of scientific evidence. Or that there was water before there was any form of light. Or that there is water “above the firmament”. Why has no-one found it yet ? And surely with today’s scientific knowledge it should be so very easy to demonstrate that we are all descended from a man made “from the dust of the ground”. Darwin did not know about DNA : he worked essentially on observation. Modern evolutionary biologists can trace our relationship to various apes, sharing common ancestors with chimpanzees and bonobos. Surely Mr. Smith can point to at least _one_ major scientific study that has established conclusively that our immediate ancestor was a handful of Middle Eastern sand. Evolution ? “Schools around the globe teach this as scientific fact”. That might just be because, to the very best of our knowledge, it _is_ scientific fact.

[@cloisteredoyster]

this is probably because the Christian West is unique, and all the other countries religions are compatible with evolution

[@MountKeen]

@@cloisteredoyster You're claiming the "Christian West is unique"? Odd, because a multinational survey undertaken in 2020 by Pew Research Centre provided the following percentages of the populations in historically "christian" countries who accepted evolution - Russia (71%), Australia (72%), United Kingdom (73%), Italy (75%), Canada (77%), Netherlands (77%), France (81%), Germany (81%), Czech Republic (82%), Sweden (85%), Spain (87%). As the OP pointed out, most Christians have absolutely no problem accepting evolution.

[@cloisteredoyster]

@MountKeen no you can't be a Christian and believe in evolution as evolution is nature worship and has occult origins (IF I DON'T REPLY TO THINGS I'M NOT BEING RUDE, KZbin IS BLOCKING ME)

[@Bruce-s9f]

@MountKeen Thanks ! I hadn't seen those statistics.

[@Bruce-s9f]

@@cloisteredoyster Most religions, past and present (they do have a way of coming and going) have their creation myths, which are incompatible with modern science. Which is why so many now embrace science, without abandoning their other beliefs. That includes huge numbers of 21st century Christians (as MountKeen's post eloquently shows). Just not a few retrograde creationists.

[@canadiankewldude]

*_The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:_* *_The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:_* *_The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace._* *_Numbers_* 6:24-26- *_KJB_*

[@Denis-lp3pz]

Amen

[@GeorgeVanderkuur]

Calvin must be one of the most informed scientists in our generation:)

[@earthisasphere]

I'm not even certain he has any sort of degree. It isn't listed anywhere if he does...

[@jockyoung4491]

He once told me that he thought he understood evolution well enough to teach a high school class. That's how deluded he is.

[@HS-zk5nn]

@@jockyoung4491 yet he is right and you are just left with character attacks. well done

[@goody8839]

@@HS-zk5nn Pretty funny you talking about character after you got caught lying about having a science PhD. 😆😆😆

[@therick363]

@@HS-zk5nnbut he’s not right

[@dirtperson4221slash2]

So micro organisms evolve to devolve?

[@sciencerules2825]

There is no such thing as "devolution". Species can evolve to be less complex over time (i.e blind cave fish) if the less complex form has a higher reproduction potential in the changed environment.

[@cameronosborne7405]

Proclaiming to be wise, they became fools.

[@Bruce-s9f]

Having nothing of any interest to say, they repeat a worn-out slogan.

[@earthisasphere]

That is a good description of AIG and it's followers.

[@katamas832]

Sums up AIG

[@SillyDeity]

Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Matthew 5:22. You were saying????

[@cloisteredoyster]

and exchanged God for the lie........so interesting seeing it happen though

[@RealRealist1]

When the evolutionists meet God, it will be sadly interesting to observe them tell God that Young Earth Creationists and the Bible are wrong. Instead, they will realize with eternal clarity how they ignored the truth, the way creation screams "GOD" - the Creator, and how the Bible is 100% perfect in every way. I realize some Christians have been sucked into part of the evolutionists fiction. For the non-Christian - this will be among many things that haunts them forever. Maybe they will evolve over eons of time to adapt favorably or unfavorably to eternal punishment. The time of opportunity is very short for the unsaved to change their minds and trust Christ for salvation. We born again Christians need to pray for you, and keep praying for you. Hopefully we will see you in Heaven. P.S. - I fear for all, but especially kids that are being led down a bad path in the education system.

[@jockyoung4491]

I can't think of any way I would live my life differently whether I thought God existed or not, so I don't worry about it. I prefer studying science.

[@HS-zk5nn]

@@jockyoung4491 science points to Creator. when you learn enough about it you will agree.

[@heinpereboom5521]

@@jockyoung4491 The Bible also tells us how people thought they knew and no longer needed God. Unfortunately, that is still the case. Remember that science knows a lot and can apply it positively, but scientists do not know WHY it is possible for 1 scientific subject and many seem to forget that.

[@Glop1177]

@@RealRealist1 if God is real, he's not the God you believe in. I'd worry more about you explaining that then atheists explaining why they didn't believe at all.

[@earthisasphere]

@@HS-zk5nn Science cannot point to a creator. If you truly had a PhD., you would know this.

[@Андрей-и7д8к]

Все так. Indeed everything he,s speaking about is true

[@earthisasphere]

The topic is evolution, and evolution is true, so I guess technically you are correct even though that isn't what you meant...

[@blank-964]

👍

[@sliglusamelius8578]

Why do some comments never show up? More than any other site, AIG blocks comments . How does that happen? Usually it's when I'm responding to someone. Ugh, I hate it, I am not going to waste my time.

[@goody8839]

Probably YT's built-in lie exclusion filter which is removing so many of your posts. Try writing some honest comments for once.

[@globalcoupledances]

Sort the comments by "newest first"

[@sliglusamelius8578]

@@goody8839 Cute. Find a mirror. Projection is the biggest cope of your side..

[@logicalatheist1065]

AIG is anti science, not surprised

[@sliglusamelius8578]

@@globalcoupledances Doesn't help. Very strange.

[@purehyper124]

Sciences is the prosses of understanding what God created, not the maker of facts.

[@SillyDeity]

You seem confused. Science the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.

[@Creationism-is-pseudoscience]

@@SillyDeity Exactly. Creationists are working 24/7 to misrepresent what science is, how it works and what it says.

[@purehyper124]

@@SillyDeity Yes, that's a much more detailed way to put it. But Science doesn't make fact, and is only the process of understanding what is fact. Even though people can be wrong, and atheist often skew information in the wrong direction.

[@SillyDeity]

@@purehyper124 You still appear confused. Science does not "make facts". It has never claimed to make facts. It uses facts - through observation, experimentation and testing - to develop explanations that explain the facts and the mechanisms that are associated with them. Why are you falsely conflating science with atheism?

[@IAMhassentyou-e7l]

Amen AIG 🙏

[@billbrock8547]

The only thing in this video that's verifiably wrong is Calvin Smith's understanding of evolution.

[@sciencerules2825]

Pretty sure Calvin understands evolution after all the corrections to his nonsense he's seen. He just willfully lies about it to make money for his ministry.

[@calvinsmith7575]

I love how just 5 comments up another skeptic quotes me as knowing what evolution is- (@jockyoung4491Calvin correctly claims that evolution requires both mutation and natural selection, but then gives an analogy of writing a story where ONLY mutation is assumed. Since he has just agreed that evolution is NOT like that, he KNOWS that analogy is dishonest.)- Maybe you guys should discuss among yourselves? : )

[@earthisasphere]

@@calvinsmith7575 Within your analogy you explain evolution incorrectly. That is the point.

[@earthisasphere]

@@calvinsmith7575 I love how just one comment down you cannot refute @jockyoung4491 2 hours ago "Schools Teach This as Scientific Fact, But It’s Verifiably WRONG" As usual, Calvin presented no such fact.

[@poliincredible770]

FACTS!!!

[@therick363]

It’s a fact evolution happens. The description of the video is a lie

[@earthisasphere]

That Calvin is a liar? Yes, and he feels the need to keep making videos in order to give us more evidence of that.

[@poliincredible770]

@@earthisasphere you called him a name, but didn't explain what he said that wasn't factual. Please don't be a name-caller, accept Christ.

[@earthisasphere]

@@poliincredible770 I've tried to discuss with you before, and all I get from you is: accept Christ. I was raised a YEC. I know the Bible and it's flaws. I have seen zero evidence for a god. As far as Calvin goes, he continues his streak of his title being a lie. 160+ years of evidence backs up my statement.

[@hansdemos6510]

Quotemining Richard Dawkins again... I gather that the libel laws in the USA don't allow for lawsuits for quotemining against religious fanatics like Mr. Smith because of the First Amendment, but I wonder how the situation in Canada is. Perhaps somebody like Dawkins should try it out some time.

[@Bruce-s9f]

Excellent point ! Over the past few days, I have posted numerous comments about another such fanatic - Ken Ham - who recently published a calumniously falsified video of an interview with Richard Dawkins. His disciples do not seem to consider such crass dishonesty to be in any way reprehensible.

[@calvinsmith7575]

I welcome Dawkins to challenge me quoting him (in context)! : )

[@earthisasphere]

@@calvinsmith7575 Quote mining is lying Calvin. What does you god think of liars?

[@hansdemos6510]

@@Bruce-s9f You said: _"Excellent point !"_ Thanks. You said: _"Over the past few days, I have posted numerous comments about another such fanatic - Ken Ham - who recently published a calumniously falsified video of an interview with Richard Dawkins."_ If that's the video where he shows a clip from the movie Expelled with Ben Stein, then I probably posted a comment there as well. You said: _"His disciples do not seem to consider such crass dishonesty to be in any way reprehensible."_ Some of the commenters seem to revel in it. In the end though, I think these kinds of shenanigans will be a net negative for people like our Mr. Smith and his buddy dear old Ken Ham. Some of their followers will find out and start doubting why their faith needs to be supported by dishonesty if it is the divine truth.

[@hansdemos6510]

@@calvinsmith7575 You said: _"I welcome Dawkins to challenge me quoting him (in context)! : )"_ The context of the challenge I had in mind would be a courtroom. From the Canadian Criminal Code: _298 (1) A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published._ I think your defense would be that you have lawful justification or excuse. Seeing as you are misrepresenting public statements Dr. Dawkins made that likely injure his reputation and expose him to hatred, contempt and ridicule (just take a look at some of the comments here), the case for libel or even defamatory libel would be strong, except that Dr. Dawkins is a public figure, and that gives you more leeway in expressing your opinion on his public statements. My guess is that this kind of lawsuit will happen, but it will probably be a singer or an actor against some scandalous celebrity KZbin channel. Once such a case has been won by the aggrieved party, it will be tighten the KZbin guidelines, and your board will then insist that you start toeing the line as well.

[@harryvanniekerk7269]

Amen!

[@tims5268]

Nobody has ever seen someone walk on water either. It’s so funny how your arguments debunk your own beliefs more than anyone else’s 😂

[@johnglad5]

It is written down history of Christ walking on water. I am guessing you just refuse to believe it. You should look inside yourself and ask why.

[@BillG8718]

@@johnglad5 Everything written down is not history. Lots of early writing was fictional and mythology. Virtually all of Genesis for example.

[@jockyoung4491]

@@johnglad5 Some people will believe it, and some won't. And that's OK. That is true of every story, whether true or not.

[@tims5268]

@@johnglad5 written about a hundred years after the so called event. And you just believe it 😂

[@IzuchukwuWisdom]

​@@tims5268and yet you believes the ones writing just a little over 200 years ago to this point. 😂😂

[@hansdemos6510]

About Mr. Smith's wingless beetles example... The fossil and genetic evidence indicates that ants are wasps that lost their wings. Does Mr. Smith want to argue that ants are not successful organisms, or that they are "inferior" to wasps, or represent a "loss of information", or contradict the modern scientific theory of evolution in any way, shape or form? His whole argument is simply ridiculous and either grossly uninformed, or grotesquely misleading.

[@earthisasphere]

Cherry picking, quote mining, misrepresentation and outright lying are all the cornerstones of YEC argument.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

@@earthisasphere Show us new structures due to mutations..

[@sliglusamelius8578]

Finch beaks and peppered moths were erroneous examples that your side falsely claimed were due to new mutations, but they are not, those genetic options existed already.

[@sciencerules2825]

@@sliglusamelius8578 Why do you still lie about this? You were shown the genetic evidence for the mutation which produced the dark peppered moth many time. Here it is again. *The industrial melanism mutation in British peppered moths is a transposable element* I'll never understand why creationists think they can lie continually and never get called on it.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

@ False narrative. Peppered moths don't sit on trees like that, and that melanin trait was not a new mutation that created anything new. Nobody denies genetic pigmentation levels or micro evolution. Get real..

[@Pay-It_Forward]

DNA isn't like changing the spelling of a word in a book, it's like changing a line of code in a computer program. or maybe a value being compared to for a decision, which determines which subroutine gets called, resulting in subroutines getting called in different orders or at different times or different numbers of times.

[@sciencerules2825]

Except DNA is many times more robust that human computer code and can tolerate a wide range of change and still produce viable (but changed) outputs.

[@richmountain1128]

Book or computer program, we would get the exact same result. The program would likely become nonfunctional very quickly.

[@VOLKHVORONOVICH]

While I don't accept evolution as an explanation, neither do I see the Biblical story as any closer to the Truth.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

That's fair enough, although the biblical account of creation is not a science account, and is actually better than you would think. "Let there be light" is the first line, and it turns out that light did happen after the Big Bang and before star and planet formation. The claims about a firmament are based on a bad translation of the Hebrew, which word was raqiya and best translated as "the expanse", which would be the sky. There actually is a deep water source in be mantle of the earth, with a circulation of water between the ocean and the trapped water in the mantle in the rock, stored as an ion. Northwestern university geologists discovered the cycle of water from the mantle to the oceans. That could be the "waters of the deep". The "days of creation" are not literal 14 hour earth days to my reading, but who knows. The bottom line is that God created the universe. Arno Penzias who discovered the cosmic background microwave radiation: "The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, and the Bible as a whole.’”

[@Bomtombadi1]

@@sliglusamelius8578this is you trying to make the bible fit your narrative. It doesn’t. Ringwoodite: do you know the properties of this mineral and how it converts to water? Evidently not if you think it an ion. Do you know about the water cycle of the planet?

[@sliglusamelius8578]

@ Sigh. The ringwoodite contains hydroxide which is an ion. I really have no interest in the chemistry of how water exists in the mantle, the FACT is that Northwestern university geologists discovered that there is a water cycle with the oceans. That is the important discovery. (In fact, there is evidence that actual molecular water exists in the mantle, but again, I have zero interest in that debate). As for the general outline of Creation in Genesis, it comports with The Big Bang better than the steady state theory did. And the fact that light was created first was unexpected. Genesis is better than I had imagined, I had dismissed it years ago but upon further reading and learning about the Big Bang and light and the real meaning of the "firmament" and the waters of the deep....and this hydrologic cycle.....it adds up better than self-creating and self-organizing matter and energy, that's for darned sure.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

@ Here smarty pants: "Ringwoodite is notable for being able to contain hydroxide ions (oxygen and hydrogen atoms bound together) within its structure. In this case two hydroxide ions usually take the place of a magnesium ion and two oxide ions." You were saying? Good grief you guys are so pathetic..

[@sliglusamelius8578]

@@Bomtombadi1 Sigh. The ringwoodite contains hydroxide which is an ion. I really have no interest in the chemistry of how water exists in the mantle, the FACT is that Northwestern university geologists discovered that there is a water cycle with the oceans. That is the important discovery. (In fact, there is evidence that actual molecular water exists in the mantle, but again, I have zero interest in that debate). As for the general outline of Creation in Genesis, it comports with The Big Bang better than the steady state theory did. And the fact that light was created first was unexpected. Genesis is better than I had imagined, I had dismissed it years ago but upon further reading and learning about the Big Bang and light and the real meaning of the "firmament" and the waters of the deep....and this hydrologic cycle.....it adds up better than self-creating and self-organizing matter and energy, that's for darned sure..

[@blastum]

Okay I come here to see your suits.

[@hansdemos6510]

Mr. Smith has more vests than Imelda Marcos had shoes.

[@goody8839]

The style is know as "early Salvation Army"

[@cloisteredoyster]

side hustle? : )

[@FreekTerblanche]

@AnswersCanada I believe God's Word! Please make a video about the problem of the speed of light?

[@earthisasphere]

They can't make an honest video about it. There is no problem with the speed of light

[@luish1498]

the video will be full of lies commom used for creationists. one is the speed of light isnt constant. it's true that the speed of light can vary in different mediums (like water or glass), in a vacuum, light travels at a constant speed of approximately 299,792 kilometers per second. This constancy is a fundamental principle of Einstein's theory of relativity ( E=mc2). now i would love to see this channel telling that E=mc2 is not true.

[@cloisteredoyster]

the problem of the speed of light is it isn't the fastest thing in the universe, which is the thing of nightmares for atheist materialists haha

[@jockyoung4491]

"Schools Teach This as Scientific Fact, But It’s Verifiably WRONG" As usual, Calvin presented no such fact.

[@tsukifanyes102]

@@jockyoung4491 are you a bot I’m curious why u keep commenting if u hate it so much

[@sciencerules2825]

@@tsukifanyes102 Some us feel standing up to Calvin's constant barrage of creationist lies is the right thing to do.

[@IzuchukwuWisdom]

​@@sciencerules2825and you get angry when creationist stands up for your constant barrage of evolution?? 😂😂😂

[@jockyoung4491]

@@tsukifanyes102 I keep dreaming that I will find someone brave enough to actually look at the evidence and think for themselves, but it is pretty clear nobody on this site will ever do that.

[@earthisasphere]

@@IzuchukwuWisdom It's nature's constant barrage of evolution. And creationists "standing up to it" won't stop it.

[@carymiller5502]

Seems "Elementary", don't it?🙏⚔✝

[@georg7120]

Not understanding how something had happened is no evidence for creation.

[@NigelM18]

It doesn't disprove it either. Tell me, have you conquered the travesty of being knocked unconscious every night?

[@georg7120]

@NigelM18 No, but there is no evidence for creation.

[@NigelM18]

@@georg7120 evidence for creation is all around you. You just choose to ignore it.

[@georg7120]

@NigelM18 A stupid answer. It is evidence for evolution.

[@NigelM18]

@@georg7120 lol, give me one example, let's take a tree.... what did it evolve from?

[@veilofreality]

kudos not only for the content but for the production level, keep up the great work, the story of evolution is the key element on which so much confusion, suffering and misunderstanding stems from

[@frankguetta9529]

What do you mean by Confusion, suffering and misunderstanding?

[@globalcoupledances]

Without evolution biology doesn't make sense

[@therick363]

So you don’t know the basics or lie-which? You know what a scientific theory is yes?

[@logicalatheist1065]

... What?? 😂😂

[@Bomtombadi1]

The source of suffering is confusion about evolution … You people are next level ridiculous.

[@hansdemos6510]

In the first part of this video, Mr. Smith unwittingly admits that biological evolution in accordance with its definition, change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations, happens. He may call it "adaptation", but it actually is biological evolution in accordance with its definition. He admits that natural selection works the way it is supposed to. This is progress, because earlier generations of creationists denied this.

[@frankguetta9529]

Not the first time a creationist has walked the path of evolution without realising it and called it something else.

[@earthisasphere]

@@frankguetta9529 The problem is many know they are deceiving their followers. I think Calvin falls into this camp.

[@frankguetta9529]

@@earthisasphere I don’t know. I think he’s just as deluded. His only knowledge of evolution is from AIG’s website. I think most are genuinely deluded.

[@calvinsmith7575]

Creationists were the first to recognize and publish scientific explanations of natural selection : ) It changes things, it just doesn't evolve anything.

[@therick363]

@@calvinsmith7575why do you lie?

[@HS-zk5nn]

yes it should be taught in a new class called modern fairy tells and musings of Chuck Dee a very disturbed and broken man.

[@sciencerules2825]

I love the sound of creationist puerile whining in the morning. 🙂

[@earthisasphere]

Too bad Alfred Wallace came to the same conclusions based on different evidence in a different part of the world at the same time...

[@JohnA-bear]

Show how a single cellular organism evolved into a multicellular organism that grew a pancreas.

[@mirandahotspring4019]

Easy, you started off as a single celled organism, an ovum, and I presume you've managed to grow a pancreas.

[@jockyoung4491]

If you are interested, go find out

[@Widdowson2020]

@@JohnA-bear Evolutionists cannot even get yo a single celled organism except in their imaginations, the fact is all the hard stuff already has to be present. The proteins that read the DNA are crested by the DNA. How does an enzyme cascade reaction evolve? How to you explain consciousness, which some of us are fortunate to understand can and does exist outside the body. The real truth is they hate God because if God exists then they have to pay attention to God. The modern day science establishment is nothing but a religion with evolution as its doctrine. They will never correctly understand nature until they understand its creator.

[@katamas832]

We have actually observed single celled organisms evolve into simple multicelluar ones in the lab.

[@frankguetta9529]

You did it yourself in 9 months, dufus.

[@jockyoung4491]

Calvin correctly claims that evolution requires both mutation and natural selection, but then gives an analogy of writing a story where ONLY mutation is assumed. Since he has just agreed that evolution is NOT like that, he KNOWS that analogy is dishonest.

[@sciencerules2825]

WHAT??? Calvin Smith being DISHONEST ABOUT SCIENCE??? Say it ain't so! 🤪

[@fredbollinger8256]

Sounds like you didn't listed to the whole video

[@firecloud77]

Your characterization of what he said is a straw man.

[@earthisasphere]

@@firecloud77 No, it is not, Calvin does exactly what Jock described. I am sorry that hurts your feelings, but the truth is the truth.

[@firecloud77]

@@earthisasphere Obviously you did not understand Calvin's argument.

[@throckmortensnivel2850]

When you start off your critique of evolution with a fundmental error, you've kind of lost the battle before you start. Evolution is not just the accumulation of reproductive errors. If it was, there wouldn't be any life on earth. Evolution is the process of variation in reproduction, and the selection of the variants that occurs in the environment in which the organism exists. Remember the old joke of the two guys walking in the forest when they come upon a bear. The bear looks angry and about to attack. The one guy has a pair or running shoes in his pack, takes them out and starts putting them on. The other guy says, "Those things won't help you outrun the bear", to which the first guy responds, "I don't have to outrun the bear, I only have to outrun you." The bear will select the winner of that race. That happens every day, in every way, throughout nature. Those organisms that are better able to exist in their environments, will have their genetic material spread throughout the population. Other members of the same group will not be as successful and eventually die out. Variation of heritable traits are generated randomly, but they are not selected randomly. A hawk that has sharper eyesight than another hawk will get the mouse the other missed. The antelope that is swifter than the other antelopes will avoid the cheetah. The cheetah that is swifter than the other cheetahs will get the antelope. And so on. There is nothing "random" about the process. I'd also like to point out that the words "mutation" and "error" in regards to reproduction are probably better replaced with "variation". Most organisms produce offspring through sexual congress. No single offspring is exactly the same as either parent, nor exactly the same as other offspring from the same parents. Are these differences "mutations" or "errors"? Yes, I suppose you could call them that, but because they happen all the time (no reproductive process is perfect), it's probably more correct to refer to them as "variations". All this to say the initial analogy Calvin Smith uses to explain evolution is just plain wrong. I'll go a bit further. Smith is not a dummy, so I suggest he knows his analogy is wrong.

[@SorryImCanadian]

The example of the bear is a beautiful illustration of Natural Selection, (to keep terms simple) that Creationists agree with if something isnt fit to survive odds are it wont. Now the problem is that while Natural Selection is a proposed mechanism of evolution, you still have to show Development of Genetic information. All natural selection does is gets Rid of information. Mutations don’t produce enough change to cause a new kind of being, and certainly don’t create new Genetic information. Natural Selection is not evolution. To say that it is would be like saying that if bigfoot exists he would break branches in the woods, I see broken branches in the woods, therefore bigfoot exists.

[@jockyoung4491]

I'm sure he knows the analogy is wrong. He pretty much says so at the beginning.

[@throckmortensnivel2850]

@@SorryImCanadian If I didn't know anything about genetics, I would still know that organisms change from generation to generation. Anyone who sees parents and children together can see that. You don't have to delve into genetics at all. Nature throws up variations from parent to offspring. That can be either as the result of the sexual process, or just plain old random variation. The environment then decides which variations are benficial, in terms of reproductive success, and which are deleterious. You're right, natural selection isn't evolution. It is a part of evolution. Genes propose, and nature disposes. As far as "information" I'm not sure what you mean. When offspring are different than parents, is that a gain of information, or a loss of information?

[@globalcoupledances]

@throckmortensnivel2850 - Information is what is written, or heard. Sender->recipient. Only coding gens has that information. The remaining 98% is not information

[@sciencerules2825]

@@jockyoung4491 Calvin knows most everything he posts about evolution is wrong. He continues to willfully lie to get donation money from his TrueBelievers.

[@hscollier]

WHY are so many videos starting in the middle of a sentence?? Please STOP.

[@earthisasphere]

Because Calvin and his teams knowledge of videography is at the same level as their knowledge of evolution?

[@hansdemos6510]

"i drove from calgary to edmonton" Mutation 1 (erroneous copy) "i drove from calgary to edmonton to edmonton" Mutation 2 (deletion) "i drove from calgary to edmonton to monton" As "Monton" is a place name, this is an increase in the kind of information mr. Smith requires. His example is therefore at the very least invalid and at worst contradicts his argument.

[@cloisteredoyster]

you are an intelligent mind assessing and critiquing the language and wanting to avoid errors......this is the new reality in the cell and thus problematic for a mistake to masterpiece theory........

[@hansdemos6510]

@@cloisteredoyster You said: _"you are an intelligent mind assessing and critiquing the language and wanting to avoid errors..."_ Thanks... I guess? You said: _"...this is the new reality in the cell and thus problematic for a mistake to masterpiece theory..."_ I am sorry, but I don't understand what that means. All I am doing is demonstrating that Mr. Smith's example is invalid and might even contradict his claims.

[@cloisteredoyster]

@@hansdemos6510 having an intelligent mind is not a compliment it's the fact you are proof reading and spotting errors yet believe there is no mind behind the information in DNA. Molecular biology has discovered there is layer upon layer of proof reading and autocorrection in the cell, yet you believe "mistakes make masterpieces" ie copying errors create new biological information.... So I'm saying Mr Smith's example is apt and problematic for your belief in molecules to man?

[@hansdemos6510]

​@@cloisteredoyster You said: _" having an intelligent mind is not a compliment"_ Well, to me it is, but I guess to religious apologists it might not be... You said: _" ...it's the fact you are proof reading and spotting errors yet believe there is no mind behind the information in DNA."_ I don't see how the two clauses in your sentence are logically connected. Do you agree with me that Mr. Smith's example was bad, as I demonstrated? If you agree, then this exchange is basically over. If you do not agree, then please explain to me why. Second, would you agree in general that "spotting errors" is a good thing? If so, then why criticize me for doing a good thing? If you do not agree, then can you explain why me spotting errors in Mr. Smith's arguments would not be a good thing? Thirdly, I do not "believe there is no mind behind the information in DNA". As this is a scientific question, it does not need to be a matter of "belief". I am dedicated to following the evidence , and therefore am as yet agnostic on how life in general and DNA-based life in particular came about. The currently available evidence does strongly point to life (and DNA) having natural origins, but time will tell. If you do "believe there is [a] mind behind the information in DNA", can you tell me why you need to *_"believe"_* that? Why can't you just follow the evidence and remain agnostic on the topic as long as the evidence is inconclusive? You said: _"Molecular biology has discovered there is layer upon layer of proof reading and autocorrection in the cell, yet you believe "mistakes make masterpieces" ie copying errors create new biological information..."_ True on the discoveries, false on the "beliefs". The E. coli Long Term Evolution Experiment has conclusively demonstrated that copying errors and mutations do create new biological information. Your information on this topic seems to be outdated. Please review your position and adjust your views. You said: _"So I'm saying Mr Smith's example is apt and problematic for your belief in molecules to man?"_ And you would be wrong for saying that. In fact, even if you were right about mutations not increasing variety in heritable characteristics, Mr. Smith's "Calgary to Edmonton" example would still be wrong as I demonstrate that a simple copying error plus a deletion would add real new information to his specific travel based phrase, which is the opposite of what he is trying to claim.

[@cloisteredoyster]

In the Bible you have God Creating using Words......and trust science to claim creation occurs via mistakes in those Words.......ironically aping God

[@SillyDeity]

What "mistakes" are you referring to?

[@Bomtombadi1]

Science never says “creation occurs.” Period.

[@cloisteredoyster]

Copying errors......

[@cloisteredoyster]

Science says a lot of untrue things

[@Bomtombadi1]

@@cloisteredoyster and creation occurring is not one of them, Chucky

[@refuse2bdcvd324]

God gave us the all-time bestselling book in human history. Darwinism gave us comic books.

[@sciencerules2825]

God let the rest of us evolve working brains, then gave us creationists for comic relief. 😄

[@refuse2bdcvd324]

@@sciencerules2825 what did your brain evolve from?

[@sciencerules2825]

@@refuse2bdcvd324 A simpler pre-hominid mammalian brain. Why does your brain not work like those of honest humans do?

[@therick363]

@@refuse2bdcvd324so you lack manners and facts. Got it

[@refuse2bdcvd324]

@@therick363 it's a sincere question. Why didn't you provide an answer?

[@frankguetta9529]

Wouldn’t you be able to tell that the initial story was Red riding hood?

[@avgejoeschmoe2027]

eventually the "story" will mutate the loss of too much content and it will become too vague to tell

[@frankguetta9529]

@ You would be able to tell at some point though right?

[@avgejoeschmoe2027]

@@frankguetta9529 you would have to have observed it very early on, which you cant None of evolution is observable. Only natural selection and loss of DNA is observable.

[@BillG8718]

@@avgejoeschmoe2027 Gain of new DNA and new functionality has been empirically observed. See the 2020 paper *Evolution of new enzymes by gene duplication and divergence*

[@jimhughes1070]

I think we're talking about how well the book would have sold... Oh wait, we are not... We're talking about the ability to be alive😂

[@jockyoung4491]

The reason biologists are so certain about evolution is because of ALL of the evidence viewed together. It is not based on isolated arguments about mutations or this fossil or that. Over 250,000 species of fossils have been found so far, all arranged in time in logical progression of specific intermediate traits, AND we have genetics and comparative embryology of living organisms that confirm those relationships. Biologists can see that because we have worked with it for so long, but it is understandable why non-scientists don't get it.

[@HS-zk5nn]

and with all that it is still based on a hypothetical organism that cannot be proven. thus unscientific

[@heinpereboom5521]

250,000 species or variations in species?

[@jockyoung4491]

@@heinpereboom5521 Species, although some could be variations. It doesn''t really matter; the conclusion is the same. The evolutionary changes are obvious.

[@HS-zk5nn]

@@jockyoung4491 its called adaptation from the Ark. evolution implies common descent from LUCA.

[@jockyoung4491]

@@HS-zk5nn So you are saying that the millions of species alive today evolved in only 5000 years? Interesting. Yes, evolution implies common descent.

[@billwhite1603]

What about blue and green eyes? I have an extra set of ribs due to higher levels of protein for hundreds of years in America, and growing taller.

[@calvinsmith7575]

Blue and green eyes are caused by a mutation that lessens the amount of brown melanin (color). I.e., they are caused by a subtraction of something, not by the addition of anything. Someone bron with 6 fingers isn't evolving, they have a birth defect- having extra of something you already had isn't evolution. And there have been a wide variety of short and tall people throughout history- nothing new.

[@earthisasphere]

@@calvinsmith7575 Evolution is simply a change in allele frequency in a population. If there are more blue eyed/green eyed people in a population, that is indeed evolution. Your lies don't change that. Most mutations are neutral, about 2 % are deleterious, and about 2 % are beneficial, however even he neural mutations can create new genetic material. Something you claim can't happen...

[@jameshost6343]

Corn isn't teosinte, but has teosinte ancestors. Dogs aren't quite wolves, but have wolf ancestors. You aren't a biologist. Your video here does not do a good job of teaching.

[@sciencerules2825]

It isn't meant to teach. It's preaching to his creationist sheep to solicit donations.

[@hectorhernandez215]

Teach us...

[@sciencerules2825]

@@hectorhernandez215 First you have to show an honest desire to learn.

[@usapatriot444]

@@sciencerules2825 So please explain the step by step process of how mutations changed incomplete metamorphosis done by locusts into complete metamorphosis does by butterflies, as you know so very much about evolution.

[@sciencerules2825]

@@usapatriot444 What papers on the evolution of metamorphosis have you read? There are several good ones out there. But you haven't even looked, right? 😄

[@freeslave8824]

Exactly correct!

[@therick363]

Please tell me exactly what lies are being taught in schools. What was Calvin correct about?

[@andrewshear2927]

We have "missing links" in the fossil record. This person is wrong.

[@JA-zh5xi]

No you don’t.

[@earthisasphere]

@@JA-zh5xi We do have transitional fossils. But anyone can close their eyes, plug their ears, and say "Nuh Uh."

[@jockyoung4491]

Scientists don't use the term "missing link". It is meaningless and has too much baggage.

[@HS-zk5nn]

their "missing links" are just their gaps in understanding basic biology. that is why it is based on a hypothetical organism.

[@frankguetta9529]

@@HS-zk5nn Err. Missing links were missing fossils, not biology. You have no idea what you’re talking about do you.

[@lloydenglishguitarstudio6331]

I want this guy over for dinner. Thank God for this gift.

[@therick363]

The gift of lying?

[@Creationism-is-pseudoscience]

Why would you cook for someone only for them to lie to you the whole time? What is it about being pathological liars that's so attractive to creationists?

[@jockyoung4491]

As usual, there is nothing in this video that would refute evolution even if true.

[@sciencerules2825]

It's just Calvin doing his weekly chum dump to keep his ignorant creationist groupies happy and reaching for their wallets. 🙂

[@HS-zk5nn]

As usual, things cannot be refuted if things arent true.

[@jockyoung4491]

@@HS-zk5nn Actually, that is the only time things CAN be refuted. Duh.

[@HS-zk5nn]

@@jockyoung4491 nope. not exactly jocky - radioactivity was previously thought to be healthy. until it was refuted. please learn basic science and definitions. duh

[@sciencerules2825]

@@jockyoung4491 LOL! H S the serial liar got his "logic" bass ackwards! Must have been all that time getting his science PhD fried his brain. 😄

[@jimster7277]

Hebrew scripture is just mythology and faith through ignorance is just ignorance.

[@calvinsmith7575]

The story of evolution is just mythology and faith through ignorance is just ignorance.

[@earthisasphere]

@@calvinsmith7575 I mean, evolution only has more evidence supporting it than any other scientific idea you can think of. But sure, go ahead and lie and call it mythology. That is what you do all the time anyway. What's one more lie from you? Serious question. Do you not believe what the Bible says about lying, or do you not believe in a god? Because one of the two has to be true.

[@jimster7277]

@calvinsmith7575 Please check the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve. This is a feature shared by all vertebrates and originated in fish. Yes, you have this too. The nerve traces a path from the brain, around the aorta, to the larynx. In the giraffe it is several metres long. Clear evidence of a shared origin. Get educated.

[@cloisteredoyster]

@@jimster7277 or it's a successful design that the Creator has repeated? unless you would like to explain the ancestor without this nerve and how the design originates?

[@RnRJohnny]

The bible version: "I drove from Calgary to Edmonton and it took me three and a half hours to get to Edmonton from Calgary."

[@jockyoung4491]

And Calvin discovers that comics are not scientific LOL

[@HS-zk5nn]

And jocky discovers that the theory he believes in is based on a hypothetical organism. but that wont stop him imposing his views on others LOL

[@jockyoung4491]

@@HS-zk5nn That still isn't true. And wouldn't refute evolution even if it were.

[@HS-zk5nn]

@@jockyoung4491 ofc it is true - read about LUCA. that is what the theory is based on. please learn about science

[@earthisasphere]

@@HS-zk5nn You are the ones who wish to force your mythology on others... Jock is just pointing out your errors and you get all bent out of shape about it.

[@jockyoung4491]

Biologists don't claim any species can give birth to a different species, so why are you claiming they do?

[@HS-zk5nn]

thus another reason why the theory is baseless.

[@jockyoung4491]

@@HS-zk5nn No, it is why the theory is logical. We all agree that no individual can give birth to another species, so what is the problem?

[@HS-zk5nn]

@@jockyoung4491 right so logical that it doesnt even make sense. at one point even you admit that speciation occurs.

[@jockyoung4491]

@@HS-zk5nn Of course speciation occurs. It just doesn't occur in one generation. It takes thousands of generations to accumulate enough small changes to be considered a different species. I thought you claimed to understand biology?

[@HS-zk5nn]

@@jockyoung4491 keep tapdancing jock. WHEN does speciation occur? WHEN does an organism not have the ability to reproduce with other members?

[@anttisalminen1110]

well, you know, these comics are fiction, just like your unproven facts, in the bible fiction, your declaiming of evolution, "scientifically", is just as weak as evolutions existence

[@calvinsmith7575]

The Bible is making historical claims, and so is the story of evolution. These comics do not do so.

[@earthisasphere]

@@calvinsmith7575 The Bible claimed in Ezekiel 29 and Jeremiah 46 and 49 that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Egypt so badly that nothing would set foot their for 40 years. That clearly didn't happen. It also claimed he would destroy Tyre, and Alexander the Great did that. Oof, off to a rough start on things the Bible claimed.

[@frankguetta9529]

X-Men is probably the closest Calvin has ever come to learning about evolution.

[@littleacorn2244]

More like The Flintstones.

[@Vernon-Chitlen]

​@@littleacorn2244Can either one of you demonstrate how non living matter became arranged in even a single gene. The engine of evolving?

[@frankguetta9529]

@@Vernon-Chitlen Go and read “The quest for life’s origins” by Robert Hazen. Educate yourself.

[@BillG8718]

@@Vernon-Chitlen Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Do you really not understand that?

[@Vernon-Chitlen]

@BillG8718 I can't understand you believing such a ridiculous claim. Unless you're manifesting a particular form of denial, you are subconsciously aware of how absurd the claims abiogenesis are?

[@marcomclaurin6713]

Seraphim are the highest order of life and all life is bred from them My channel is dedicated to giving examples of seraphim transmutated by electrical processies into the elements of the universe, demonstrated in my video 'Sound reason' Godspeed

[@BillG8718]

His analogy of the book changing is fatally flawed. Nowhere does he include natural selection in the process which would keep legible changes to the text and discard the non-legible ones.

[@sciencerules2825]

@@jimhughes1070 Another science illiterate creationist chimes in. 😆

[@usapatriot444]

So why haven't humans been able to discard the mutations causing all those genetic diseases yet? Better question: Can you give the small mutations needed to change incomplete metamorphosis to complete metamorphosis seen in certain insects?

[@sciencerules2825]

@@usapatriot444 _So why haven't humans been able to discard the mutations causing all those genetic diseases yet?_ Mainly because our advancements in medical technology have kept natural selection from removing the most harmful ones from the gene pool. Things which would have killed us a century ago can now be treated and unfortunately also passed on.

[@calvinsmith7575]

So mutations would have to produce finished products (I.e., legible changes) in 1 generation? : )

[@usapatriot444]

@@calvinsmith7575 That is a straw man argument, as you should already know. But you do make a good point about mutations. They would have to not be somatic and would have to add something which would benefit the population in one generation, otherwise the population would have nothing to for nature to select. Laughably, no evolutionist has yet to list for me the small mutation steps needed to change an incomplete metamorphosis population of insects into a complete metamorphosis population of insects.

[@littleacorn2244]

This guy must works at being so clueless and wrong all the time. No one could have that much natural ignorance.

[@sciencerules2825]

He's has decades of being a complete charlatan.

[@jimhughes1070]

That's pretty hilarious 🤣 You must have stopped your education at a fairly young age😢

[@usapatriot444]

Your ignorance of just how very limited mutations are in causing the tree of life. Please look at fruit fly mutation studies. No novel structures and their associated behaviors to be used properly were ever seen. So how did nature do it?

[@sciencerules2825]

@@usapatriot444 Your ignorance of basic biology is showing. Whether or not a mutation is added to the gene pool depends on its effect in its current environment. Fruit fly experiments didn't provide changing environments where mutations could be beneficial enough to be selected. Also many mutations seen in the experiments were somatic mutations which are not passed on in reproduction.

[@earthisasphere]

@@jimhughes1070 Oh, look, another YEC who thinks their high school diploma from 50 years ago means they know more about science than 99% of scientists who spend their entire lives study these topics....

[@ConservativeMirror]

It's strange how you spend 20 minutes giving a decent explanation of evolution and how it works and then just deny it.

[@ClydeWood-i5e]

It's strange how evolutionists spend their whole life denying God and think it's decent yet at the end there knees will bow to Him ,that's how it works you'll see

[@victorobanda769]

How did evolution begin ? ,right abiogenesis is not evolution something must start from somewhere where did life originated from them ?

[@avgejoeschmoe2027]

It is easy to deny it, use critical thinking. Think the data through. Evolution thru mutation, an organism (NO WAIT, it has to be a GROUP of the same organisms) will supposedly hang on to a USELESS mutation (one that makes part of an eye?) for a few MILLION YEARS and then those same GROUP of organisms have another USELESS mutation of another part of an eye (still doesnt work) for millions of MORE years... and this goes on for many, many, many more millions of years and mutations , until the eye just happens to start to work???? What a fairy tale! Now add to the mix many other parts of complex organisms; nervous systems, circulatory systems, immune systems, reproductive systems, repair systems and I can go on and on! THESE SUB-SYSTEMS ARE VERY COMPLEX. They just didnt all just start working! Evolutionists believe (that mutations that all were BENEFICIAL, took place over tens of millions of years) then just happen to begin working???!!! Why would a group of organisms all hang onto useless mutations for tens of millions of years of generations? It's ludicrous!

[@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n]

.... you may be brainwashed

[@Vernon-Chitlen]

Show us how non living matter became arranged into DNA with the coded instructions for the replication of every organism that has ever existed.

[@stormythelowcountrykitty7147]

Thank you

[@therick363]

For what? Did you read the description of the video?