The SNEAKY Tactic Evolutionists Use to Convince People They’re Right

[@N0nPluzUltra]

Q: How do you call somebody with no body and no nose? A: Nobody knows

[@garudasomanna]

😂

[@leroyj3627]

Lolol 😆

[@JohnA-bear]

Keep the Dad jokes coming!

[@rizdekd3912]

Shouldn't it be Q What do you call someone with a nose but no body? A Nobody knows.

[@OnuigboChimaobi]

​@@rizdekd3912Knows nobody

[@masterbuilder3166]

To God be the Glory 🙌

[@Pay-It_Forward]

*Man made god*

[@dodget3]

And the blame

[@ChrisFerguson-zm4gt]

What did u pretend ur imaginary friend did?

[@ChrisFerguson-zm4gt]

@@bigboreracing356 nature created evolution, we discovered it.

[@maliquesmith2311]

Amen praise God❤❤

[@garudasomanna]

Being a video maker myself, allow me to congratulate the video editor of this episode. Very beautiful stuff. Thanks.

[@Pay-It_Forward]

*A masterful thought cave pseudo reality*

[@garudasomanna]

@@Pay-It_Forward God bless you Sir.

[@Pay-It_Forward]

@@garudasomanna *Which One?*

[@garudasomanna]

@@Pay-It_Forward Jesus

[@Pay-It_Forward]

@@garudasomanna *The dude who sneaked across the Tijuana river & now owns ("HEAVENLY TOUCH LANDSCAPING"), in Casa Grande??? He might get virgins pregnant, but don't think he has any supernatural powers.*

[@chrish5791]

I’ve observed Richard Dawkins “evolve” from being a scientist to being an evolution spouting ideologue, does that count as observation of evolution?

[@nathancook2852]

No, it just proves you have an agenda and are stupid.

[@jimhughes1070]

My gosh yes it does!! 😎🤣🤣🤣👍🙏 "Just imagine a single mutated light sensitive skin cell"🤣🤣🤣🤣 His " evolution of the eye" presentation is pure comedy genius! 😎🤣

[@nathancook2852]

@@jimhughes1070 Just because you are an idiot who cannot comprehend it doesn't make it wrong...

[@Max012]

​@jimhughes1070 Wow, you must be slow to have something explained and still not understand. 😂

[@Pay-It_Forward]

*Evolution is a species level modification*

[@WhoGitDaBiscuit]

Jesus is Lord!

[@Max012]

He's a lie and same with your entire religion

[@johnboehmer6683]

@@WhoGitDaBiscuit Hey Moe! Hey Larry! Jesus is Loid!! Wu-wu-WU- WUP- wu-wu-wup.... Heey, Porcupine - look at that - the kid finally got something right...!

[@WhoGitDaBiscuit]

@@johnboehmer6683 Knyuk, Knyuk, Knyuk…..

[@philhart4849]

Jesus is a 2,000 year old Jewish zombie.

[@KB-cm5gu]

Another great video! Thank you for these shorts series.

[@technicianbis5250-ig1zd]

​@@teks-kj1nj "DNA insertions" Is abiogenesis part of evolution now?

[@CiscoWes]

@@teks-kj1nj Sounds like you’re moving the goalposts. This was indeed an excellent video, that calls out the evolutionist tactics to try to sell the misinformation that evolutionism is somehow scientific. Evolutionists use the terms like evolution. While I agree evolutionism isn’t science, still evolutionists try to use the words and associate it with science. Did you even watch the whole video? There was an atheist that used the term “evolution”.

[@teks-kj1nj]

@@technicianbis5250-ig1zd So you never heard of retrovirus DNA insertion?. You know, that pesky fact that proves chimps and humans share a common ancestor. Coz you know, how else could chimps and humans have the same virus DNA inserted in same genome locations unless they were inserted a common parent. And what does that have to do with Abiogenesis?

[@teks-kj1nj]

​@@CiscoWes Say what? Moving what goalposts? Are you seriously saying evolution isn't scientific?

[@CiscoWes]

@@teks-kj1nj Since science simply means knowledge gained by observation - testable, repeatable, OBSERVABLE things - things measured, weighed, or counted, based on this, no, evolutionism is not scientific. Evolutionists move the goalposts when challenged regarding evolutionism.

[@elliemak3273]

Thank you so much for standing on the authority of God's Word. Also, your editing and graphics are getting better and better and I love the lab you filmed in!

[@samburns3329]

Calvin has become quite adept at polishing these creationist terds.

[@johnboehmer6683]

​@@samburns3329 You do realize that your decision to come with childish insults instead of a clearly stated rebuttal of the info presented renders your credibility as nothing higher than buffoonery, correct?

[@michaelg377]

@@johnboehmer6683 I wouldn't pay him much mind, he just trolls these new videos as they're posted and repeats that everyone is a "liar," he's not a threat... probably just a kid.

[@samburns3329]

@@michaelg377 Michael why do you hate God?

[@samburns3329]

@@joefriday2275 Still lonely and still lying Joetroll? tsk tsk.

[@markfry4304]

Also known as moving the goalpost. Every time they are debunked their answer is "well that's not what we meant". Yeah, right.

[@pencilpauli9442]

Evolution hasn't ever been debunked. The problem is you listen to people who have an agenda who constantly strawman evolution. If you have a hypothesis that disproves evolution, get it published and it will win a Nobel Prize for science. The difference between me and you is, I don't see that evolution and God are mutually exclusive. There is only a problem if you have to insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible. Oh, and your probable need to rely on presuppositionalism. FYI moving the goalpost is not synonymous with a strawman argument.

[@MrBearyMcBearface]

​@@pencilpauli9442they are not mutually exclusive but in my lifetime it's always used to combat religion so logic dictates evolutionists are not our friends, typically.

[@BornAgain223]

​@@pencilpauli9442who takes a position without presupposing beliefs?

[@RealHooksy]

Theists do that

[@pencilpauli9442]

@@BornAgain223 Me. I don't have to presuppose the existence of god to form the basis of my arguments. Nor do I need to make special pleading for a transcendent being, or leap to the conclusion that god did it to fill the big hole made by your lack of understanding and/or incredulity.

[@RodericGurrola]

Good video love the start. ❤ 👍🏻👍🏻

[@zerosteel0123]

Sneaky, sneaky. The devil is sneaky and always appears harmless. Until he bites.

[@razark9]

So creationists are the devil? The sneakiest, most deceptive and all-around dishonest people who pretends to be harmless I know of.

[@burnttoast2790]

YHWH, meanwhile, willjust charge in and beat you so hard that it'll be hard not to just nod your head when he tries to convince you it was for your own good.

[@nathancook2852]

Calvin is the wolf, buddy.

[@jimhughes1070]

​@@burnttoast2790silly rabbit... Let's get your own opinion... Do you prefer life or death 😎... Would you rather stick a small screwdriver in the socket... Or just simply lay across the 50,000 volt main lines?... Would you rather your parents taught you good common sense... Or just let you grow up stupid? 😎 No need to pretend like you don't know the difference

[@switchie1987]

But what if I'm into that? 🤔 What if I don't mind a lil' reciprocal head action with the Dark Lord? 😂

[@bazexo12.73]

Please Explain how 75,000 species of animal life alive today can all be found in the Fossil records. Unchanged and unevolved. Dating back to 280 million years? How is it possible they survived 5 extinction events and are still alive today? There have been 8,000 fish species that have all been identified to their modern-day ancestors. But Evolutionists say these are not the same animals.

[@apoliticalobserver2741]

No extant species are found in the fossil record. The ancestors of extant species are found in the fossil record. That some extant species may closely resemble their distant ancestors is due to there being very little selection pressure in their particular environments to change their morphologies.

[@firecloud77]

@@apoliticalobserver2741 Okay then, bypass selection pressure and transition a population of wolves into a whale species through selective breeding, in similitude of Pakicetus transitioning into modern whales. How long would it take you?

[@samburns3329]

@@firecloud77 Whales didn't evolve from wolves. Any other stupid creationist demands you want to make? 😅

[@apoliticalobserver2741]

@@firecloud77 *How long would it take you?* It took evolution around 50 million years and a whole planet to experiment with. How long ya got? 😂

[@firecloud77]

@@samburns3329 Well DUH. Got any more stupid comments? It is claimed that Pakicetus (a wolf-sized carnivore) "evolved" into modern whales. If a wolf-sized carnivore species "evolved" into modern whale through natural selection, then we should be able to accomplish the same feat through intelligent selection (selective breeding).

[@greenguitarfish]

Another excellent presentation ! BOTTOM LINE. Adaptation is not evolution no matter how loud the comedic preachers and tricksters of evolution shout, in fact, adaptation is the opposite of evolution because it results in a genetic decrease. God apparently put into the original animal kinds the ability to adapt to various environmental pressures, and express great beauty and creativity in the process. After the fall, all life is genetically degenerating, not evolving. Mutations are corrupting genetic codes, though sometimes this corruption can have short term benefits under certain conditions ( like beetles on a windy island) However, there are limits to the amount of change adaptation can go. Bears remain bears, dogs remain dogs, they will never morph into a dolphin or zebra. Instead of a tree of life, God made an orchard of life, with many original created kinds becoming new species over time. No evolution involved. THANKS AGAIN AIGC !

[@TrueDoginabog]

Fascinating theory you have on Genetic entropy, care to prove it?

[@greenguitarfish]

@@TrueDoginabog Oh, another comedian.... Sure, dog. I'll type it all out and then you will immediately see the light and thank me, right ? NOT! But here is a tip, go on line and Google Genetic Entropy by John Sanford and read it for yourself. Your welcome.

[@kadaejalee5199]

Another comedian….. Sure, dog, if it is explained to you, and it’s typed out you will immediately see the light and be thankful…… NOT ! Why don’t you google Genetic Entropy by John Sanford and order a copy for yourself ? Your welcome.

[@nathancook2852]

@@greenguitarfish So John stole an idea and rebranded it as his own. Great start. He describes error catastrophe and gives it a new name so he can claim it as his own, but nonetheless, error catastrophe has never been observed in nature. Sanford claims H1N1 underwent this process, but actually, H1N1 evolved into a new strand an is still causing flu today. What we actually see is that as harmful mutations build up, it is much more likely that positive ones will follow. It T mutates to C, and that mutation is a harmful one, well, that mutation can't happen again. That means when a mutation occurs again, the C will change to something else (maybe even back to T), and that is likely to be a positive change, if only because C was a negative change to begin with. He claims more mutations means more negative mutations, but more mutations opens up the door for more positive mutations. This has been researched extensively, and has never been documented, even in a lab. The one study that claims it happened introduced errors into a single generation that died off, and that is called lethal mutagenesis, and the decline in fitness could have been due to other factors because. they used a mutagen that causes many different effects. Lethal mutagenesis occurs in one single generation, "Genetic Entropy", originally error catastrophe, has to show accumulation of mutations over multiple generations and then the species must die off, which no study has done. Also, at least one trial testing this theory showed an increase in fitness, meaning if it did exist, it very well could do the opposite of what Sanford claims. You are welcome.

[@greenguitarfish]

@@nathancook2852 TRANSLATION: You are far too emotionally invested in the dead theory of evolution to give it up even when all its fatal flaws are brought to light.

[@OlegLankin]

If Calvin wasn't so good at exposing evolutionists's lies, they wouldn't be commenting on all his videos panicking, trying to attack him and anyone who likes his videos. I wouldn't be surprised if they make multiple accounts to comment, and like their own comments.

[@Bomtombadi1]

Calvin is right because people tell him he’s wrong? You’re not too good in the think department, are you?

[@kyrb885]

"if im wrong then why do you feel the need to tell me im wrong"

[@johnboehmer6683]

I'm not entirely convinced they attack these videos so aggressively because they know they're wrong. That could be the case, but what it does definitely reveal is there is absolutely agenda behind the theory, and spiritual dynamics, whether they realize it or not. Despite the fact that the theory does not disprove God, it is a stalwart tactic regularly used by atheists to attempt to discredit the Christian Bible.

[@Bomtombadi1]

@@johnboehmer6683 what is the agenda? You’ll be hard pressed to find an atheist who doesn’t believe a god exists because of evolution. Last I checked, CALVIN is the one obsessively posting about it. CREATIONISTS are the ones attempting to say god exists by discrediting evolution.

[@intentionally-blank]

@@Bomtombadi1 Unguided or no? And the agenda is the same as it was in the beginning “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden?’" Genesis 3:1

[@1812nico]

Keep up your good work for God's truth.

[@therick363]

Gods truth is to lie?

[@Kaleb_Hicks]

Levitcus 21: 16-23 Descrimination Deuteronomy 21:10-17 Women are just sex slaves/property Joshua:10:1-26 Totally Unscientific Psalm 137- WTF Yeah God's truth alright. Glad I'm an atheist.

[@razark9]

If it's the truth, why the constant need to misrepresent and blatantly lie?

[@switchie1987]

@@razark9 Shonk! Must be the Satans! 😂 Ah, it's so fun mocking idiot creationists~

[@switchie1987]

@@razark9 Must be the works of Satan!

[@BrianBadondeBo]

Was the sneaky tactic supposed to be conflating micro with macro, or that the evolutionary process is subtractive instead of additive?

[@Bomtombadi1]

What makes you think it’s subtractive?

[@BrianBadondeBo]

@Bomtombadi1 I don't, the evolution of snake venom for example is additive, they merely pointed to subtractive examples in a hamfisted attempt of discrediting evolution altogether

[@Bomtombadi1]

@@BrianBadondeBo ah gotcha.

[@HS-zk5nn]

athiests running here "to protect science" - whatever that means - while believing in hypothetical organisms is hilarious!

[@samburns3329]

Pointing out creationist lies about science is done as a public service. You're welcome. 🙂

[@michaelg377]

@@samburns3329 Reposted for your reconsideration: You even admitted it yourself when you said "(K/Ar) which at the time was known to invalid on dates less than 2MY." ...that must be embarrassing, but it's okay to make a mistake sometimes Sam. Right alongside young Carbon-14 found inside of "billions of years old" diamonds, a 26K year old live snail shell, the 5.5B year old zircon which is "way too old to be accurate" lol... And your only response is an Ad-hominem attack (a logical fallacy). "Liar liar" makes the evidence go away, right? *How do you know how old these things are before you date them?* The reason those scientists who dated that 10-year old lava dome sample were wrong is because they *incorrectly assumed* that all of the Argon in it was the product of radioactive decay from Potassium - when in reality it just inherited additional argon as it solidified. *There is no time stamp, only a quantity of 2 chemicals, and a LOT of assumptions.* ...if we can be so wrong on dating an object that we observe, then what does that tell us about dating objects from the unobservable past which we cannot observe? *And what do you do when multiple different tests all yield different "ages" on the same material - which ones do you throw out, and how do you know?*

[@usapatriot444]

@@samburns3329Takes one to know one! As you are also fallible humans like us, your side has liars as well.

[@intentionally-blank]

@@samburns3329 Why do you even care? Does your impersonal, amoral, absentee, deaf, dumb and blind universe reward your pointless and meritless mission? You're perhaps days away from being returned to dust. Enjoy this plane of existence while you can because you'll really not like your next. Just as man is appointed to die once, and after that to face judgment" Hebrews 9:27

[@samburns3329]

@@michaelg377 Michael why do you hate God?

[@sammyking9407]

The production of this videos is top notch quality! 💪🤝

[@nathancook2852]

Real nice green screen. Do you think Calvin can even use that microscope "sitting" beside him?

[@Creationism-is-pseudoscience]

High production value propaganda.

[@sammyking9407]

@@nathancook2852 I think Calvin can use your mom sitting on him.

[@nathancook2852]

@@sammyking9407 Oh look, the "Christian" not acting at all like a Christian. What a surprise. And yes, my mom does know how to work a microscope. But she wouldn't be able to find Calvin's penis, even if she did have a microscope while she was looking for it.

[@sciencerules2825]

@@sammyking9407 Why, is your mom busy?

[@bwtv147]

The first bug resistant to an insecticide and the first plant resistant to a herbicide are mutants. That mutation continues in their descendants.

[@anarchorepublican5954]

(Macro neo-)Evolution is merely a postmodern creation myth...

[@johnryan6658]

Interesting. Especially considering the fact that the theory of evolution makes no claims about the creation of life.

[@razark9]

In other words, you have absolutely no idea what evolution is but want to project your faith in magical creation onto empirical science?

[@anarchorepublican5954]

@@johnryan6658 ....Oh sure it does...or perhaps...more accurately it certainly used to = again, just another century long failure for "the Theory"/("The Myth) ☀⛈⚡🌊✨🍲👾Hey Everybody! magic primordial Soup's On!

[@anarchorepublican5954]

@@razark9 ...well, that's sorta true, I suppose...as I really don't know of a lick of "empirical science", that proves Evolution...do you have a particularly compelling piece of evidence, that you find convincing, and would like to share with me?...please be specific ...(i.e just saying "the fossil record" is so broad, it's saying nothing, but narrative)...my very favorite myths, are human and horse evolution...but, I dabble in everything Evolutionary and imaginary...

[@razark9]

@@anarchorepublican5954 Your problem isn't a lack of evidence. It's religious denial. Evolution is backed by centuries of science across over a dozen empirical fields. I'm not going to spoonfeed someone who has deliberately ignored centuries of data and pretend there is none.

[@jimt7292]

Keep up the great work and continuing voicing the message that needs to be heard world-wide.

[@philhart4849]

"Theism is ridiculous" is a message that needs to be heard world-wide.

[@graemeross6970]

Agreed with the video to the mid point. A well-presented explanation. Then of course the old cherry. ‘No one has observed macro evolution’. Up until recently this could have been a valid argument. However the ability to rapidly analyse (Crispr gene editing) dna structure of differing but close species, clearly shows the divergence over time to the extent that different species evolved over lengthy time intervals. There is no evidence of creation or divine intervention. Then we are back to the myths, sorry moths again! Towards the end of the video it does appear that AIG is starting to get the hang of it. It is difficult to conceive of 4 billion years. The Cambrian explosion shows quite clearly increasing levels of complexity and is well fossilised. I have written a few comments on this channel’s content. This is not to change the set minds but to possibly help others towards a balanced view.

[@dennisanderson3895]

Very insightful and scientifically correct! The assumption demanded by the "macros" is that natural selection - localized adaptation to immediate factors - *leads* to the macro (exactly the switcheroo lie first cited). They ARE, however Olympic-level mental gymnasts!

[@razark9]

''scientifically correct'' Says who? Right.. Creationists on KZbin and in blogs. 😂

[@michaelg377]

@@razark9 Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers? Science is a methodology, what you're talking about is an ideology - that's not science, that's something else. Let me ask you this... the 1st law of thermodynamics doesn't allow energy to "naturally" come from nothing. The 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy) says that energy is always being converted into a less usable form, and it doesn't allow energy to remain usable forever, because in the infinite past it would have been infinitely used up by now (Heat Death). *So if our universe can't "naturally" have a beginning from nothing, and it can't have just always been here (otherwise all of our energy would be infinitely used up), how do you naturally explain the beginning of our universe?* Have you ever wondered why Atheistic-Naturalists have to invoke such wild and sci-fi sounding theories to sustain their "natural" (atheistic) beliefs on our origins? *Infinite* alternate universes, an *eternal self-existent* singularity, alternate unobservable metaphysical laws of nature, *pre-existent* phenomena... they have to attribute supernatural qualities of God to "nature" in order to "naturally" explain our origins. This is the Atheist's Natural-Supernatural (!) worldview. It's an internally inconsistent and self-refuting belief system... the only way for nature to create itself is if nature is *pre-existent - like God.* *"The evidence of God... has been clearly seen since the beginning in all that has been created, so they will have no excuse"* (Romans 1:20)

[@Pay-It_Forward]

*Google "TalkOrigins" as everything in this video has been debunked*

[@Pay-It_Forward]

*DNA proves we are part Neanderthal & part Denisovan. DNA genome tests of 3,500 species has reverse engineer proved the accuracy of the Evolutionary Taxonomy Tree. Shared DNA endogenous retroviruses between different species also proves the common transitional form ancestor between the 2, from which they inherited the virus. There is many such ERVs between humans & other apes. Many Speciations have happened since Darwin & there are many new species which can no longer interbreed, even if they still appear to be the same (KIND).*

[@Florida79578]

Evolution was made to expain the diversity not orgin that's abioginess also expain away aromeda galaxy

[@truthgiver8286]

That sneaky tactic is called evidence as opposed to faith which is we tell you a story and you just believe it.

[@michaelg377]

Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and that if you just wait a long enough *Time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people by chance? We are all Uncritically Indoctrinated into this atheistic origins mythology as young children today, it's just that no one ever talk about its many scientific problems or its embarrassing history of radical ad-hoc readjustment and debunked doctrines. *Scientific Theories are supposed to be Falsifiable, Religions are Not: Given its extensive history of radically ad-hoc readjusting itself every time it runs into problematic evidence, what would it take to "Falsify" the Theory of Evolution today?* In 1982 a federal court ruled that Creation can't be taught in schools because "it is not falsifiable." Evolution has a long history of radically rewriting itself as it runs into more and more problems - what would it take to "falsify" Naturalistic Evolution? Over 500 Living Fossils? Debunked "Junk" DNA? Finding a 70M year extinct *allegedly transitioning evolutionary predecessor* still alive, unevolved, with no evidence of it ever evolving?* Discovering that many "vestigial" (leftover) organs actually have a normal function with no evidence of being leftovers at all, like the appendix? Finding "millions of years" old creatures with no signs of evolution? Fully developed vertebrate creatures in the Cambrian explosion? An Ankylosaurus fossil found where it's not supposed to be buried among sea creatures? Whale fossils deep inland in the United States? Trilobites found appearing suddenly and fully developed with complex eyes in the Cambrian - and in every fossil layer indicating they were buried rapidly? Maybe measurably young tissues in dinosaur fossils that look similar to 4000 year old mummies or the Tyrolean Ice Man? Early jawed placoderm fossils showing fully developed complex jaws - causing evolutionists to claim that they must have evolved, de-evolved, and then re-evolved those jaws to maintain their story of shark evolution? *What if scientists admitted that Human-Ape DNA is down from 99% "similar" to only 84% "similar" and admitted their bias in "humanizing" the ape genome?* ...or should we just reinterpret all of these problematic evidences to keep the belief in Atheistic/Naturalistic evolution alive, and why? We are all *uncritically indoctrinated* into this Atheistic-Naturalist religion of evolution in our public education system today... Should evolution be held to the same religious standard as Creationism? All of the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, and if you understand "science" then you understand the implications of a competing explanation. *"The evidence of God... has been clearly seen since the beginning in all that has been created, so they will have no excuse"* (Romans 1:20)

[@therick363]

@@michaelg377shoosh liar

[@daviddavenport9350]

There are additions and subtractions to gene frequency, combination of two alliels (as in the Human/Chimp sight 2, and yes even mutations that can be positive, negative or neutral.

[@michaelg377]

Are you talking about the evolutionist Chromosome 2 beliefs, and have you ever looked up the biblical creation position on this? Great resource: "Unraveling the Chromosome 2 Connection" at Answers in Genesis if you want to know more on that. In the meantime, *did you know that the commonly taught atheistic evolutionary mythology that "apes and humans are 99% similar" has been debunked by modern scientific findings? - we're just still blindly holding on to that debunked belief system because evolutionists swept it under the rug. *“the percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 84.38%” and “4.06% had no alignment to the chimp assembly.”* (Richard Buggs, PhD, University of London's specialist in evolutionary genomics). "The higher-quality human genome assemblies have often been used to guide the final stages of nonhuman genome projects, including the order and orientation of sequence contigs and, perhaps more importantly, the annotation of genes. *This bias has effectively “humanized” other ape genome assemblies."* (Kronenberg, Z. N. et al. 2018. High-resolution comparative analysis of great ape genomes. Science. 360 (6393). [Regarding Human-Chimp DNA similarity]: *"There is a 13.3% difference in sections of our immune systems when insertions and deletions are considered."* (Anzai, et. a., "Comparative Sequencing of Human and Chimpanzee MHC Class 1 Regions Unveils Insertions/Deletions as the Major Path to Genomic Divergence," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100, no. 13 (2003). *"The chimpanzee genome was 12% larger than the human genome... gene copy numbers revealed a 6.4% difference"* (Jeffery Demuth, et al., "the Evolution of Mammalian Gene Families," 2006). [Regarding Human-Chimp DNA similarity]: *"There is a 17.4% difference* in gene expression in the cerebral cortex" (Jon Cohen, "Relative Differences: *the Myth of 1%"* Science 316, no. 5833, 2007). ""Relative Differences: *the Myth of 1%"*"

[@philipgrobler7253]

More sneaky tactics by theists attempting to prove god with useless pointless deflection, arguments, claims and assertions without any evidence.

[@michaelg377]

That's because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just wait a really long *Time* then puddles of chemicals can fizz into people by chance. Let me ask you this... Charles Darwin met the gold standard of science (a methodology) by giving a testable hypothesis for his theory: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex *organ* existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down..." *How did male and female evolve?* Before you answer, consider that these are two separate, yet interdependent, precision tuned sets of organs that all have to be working just right or reproduction, life, and evolution fail. For example: The fallopian tubes are lined with millions of these little hairs that all wave the same direction, and their purpose is to guide the egg from the ovaries down into the uterus. If they stood still, laid flat, waved the wrong direction, or didn't exist - the egg would either die or it would implant in the fallopian tube thus killing the mother. Some of these are known medical conditions that prevent pregnancy - "Evolution" had to get these millions of hairs just right.... "by numerous, successive, slight modifications." *Simultaneously* the sperm has a whip like rotor, a motor encasing, a bushing like material, a nutrient transfer system, and several other components that all have to be working *just right* or the sperm can't find the egg. Reproduction and life fails. "Evolution" had to get the interdependent parts of the sperm "just right" ... "by numerous, successive, slight modifications." *Then* you have the placenta which does everything for the baby including keeping the mother's and baby's blood separate, the expanding and contracting uterus and cervix, the mechanism which only allows one sperm into the egg, and numerous other components that all had to be *designed* just right, or reproduction and life fails. "Evolution" had to *SIMULTANEOUSLY* get all of these just right "by numerous, successive, slight modifications." Which gender evolved first, and how did it reproduce while the other hadn't evolved yet? And going backwards in time, which of these critical organs do you gradually reduce first "by numerous, successive, slight modifications" without causing reproduction to fail? *"“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’"* (Matthew 19:4). Such *specified complexity* looks like the product of an Intelligent engineering mind, not the result of chance fizzing chemicals in a puddle. Puddles don't turn themselves into people no matter how much *time* you add to the mix.

[@samburns3329]

@@michaelg377 Michael G the lying Godbot just never stops.

[@michaelg377]

@@samburns3329 But you didn't answer the question. Just a question: *How did male and female evolve in accordance with Darwin's testable hypothesis (ie. "organs" by "numerous, successive, slight modifications")?* Until you can answer this question, per Darwin, evolution is "absolutely break[ing] down..." ... keep in mind women today literally can't get pregnant because of minor issues like those above, and you need those interdependent organs to gradually develop by chance chemical reactions for no reason. What faith....

[@therick363]

@@michaelg377more copy paste lying

[@bettytigers]

St. Steven was stoned for telling the truth in the Acts of the Apostles. If you believe a favourite falsehood you might not like or even hate the same truth, that sets wiser people free!

[@jimhughes1070]

Punctuation precious!! 🎉... I'm a little slow but I finally got it! 😎.. well said! 🙏🎉

[@Max012]

​@@jimhughes1070Yes if you deny evolution you are "a little slow" 😂😂😂

[@jimhughes1070]

@@Max012 See what I mean?... Atheist brains are so filled with "evolutionary dreams", There's no room left for all the actual *knowledge* required to validate them... Just enough room to squeeze in a few kindergarten insults. That's called Empirical science... What's in your brain... Is what spills out your mouth. "Well doctor, it appears all he knows is... Insults" 😎 If they showed you something and then textbooks that actually made sense... You would use that... instead of posturing like a third grader. Tell me are you a True believer? Worshiping Lucifer face to face... No deception necessary!?!... From this end it looks like pure evil is the only thing that motivates you 🧐

[@KyleTheDalek]

Not related, but a question about faith. Is there any scientific evidence for purity, like if it has any benefits? I’ve seen mixed takes on it and wanted to see what is and isn’t true.

[@Bomtombadi1]

Nope. Go have fun, Kyle. Just wear protection.

[@i7Qp4rQ]

Without artificial equipment or even with, the result is quickened death and destruction in it worse forms.

[@AidanKleidon]

With it, when looking as several different articles "purity culture" is counted as bad due to women not seeing their worth and religious trauma. There is good from purity culture that not many people post, such as respect for men not looking inappropriately at women and others (which many articles say it's bad). The articles though not many talk about (that I know of) the relationship being shown by fathers and daughters. Many religious leaders has turned corrupt on purity (more towards pastors or elders raping women) but the bible condemns that. Research it biblically and physically for more info. I do hope people turn back to Christian dynamics that is biblical. Which was many nations foundations.

[@ethanwasche6465]

Benefits in the eyes of people and in this life are subjective. Objectively, diseases and death are related to impurity depending on what is meant by impurity. In subjective terms, there is some evidence that religious people are more likely to feel guilt over impurity and less likely to feel anxious overall than non-religious people. On the other hand, plenty of people enjoy their impurity and would label it positively. At the end of the day, we’re all dust and God is God. Perceived and therapeutic benefit, which is what social research can assess, is not of eternal significance!

[@Bomtombadi1]

@@ethanwasche6465 “enjoy” vs “acknowledge” are two different things, and what one would call “impure,” another would called “flawed.” From this end, Christians strive to be perfect and pass judgment on others who aren’t trying to be. Atheists in general acknowledge their imperfection, and strive to do their best.

[@poliincredible770]

Thanks for exposing the truth

[@Max012]

Maybe you should learn biology for a biologist, not for a person who has a clear lack of understanding of biology

[@pencilpauli9442]

You can't learn the truth about biology from someone who doesn't understand and/or deliberately misrepresents biology. FYI Evolution does not have anything to say on the existence or otherwise of a transcendent being.

[@Bob_Bobson47]

​@@Max012What’s wrong with the information in the video?

[@johnryan6658]

​@@Bob_Bobson47 1. The theory of evolution makes no claims about the origin of life. 2. Mutations are new information. 3. Macroevolution has plenty of evidence. Creationists just refuse to hear it.

[@mattbrook-lee7732]

​@Bob_Bobson47 the beginning the middle and the end. Love the green screen lab though

[@WokePreacherClips]

Difference between macro/micro is like a character creator in a video game. You can slide the sliders that have been programmed to define your character's traits (size, shape, color, etc), but no matter how much you slide those sliders...even sliding them for billions of years, ever so slightly...that will not add a new slider/previously unseen trait to the character creation menu.

[@samburns3329]

Exceptionally poor analogy even for a creationist. You're claiming micro-erosion can wash out your driveway but macro-erosion can never wear down a mountain. Or micro-gravity can make a dropped rock fall to the ground but macro-gravity moving whole planets is impossible. Or micro-walking a mile is fine but macro-walking twenty miles is impossible.

[@nathancook2852]

@@samburns3329 The lies they tell themselves have to be exhausting to keep up with.

[@WokePreacherClips]

@@samburns3329 Didn't see a notification for your reply. Do you think micro-walking can get you to the top of a skyscraper?

[@willbritton133]

@@WokePreacherClips You never heard of stairs?

[@WokePreacherClips]

@ Any examples of naturally-formed staircases as tall as a skyscraper?

[@logicalatheist1065]

Creationists keep attacking evolution with stupidity, that never works

[@spatrk6634]

they are not trying to convince us. they are trying to keep the sheep by pretending science actually confirms the bible and there is evil evolutionist religion that is against god probably made by satan.

[@logicalatheist1065]

@@jpdobro8728 how so? Evolution is demonstrated to be true Creationism is nothing but false garbage

[@psychologicalprojectionist]

Here's one, Q: What do you call a scientific theory with 160 years of carefully collected and studied evidence that supports it, and that informs the people who have supported an 8 fold growth in the human population since 1850 by informing Medicine and Agriculture. A: The truth. If you are a creationist, you are the joke😃

[@RobertSmith-gx3mi]

Rip the picture up and instead rely on the overwhelming amount of evidence we've gathered over the last hundred and sixty years to prove evolution happens , and it's not debatable. We have more evidence to suggest evolution is true then we have to suggestngravity is true, but the apologists whose worldview would not be wrecked by admitting the scientific theory of gravity is true can't do the same with the scientific theory of evolution If they are to continue to take the bible literally

[@sciencerules2825]

@@joefriday2275 The whole world witnessed the evolution of the SARS-CoV-2 virus into some 40 different and genetically unique strains in the last 4 years. Why do you have to lie about such simple facts?

[@RobertSmith-gx3mi]

@@joefriday2275 The fact that evolution is a scientific theory that no religious apologist has ever debunked is pretty good indication the evidence is solid and reliable. Instead of me. Explaining the evidence.Why don't you go get a degree as an evolutionary biologist?And learn all the information and evidence for yourself? I'm not saying a better explanation for the diversity of life couldn't be possible but I am saying, "god did it" ain't that better explanation.

[@samburns3329]

@@RobertSmith-gx3mi Joefriday is a lonely old man who only posts lie filled rants just to get attention.

[@RobertSmith-gx3mi]

@@joefriday2275 Evolution has nothing to do with the lack of evidence that supports the existence of a deity. Someone groomed you to straw man atheism as being a belief In evolution. I'm kind of envious of people like you and flat earthers who are not embarrassed by the things you both say publicly.

[@therick363]

@@joefriday2275keep lying Joe Joe

[@darkfielddiggermicrosafari]

Excellent. Keep up the good work!

[@frankostmann]

Have u noticed that there's is no program in biology on the comparison of animals plants and structural and mechanical engineering. The reason is the structural and mechanical rules apply exactly the same to both which prufes plants and animals have a designer.Heres an exsample:strongest part of the structure must be the base.lamppoles. tree trunk top of the arm leg.surfuses that slide over one another must BE ULTRA SMOOTH and have a method to keep a lubricant there: crank shaft bearings ,joints in arms legs. Act. REASON then all will have to admit we have a engineer GOD that used the same thought process in designing

[@richardgregory3684]

_REASON then all will have to admit we have a engineer GOD that used the same thought process in designing_ If god designed and engineered living things then he's just an incompetent idiot lol

[@globalcoupledances]

1/64 of all mutations creates a new protein coding gene. That is your designer

[@sciencerules2825]

If GOD is such a wonderful Designer why did he screw up so badly with the human spine? The mammalian spine evolved horizontally in quadrupeds. In that orientation it does a great job of supporting weight suspended below the spine, like a suspension bridge. Taking that same "design" and turning it vertically is horrible. Now all the weight merely compresses and ruptures the vertebrae causing humans no end of back miseries. When humans began walking upright to free their hands for other tasks the trade off was lots of back problems. An Omnipotent God Designer could have let humans use their hands AND provided a robust, pain free vertical spine design.

[@richardgregory3684]

@@sciencerules2825 Not just the spine. Our being upright causes problems for out major organs - compressing th elower ones with the weigh tof those above them. Think how our organs would hang suspended if we still went on all fours. Likewise our airways. Our nose and sinuses allow excess fluids and secretions to drain out of the body (espescially during infection). But our being upright instead causes them to drain down towards the throat and lungs. Hence humans are prone to chest infections. And just think how every human is one error away from choking to death every time we eat or drink anything. We totally rely on a little flap of flesh to block off food and drink going into our lungs, since "god's great design" is to have food, water and air all use the same pipe! And how about the absurd system of having our reproductive organs sit right next to our waste disposal system? This is a huge cause of infections, espescailly in women, and contributes greatly to birth fatalities before the advent of antiseptics and antibiotics. The list of ludicrous;t bad "design" in the human body (suposedly, god's greatest creation) is near endless. Terrible knee joints. Blind spots in the eyes. Multiple single points of failure like the heart. We can;t regenerate lost limbs. The human brain can't repair itself.

[@jimhughes1070]

Well said!! Just in case you were unaware.. engineering was introduced to biology some decades ago... When biologists figured out that living cells possess living machinery! 🙏👍😎

[@badatpseudoscience]

The truth is that the difference between apologists and real scientists is that when a real scientist is caught intentionally useing fallacies to force the conclusion, there career is over. When a Christion apologists is caught intentionally useing fallacies to force a conclusion, its called defending the faith. Apologists are the evil ones here.

[@michaelg377]

Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers? I disagree that evolutionists' careers are over when they use fallacies to force their conclusions/presuppositions - even when they are wrong we just radically rewrite the atheistic origins story of evolution, no problem. *"we see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the lapse of the ages"* (Charles Darwin) *"we are condemned to live only for a few decades, and that's too slow, too small a time scale to see evolution going on"* (Richard Dawkins) ...at least we agree it's not observable.

[@badatpseudoscience]

Notice how @@michaelg377 doesn't really address my post. Instead, he puts forward a strawman. Again, this type of behavior would not be tolerated in a formal academic setting. I will say it again. Apologists are the evil ones here.

[@michaelg377]

@@badatpseudoscience What do you mean strawman, do you not believe that humans have fish ancestry? That's a staple doctrine of evolution..? *"Human Ears Evolved from Ancient Fish Gills"* (Bjorn Carey, Live Science, 2006) *"We are fish"* (P.Z. Myers, PhD, Associate Professor of Biology, University of Minnesota Morris) *"That’s because we, and in fact all tetrapods (four-limbed vertebrates, many of which live on land), share a more recent common ancestor with the coelacanth and lungfish than we do with ray-finned fishes."* (evolution berkeley edu) It's easy to just call the other side "evil," cry unsubstantiated "strawmen," and pretend you're on the higher ground with statements like "would not be tolerated in a formal academic setting" - it's another thing entirely to recognize that what your opponent is saying actually accurately describes your evolutionary belief system. Science is a methodology. What you're talking about is an Ideology, not "science."

[@sciencerules2825]

@@badatpseudoscience Michael G is a proven serial liar. His science knowledge begins and ends with what he can copy and paste from creation websites. The guy's never had an original thought in his life.

[@michaelg377]

@@sciencerules2825 Science is a methodology, what you're talking about is a constantly radically ad-hoc rewritten atheistic origins mythology, not 'science' my friend. Let's ask you this again, since you haven't rationally answered yet... Charles Darwin met the gold standard of science (a methodology) by giving a testable hypothesis for his theory: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex *organ* existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down..." *How did male and female evolve?* Before you answer, consider that these are two separate, yet interdependent, precision tuned sets of organs that all have to be working just right or reproduction, life, and evolution fail - and women literally cannot get pregnant today because of some of known minor medical conditions with just one of them. For example: The fallopian tubes are lined with millions of these little hairs that all wave the same direction, and their purpose is to guide the egg from the ovaries down into the uterus. If they stood still, laid flat, waved the wrong direction, or didn't exist - the egg would either die or it would implant in the fallopian tube thus killing the mother. Some of these are known medical conditions that prevent pregnancy - "Evolution" had to get these millions of hairs just right.... "by numerous, successive, slight modifications." *Simultaneously* the sperm has a whip like rotor, a motor encasing, a bushing like material, a nutrient transfer system, and several other components that all have to be working *just right* or the sperm can't find the egg. Reproduction and life fails. "Evolution" had to get the interdependent parts of the sperm "just right" ... "by numerous, successive, slight modifications." *Then* you have the placenta which does everything for the baby including keeping the mother's and baby's blood separate, the expanding and contracting uterus and cervix, the mechanism which only allows one sperm into the egg, and numerous other components that all had to be *designed* just right, or reproduction and life fails. "Evolution" had to *SIMULTANEOUSLY* get all of these just right "by numerous, successive, slight modifications." Which gender evolved first, and how did it reproduce while the other hadn't evolved yet? And going backwards in time, which of these critical organs do you gradually reduce first "by numerous, successive, slight modifications" without causing reproduction to fail? *"“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’"* (Matthew 19:4). Such *specified complexity* looks like the product of an Intelligent engineering mind, not the result of chance fizzing chemicals in a puddle. Puddles don't turn themselves into people no matter how much *time* you add to the mix.

[@jonathand9793]

Equivocation reminds me of how Progressives debate and curtail the 2A

[@strategywizard]

Keep up the great work, Calvin!

[@therick363]

Of being a hypocrite?

[@strategywizard]

@@therick363 How is Calvin a hypocrite?

[@therick363]

@@strategywizard the title of this very video is him being a hypocrite. Evolution is a scientific theory. But he ignores that fact. So he’s being sneaky.

[@switchie1987]

Hmm, maybe I should get some Cavin Klein undergarments. Seem comfortable. This Calvin, though... Just seems quite tacky, y'know?

[@sbgtrading]

@@therick363 Evolution is a naturalistic speculation...it's not a Theory.

[@petermunyaradzimuzarewetu8089]

Those dad jokes 😂😂😂😂. Nice

[@leroyj3627]

I'm trying to remember them to entertain my grandkids with!

[@tobias4411]

FAITH is one of the most intellectually dishonest positions to hold, as it involves claiming facts without evidence and pretending to know things one doesn't actually know. In any other context, we would call this lying. Faith could only be more dishonest if practiced by religious apologists, who assert speculation without reason and defend it against all logic. Apologetics is essentially about making excuses to justify doctrinal errors and systematically dismissing or ignoring evidence that contradicts a priori beliefs, all in an effort to defend faith - even in instances where the apologist knows the belief to be untrue. As a result, they often resort to appeals to ignorance, asserting claims without any justification whatsoever.

[@michaelg377]

That's because you put your FAITH in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just wait a long enough *Time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people by chance. You have FAITH every time you let a doctor operate on you, you allow someone to drive your car, etc. Even here, you are practicing your FAITH as an Apologist for the Atheistic origins mythology of particles to man evolution. We ONLY observe biblical speciation within each creature's kind (finch>finch, dog>dog, bacteria>bacteria), never even ONCE a change between kinds as the constantly radically ad-hoc rewritten atheistic origins mythology of particles to man macroevolution requires (fish>philosopher, dinosaur>chicken, placoderm>shark, etc.). It's just storytelling, and it has to constantly be rewritten because it simply does not match reality. "FAITH is one of the most intellectually dishonest positions to hold, as it involves claiming facts without evidence and pretending to know things one doesn't actually know" Consider your words, as you read the following. *"we see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the lapse of the ages"* (Charles Darwin) *"we are condemned to live only for a few decades, and that's too slow, too small a time scale to see evolution going on"* (Richard Dawkins) All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, which A) says something about the "evidence" evolutionists think they have, and B) Scripture doesn't have to keep rewriting itself like atheistic particles to man evolution does. Evolution is a constantly radically ad-hoc readjusted atheistic origins mythology (an Ideology) - that's just not how "science" (a methodology) works. *"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"* (Romans 3:23)

[@tobias4411]

​@@michaelg377"..the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers". Straw man fallacy. Evolution does not involve fish directly evolving into philosophers. Evolution occurs over millions of years and involves gradual changes in populations of organisms. There is no widely recognized modern mythology that includes fish evolving into philosophers. Our current scientific understanding of evolution and human origins does not support this claim. It's important to distinguish between scientific facts, mythology, and fictional concepts to avoid misunderstandings. "We see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the long lapse of ages" (Charles Darwin) He used this phrase to explain that evolutionary changes occur so slowly that they are not noticeable within a human lifetime. Only after a significant passage of time can we observe the cumulative effects of these changes. The quote is part of Darwin's larger explanation of natural selection, where he describes it as a force constantly examining and preserving beneficial variations while discarding detrimental ones. This process works "silently and imperceptibly" over long periods, resulting in the adaptation of organisms to their environments.

[@michaelg377]

@@tobias4411 What do you mean strawman - the number of steps you add in between is irrelevant, do you not believe humans have fish ancestry? *"Human Ears Evolved from Ancient Fish Gills"* (Bjorn Carey, Live Science, 2006) *"We are fish"* (P.Z. Myers, PhD, Associate Professor of Biology, University of Minnesota Morris) *"That’s because we, and in fact all tetrapods (four-limbed vertebrates, many of which live on land), share a more recent common ancestor with the coelacanth and lungfish than we do with ray-finned fishes."* (evolution berkeley edu) How is that not "fish evolving into philosophers"...? It's important to distinguish between scientific facts, mythology, and fictional concepts to avoid misunderstandings. Science is a methodology - what you're talking about is a constantly radically ad-hoc rewritten atheistic origins mythology that fish evolve into philosophers (an Ideology) - not "science." The reason it has to keep being rewritten so often (evolutionists ironically call it "progress") is because it simply does not match reality. All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, which A) says something about the "evidence" evolutionists think they have, and B) Scripture doesn't have to keep rewriting itself as evolution does - as Atheistic-naturalists/evolutionists are rewriting their origins mythology and tacking on excuses for problematic evidences, all of the evidence just fits and is explainable in a biblical worldview just fine. Let me ask you this... a century ago we taught our children the story of evolution as "the truth." Since then it has undergone numerous radical ad-hoc rewrites as it's run into more and more problematic evidence, and today we still teach it as "the truth." In another 30 years when we inevitably revise it again, it will still be "the truth." *Which version was true, and which versions were the lies?*

[@tobias4411]

@@michaelg377 Yes, humans do have fish ancestry. But the phrase "fish evolve into philosopher" can be considered a straw man fallacy because it oversimplifies and misrepresents the scientific understanding of evolution to make it easier to attack or ridicule. Your last question raises important points about the nature of scientific knowledge and how it evolves. Scientific revisions are not the same as lies. They represent our improving understanding of the world as we gather more evidence and develop better tools for analysis. Remember that science is a self-correcting process. When new evidence contradicts old ideas, theories are revised or replaced. In science, "facts" are observable phenomena, while "theories" are explanations of those phenomena. The basic facts of evolution (e.g., that species change over time) remain constant, while our theories about the mechanisms of evolution may be refined. So yes, scientific concepts do change, but this is a strength, not a weakness. It shows that science is responsive to new evidence. These changes usually involve refinements or expansions of existing ideas rather than complete reversals. Good science education emphasizes both current understanding and the process of scientific inquiry. Students should learn that scientific knowledge is provisional and subject to revision based on new evidence. The core concept of evolution (descent with modification) has remained stable since Darwin. What has changed are details about mechanisms, rates, and specific evolutionary pathways. Science's willingness to revise ideas based on evidence is what makes it trustworthy, not less so. The goal is to progressively approach a more accurate understanding of reality.

[@michaelg377]

@@tobias4411 What one "considers" is irrelevant in this case - you either believe that fish evolve into philosophers, or you do not. And you do, you just obfuscate the mythological nature of this origins mythology by adding countless steps in between and calling it 'science' (a methodology). The problem with the rest of your response is that this is a matter of competing worldviews over the same evidence - one which has an embarrassing history of radically ad-hoc rewriting itself as it runs into more and more problems, and another which explains all of the same evidence just fine but doesn't have to keep rewriting itself. Radical ad-hoc readjustment is a sign of a faulty worldview, it means it doesn't match reality - and you're justifying your FAITH in this constantly radically rewritten worldview. There is another worldview that can explain all of this same evidence without the problem of radical ad-hoc readjustment. As evolutionists are increasingly admitting that we only see things like stasis, sudden appearance, fully developed organisms, morphological change in the fossil record is directionless, as ape-human similarity is reduced from 99% to 84% and evolutionists are admitting their bias in "humanizing the ape genome," etc. etc. etc. *they are corroborating longstanding Creationist observations and arguments.* Science is a methodology, and science is great. What you're talking about is Uncritically Indoctrinating our children with a constantly radically ad-hoc rewritten atheistic origins mythology about the unobservable past (an Ideology). That's not science, that's something else. *"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them."* (Romans 1:18-19) "The goal is to progressively approach a more accurate understanding of reality." Which, in your worldview, is the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers and that if you just wait a long enough *Time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people by chance - despite your origins mythology's embarrassing history of radical ad-hoc readjustment, the problem of hydrolysis which inhibits protein formation in water, etc. etc. etc. *That's not an "understanding of reality," that's forcing an Atheistic origins mythology onto reality despite science my friend.*

[@jeriatrix4526]

This channel should be renamed "The Misinformation Channel". What a joke!

[@michaelg377]

Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just wait a long enough *Time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people by chance? Do you think that's how "science" (a methodology) works? Let me ask you this... Charles Darwin met the gold standard of science (a methodology) by giving a testable hypothesis for his theory: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex *organ* existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down..." *How did male and female evolve?* Before you answer, consider that these are two separate, yet interdependent, precision tuned sets of organs that all have to be working just right or reproduction, life, and evolution fail. For example: The fallopian tubes are lined with millions of these little hairs that all wave the same direction, and their purpose is to guide the egg from the ovaries down into the uterus. If they stood still, laid flat, waved the wrong direction, or didn't exist - the egg would either die or it would implant in the fallopian tube thus killing the mother. Some of these are known medical conditions that prevent pregnancy - "Evolution" had to get these millions of hairs just right.... "by numerous, successive, slight modifications." *Simultaneously* the sperm has a whip like rotor, a motor encasing, a bushing like material, a nutrient transfer system, and several other components that all have to be working *just right* or the sperm can't find the egg. Reproduction and life fails. "Evolution" had to get the interdependent parts of the sperm "just right" ... "by numerous, successive, slight modifications." *Then* you have the placenta which does everything for the baby including keeping the mother's and baby's blood separate, the expanding and contracting uterus and cervix, the mechanism which only allows one sperm into the egg, and numerous other components that all had to be *designed* just right, or reproduction and life fails. "Evolution" had to *SIMULTANEOUSLY* get all of these just right "by numerous, successive, slight modifications." Which gender evolved first, and how did it reproduce while the other hadn't evolved yet? And going backwards in time, which of these critical organs do you gradually reduce first "by numerous, successive, slight modifications" without causing reproduction to fail? *"“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’"* (Matthew 19:4). Such *specified complexity* looks like the product of an Intelligent engineering mind, not the result of chance fizzing chemicals in a puddle. Puddles don't turn themselves into people no matter how much *time* you add to the mix.

[@therick363]

@@michaelg377copy paste bs

[@nathancook2852]

@@michaelg377 copy pasta, the robot doesn't even think.

[@samburns3329]

@@nathancook2852 His two brain cells aren't on speaking terms.

[@michaelg377]

@@nathancook2852 Until you can rationally answer that question, per Darwin, evolution is "absolutely break[ing] down..." Something to think about. “…It has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong…The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor’s new clothes: *everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin’s predicted pattern, simply looked the other way.”* (Niles Eldredge, "The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982) That last part is important: "everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin’s predicted pattern, simply looked the other way"

[@moreplease998]

AIG talking about others using "sneaky tricks" to deceive is hilarious

[@stevenwhite8937]

I noticed unlike AIG you gave no examples….

[@moreplease998]

@@stevenwhite8937 Misrepresenting Zircon crystal rings. Deliberately asking for rock samples from recent eruptions to be dated using decay chains that don't provide meaningful data in such short timescales. In fact, a heck of a lot of their radiometric dating claims are deliberate misrepresentations and obfuscations. Pretty much all of their attempts to scientifically prove the world is young involve some kind of wordplay or distortion of things. AiG is a scam

[@michaelg377]

@@moreplease998 1) What are your thoughts on the "4.5 billion year old" zircon's 500M year old date, and 5.5B year old date - which the scientists just threw out? They said "5.5B years is way too old be accurate" - which begs the question: *How do they know how old these things are before they date them?* 2) So, in other words, *they need to know how old those "rock samples" are before they date them? Can you see the problem...?* There's no obfuscation, you're just doubling down on some pretty embarrassingly obvious false assumptions my friend. Scientists dated an observed 10 year old lava dome sample from Mt St. Helens to be 350,000 years old - why? *There is no time stamp on any of these materials - only an object with a quantity of two chemicals in it, that's all.* Everything else is pure assumption-based extrapolation. The way radiometric dating works is that a parent isotope decays into a daughter isotope over time, and at that decay rate that we observe today we can calculate *how long it would have taken* for X amount of the daughter isotope to have decayed from the parent isotope. In order to accurately date something you need to know: A) the original amount of the parent isotope B) the original amount of the daughter isotope C) that the rate of decay remained constant over the last X millions/billions of years D) that the material remained in a closed system, unaffected by other influences which could throw off the results. ... *You can't verify ANY of these assumptions without a time machine.* The reason those scientists were 4 orders of magnitude (!!!) off in their calculation on that 10-year old lava dome sample is because they *erroneously assumed that all of the argon in the material was the product of radioactive decay from potassium - when in reality the material just inherited additional argon as it solidified.* And their post-hoc excuse for their erroneous results is that it was "dated using decay chains that don't provide meaningful data in such short timescales" (ie. *"We need to know how old it is before we date it"* ...). There is no time stamp - only a quantity of 2 chemicals, and a whole lot of assumptions. Questions) a) *If we can be so wrong dating an object that we can observe, then what does that tell us about dating objects from the Unobservable Past which we cannot observe or verify?* b) What do you do when you have multiple different "ages" from multiple tests on the same material? Which ones do you throw out, and which ones do you keep?

[@Bomtombadi1]

@@stevenwhite8937like when creationists say “animals adapt, but will never change into another animal”? Like when the creeps say, “evolution is change.” Like when creationists ask, “which evolution are we talking about?” Pick one.

[@michaelg377]

@@Bomtombadi1 How do you define "evolution," specifically? "Change over time" doesn't work because that necessarily includes things like the weather, which clearly isn't what we're talking about when evolution comes up. "Biological change over time" doesn't work, because that includes things like puberty, aging, growing gray hair or losing your vision as you get older. "Speciation" doesn't work either, because that's also explainable by biblical diversification and adaptation only within a creature's kind, which is what we observe. *How do you define "evolution" specifically, in such a way that it it is clearly distinguished from the biblical model of speciation only within each creature's kind?* What is it that makes Atheistic/Naturalistic evolution "evolution"?

[@tobias4411]

Snakes do not have vocal cords. The larynx in snakes is small and lacks vocal cords, unlike in other vertebrates. Snakes are physically incapable of producing vocalizations in the way that mammals and many other animals do, due to the absence of vocal cords. Sound production in snakes, when it occurs, is achieved through alternative means such as hissing or vibrating their scales. This anatomical feature of snakes is consistent across species and is a fundamental aspect of their biology. The story in Bible about a talking snake is therefore a fable. There is no other way around.

[@michaelg377]

The Bible does not list a "talking snake," first of all, it describes a Super-Natural entity either possessing or masquerading as a natural creature (a "serpent," possibly but not necessarily a "snake" - consider that it also seemed to have legs before it was cursed). You are making a logical category error by attributing modern naturalistic observations of modern day snakes to an event that was claimed to be a Supernaturally influenced event concerning a qualitatively different creature. Second, even with that - consider parrots, that you are an 'evolved ape," or that fish evolve into philosophers in your own belief system - it's really not that far off from your beliefs my mythologian friend. Fish don't evolve into philosophers, and puddles of chemicals don't fizz by chance into people, no matter how much *Time* you add to the pot - that's just not how "science" works. *"But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong."* (1 Corinthians 1:27) *"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them."* (Romans 1:18-19)

[@sgt.grinch3299]

Interesting.

[@Mosteller777]

I took a biology class in Portland State University (required credits). The lab was exactly how you show. We had 2 different plants, and one was killed off and then... TADA! EVOLUTION! I expressed my confusion about how anything was evolved in this experience? No new information was added, so exactly evolved? The lab teacher was confused by my question. Critical thinking is so rare in the classroom.

[@michaelg377]

*"we see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the lapse of the ages"* (Charles Darwin) *"we are condemned to live only for a few decades, and that's too slow, too small a time scale to see evolution going on"* (Richard Dawkins) We observe biblical speciation within each creature's kind (dog>dog, finch>finch, bacteria>bacteria) never even ONCE a change between kinds as atheistic evolution requires (fish>philosopher, dinosaur>chicken, etc.). However Darwin and Dawkins define "evolution," at least we agree it's not actually observable. We are all Uncritically Indoctrinated into this modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers today; they don't talk about its scientific problems or embarrassing history of radical ad-hoc rewrites and excuses... most people don't even know how to question it. Glad to see others with critical thinking skills out there.

[@nathancook2852]

Pretty sure we need more information, and there is info you are leaving out, and from the wording of this, you seem to be leaving it out on purpose. I doesn't help your case that known liar and quote-miner michaelg377 is commenting in your defense.

[@globalcoupledances]

@michaelg377 - Darwin observed evolution by observing old pictures of flowers and dog breeds

[@sbgtrading]

@annieoaktree6774 Evolution is actually defined as a complete explanation for all biodiversity we find extant today. And a changing of the "ratios of existing alleles" is not demonstrated to produce all biodiversity. So Evolution is not observed.

[@burnttoast2790]

@@sbgtrading *Evolution is actually defined as a complete explanation for all biodiversity we find extant today.* That'd be the theory, at least if you're focusing on the mechanism. But the fact is that evolution does happen, is observed, and is indisputable. That evolution happens is something even _creationists_ accept, since the genetic changes in reproductive populations across many generations (whether within or between species) is a demonstrable fact that we've taken advantage of to maintain our civilization. *And a changing of the "ratios of existing alleles" is not demonstrated to produce all biodiversity. So Evolution is not observed.* Annie was providing an explanation that yes, evolution occurs even if mutations aren't happening.

[@axmmusic-q4s]

Very very good points here. Defo got me thinking

[@andrewshear2927]

There is no new information. Let's say you have three types of birds. They are all the same species from the same population. Some are big, small and in-between. Now the environment changed where certain conditions in the environment are now favoring the portion of the population that are large and over time as the environment continually favors this large bird it becomes a new species of large bird. That is evolution in a nutshell.

[@nathancook2852]

How do you explain the marmorkrebs (marbled) crayfish? This new species is known to have come into existence when the slough crayfish developed an extra chromosome. It hatched from a slough crayfish egg with that additional chromosome. I think that is the exact definition of new information.

[@sciencerules8525]

_There is no new information._ Why doesn't the empirically observed formation of new genetic sequences producing new morphological traits count as new information?

[@nathancook2852]

@@sciencerules8525 Hear No Science, See No Science, Do No Science is their motto.

[@andrewshear2927]

That is not new information that is a random mutation coming about by proteins being coded wrong.

[@sciencerules8525]

@@andrewshear2927 Why don't new genetic sequences with new functionality count as new information? What would count as new genetic information in your mind?

[@arthurschamne]

First off you need to define a kind, until you do that it is hard to determine what is one kind and what is another. Next we have observed macro evolution as that is just the formation of a new species, where micro evolution is just a change within a species.

[@Pay-It_Forward]

*This has been requested for decades. Problem is they don't know enough about each Taxonomy (species, genus & family) to know where to draw the line. Each has very unique differences in chromosome counts & ploidy sets! Some things can very easily be crossed, hybrid or even interspecific hybrid. There are a few species that have multiple Chromosome & ploidy groups. Example [Tetraploid (60-Chromosome) & Hexaploid (90-Chromosome)]. And a sister species in the Genus [Hexaploid (90-Chromosome)] In which case interspecific hybrids are much easier than some same species crosses. (Diospyros) is such a Genus where things that look very different will hybrid & things that look near identical won't. Creationist don't understand these millions of unique variations & pretend such doesn't exist. There is so many things that will cross for just 1 generation, then are infertile. There is over (520K published genera Genus). Some things have dozens of species per Genus. Mammals avg slightly less than 5 species per genera. So Ken Ham would need to accurately define (520 thousand to 8.7 million (KIND) divisions, just for what is now living. 99% of life has gone extinct. Can you fathom Ken Ham or any of his employees or associates being able to do this?*

[@Florida79578]

​@Pay-It_Forward they should go to the nobal peace prize of they disproved evolution as it was made to expain the DIVERSITY of life

[@calvinsmith7575]

Family

[@burnttoast2790]

@@calvinsmith7575 Tell that to the people talking about humans as a single kind, or proboscideans, or bacteria. Y'all run the entire set of Linnaean ranks as it suits you.

[@MichaelJolySr]

I learned some time age that all of creation have genetic markers! The marker is a defect in the genome! It’s interesting that humans don’t share these markers with other species in God’s creation!

[@gothicbagheera]

Genetic markers are not defects in a genome, but are specific DNA sequences or genes with a known location on a chromosome, that are used to identify different species, and individuals within a species. Of course humans are going to have different genetic markers than every other form of life on this planet. But every life form on this planet have their own unique set of genetic markers which is how we know we're examining human DNA and not the DNA of a tree. Why do you find it "interesting how humans don't share these markers with other species in God's creation" when every species has its own set of unique genetic markers they don't share with any other species including humans?

[@philhart4849]

Please learn some rudimentary genetics.

[@Bfielder93]

You just don't understand evolution - evolutionists

[@samburns3329]

Why does the demonstrated truth bother you so?

[@Bfielder93]

​@@Moist._Robot no that's like saying evolutionists believe life came from primordial soup.

[@Bfielder93]

@@Moist._Robot maybe in your case, it's very subjective

[@catalyst3713]

That's giving creationists the benefit of the doubt for constantly misrepresenting it. Would you prefer we call them liars instead?

[@MarcoH72]

That’s true though.

[@leroyj3627]

This is beautifully explained! Thank you.

[@Max012]

Nope just misinformation

[@nathancook2852]

Calvin lies in every video. It really isn't that hard to find the lies either. Usually just start with the title.

[@leroyj3627]

@@Max012 And the evidence to support your position is...?

[@sciencerules8525]

@@leroyj3627 Starting at 7 min. Calvin goes into a major lie, claiming evolution never produces new traits and only selects from pre-existing ones. The example of the peppered moth is a classic case where science discovered the specific mutation which produced the dark variety moth around 1819. Before that the dark form of the moth didn't exist. The dark mutation was so beneficial in the soot covered environment by the 1870's the dark form made up 95% of the moth population. That is just one of hundreds of lies Calvin has told about evolutionary biology in these videos.

[@michaelg377]

@@leroyj3627 "The experiments beautifully demonstrate natural selection, or survival of the fittest - in action, but *they do not show evolution in progress,* for however the populations may alter in their content of light, intermediate, or dark forms, *all the moths remain from beginning to end Biston Betularia."* (L. Harrison Matthews, Forward to 1971 Edition of Darwin's Origin of Species)

[@Kaleb_Hicks]

I'm not a fan of the UTTP but I think Answers In Genesis actually needs them in their comment section.(Edit-Tons of them!!)

[@jimhughes1070]

UTTP?

[@Pay-It_Forward]

*UTTP aren't old enough for adult topics. They can troll monitor posts about their favorite fantasy video games.*

[@I8thePizza]

Nice work. I honestly can't see how anyone with one brain cell could believe in the evolution mythology. Thanks for making it easier to see the truth.

[@sciencerules2825]

You mean people with one brain cell tend to be creationists. I agree.

[@I8thePizza]

@@sciencerules2825 You must belong to the evolution religion and your one brain cell made you mistake what I said. I'll pray for you to gain wisdom.

[@therick363]

@@I8thePizzaso you think using only insults is a good counter to a scientific theory? How’s evolution a religion?

[@I8thePizza]

@@therick363 Sorry. Didn't mean to insult you. Evolution is a religion because it depends on faith and storytelling. There is no scientific proof that any animal turned into a completely different one and there's no scientific evidence that it ever happened in the past no matter how many millions or billions of years you want to suggest. Also, only a very strange cult would believe all life came from rocks, but you're free to believe what you want.

[@I8thePizza]

@@therick363 Didn't mean to insult you, but believing all life came from a rock is pretty strange to me.

[@Mockturtlesoup1]

Wow. The irony of YECists criticizing others for being "sneaky" and "dishonest" has broken my irony meter. You owe me $99.95 AIG Canada.

[@tristamthefriendlyknight8494]

Hello there! To you I ask a question, What is a day to GOD? A being that i supiror to us, and is THE maker? If time is the movement of Matter and matter is the stagnation of time, whose to say that the way the Lord would describe a day to us could be billions of years to us while also it could be one billionth of a second? And another thing is is that it said Good made us from the earth, what if that means that good took something that looks closest to him from the earth and molded it into his imagebased on all of creation, is like an artist using a picture

[@tristamthefriendlyknight8494]

I’m sorry my comment is messed up the comment started to delete itself randomly, and messed it up. I think it was a bug so I apologize if it’s confusing and unfinished. :(

[@michaelg377]

Well, Scripture says *in context of His patience and coming Judgment* : "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." (2 Peter 3:8) That is specifically talking about His judgment of sin (2 Peter 3:7) and His patience towards us (2 Peter 3:9), and seems to answer your question concerning His perspective on time. Not to be confused with Genesis 1, which isn't about God's patience, but is a Hebrew historical narrative genre description of creation, which describes each "day" as having its own "evening and morning."

[@tristamthefriendlyknight8494]

Oh cool thanks! Hope you have a good day friend! :D

[@switchie1987]

@@michaelg377 Oh, so is *that* why Young Earth Creationists exist? Certainly explains why y'all like to pick apart every bit of science you get thrown your way to misrepresent and twist what it actually says of reality- 😹

[@tobias4411]

​@@michaelg377If a day is like a thousand years to God, his naps must be epic. A quick 15-minute power nap would last about 10 years in human time.

[@fjccommish]

He should be jailed for those opening jokes.

[@Pay-It_Forward]

*That's okay he told plenty hyperbolic screwball satire after that to make up for it.*

[@fjccommish]

@@Pay-It_Forward Yes, he did mention some things Evilutionism Zealots say.

[@Pay-It_Forward]

@@fjccommish *He told satire embellishments about evolutionary claims.*

[@Pay-It_Forward]

@@fjccommish *Can you itemize any claims that were factual, which disagreed with evolution? I listened to it 3 times & didn't notice anything accurate.*

[@Bomtombadi1]

Calvin should just be jailed, period.

[@RG-qn2qm]

Lovin it from Toronto Canada 🇨🇦

[@Uditha-r7h]

Thanks. I totally agree. If you say species A evolves to species B, following macroevolutionary changes need to happen- mostly simultaneous changes in many systems. Anatomy, biochemistry, physiology, biomechanics, cardiovascular, respiratory, Gut, genito urinary system, sexual and reproductory system, brain and nerve system, muscles, heamatology, immunology , skin, eyes/ hearing/ vestibular systems. You compare any close species and such MOUNTAIN of differences could be seen. Evolution based on random mutations need to explain at least most differences. If microevolution ( a change in one system) is a drop pf water, macroevolution is an ocean. You can not make an ocean by collecting a drop of water at a time.

[@sciencerules2825]

_You can not make an ocean by collecting a drop of water at a time._ Actually you can. It will just take a long time.

[@sciencerules2825]

_macroevolutionary changes need to happen- mostly simultaneous changes in many systems._ They do happen almost simultaneously. Evolution is happening in parallel across the entire population. In any one generation you get one animal with a mutation which slightly improves the cardio system. Another gets a mutation which slightly improves vision. Another a mutation which slightly improves respiration. Then as the animals mate all the beneficial mutations get mixed by sexual recombination and passed around until the whole population has all the beneficial mutations. That's why we say populations evolve over time, not individuals.

[@nathancook2852]

@@sciencerules2825 They can't comprehend how long 3+ Billion years actually is. And many of them refuse to try to comprehend it due to the "infallible' holy book....

[@michaelg377]

Do you see what these atheists are doing here?: *"Time is in fact the hero of the plot. . . . What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the “impossible” becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles"* (George Wald). From meaningless goo to meaningful and valuable you, just add time + chemicals + chance in a meaningless universe. *Time performs even the most incredibly anti-science miracles for the atheist.*

[@samburns3329]

@@michaelg377 *Do you see what these atheists are doing here?* Correcting creationist lies with accurate scientific knowledge.

[@Ozzyman200]

All this time and money and still creationists can't find a flaw in evolution that creationism can fix.

[@AHSears]

"...can't find a flaw in evolution..."? I think pointing out that speciation or adaptability is not evolution is a pretty big flaw. Evolution is one thing changing into another through mutation. But all we've seen is speciation. Every recorded instance of "micro-evolution" is not evolution, it is adaptation or speciation. In the case of canines, being bred into different varieties is not evolution, it is speciation. In the case of moths that bred out certain colours, that is adaptation. Even Darwin's finches were an example of adaptation, not evolution. They are not the same. Evolution should be able to present dozens of taxonomical intermediaries between domains, kingdoms, phyla, or classes. But there are no such examples in the entire fossil record. None. And creationism "fixes" that idea easily since everything was created according to its kind.

[@PhysicsGuy1000]

@@bigboreracing356No it isn’t. But funny how you think calling something a religion is an insult.

[@itsamystery5279]

@@bigboreracing356 Trying to denigrate evolutionary science by calling it a religion only shows you think your own religion is worthless.

[@itsamystery5279]

@@bigboreracing356 Well you made it pretty obvious you have no science education to speak up.

[@nathancook2852]

@@AHSears Just because you want to redefine the terms to make yourself feel better, that doesn't mean you know what you are talking about. All you have done is prove you don't understand science. Good job on that.

[@stevenward3856]

Thanks again, Calvin! An excellent video explaining how the "sideshows" draw in a crowd! GOD is in control, and He is pulling down the tents of the charlatans! GOD BLESS!!!

[@nathancook2852]

Calvin is in total control of you. He lies in every video. Usually, like this one, you don't even have to look past the title to find the lie.

[@michaelg377]

I agree, this is an excellent video. What really blows my mind is how many evolutionist trolls have actually *Done exactly what Calvin said evolutionists are doing in this video* just down below - conflating the observed reality of speciation ("microevolution") with the modern mythology of particles to man evolution ("macroevolution"). That's like accusing someone of murder, and then the defendant goes on an open killing spree in the courtroom for all to see. Well played. *Watch the Video, see for yourself.*

[@OlegLankin]

@@nathancook2852 so you guys don't even watch the videos, you just read the titles and go in the comments section to attack Calvin and everyone who likes his videos?

[@snapperjessen]

@annieoaktree6774 its easy to predict that people will call you a liar when tell lies

[@Bomtombadi1]

Yep! Calvin’s videos do an excellent job of drawing a crowd. This would make him the ultimate sideshow!

[@Grandliseur]

Thank you for the video. As a fundamentalist fundamentalist believer, I appreciate your information. Though, after checking your website, I regret that subjects such as the literal 24 hour 6 days of 'creation' cannot be scripturally discussed, that this subject seems a taboo subject. I say this as a life long Christian.

[@michaelg377]

Would you like to scripturally discuss it? Unfortunately there are half a dozen trolls who are targetting this video that just came out right now, so it might be hard to have a discussion, but I am knowledgeable on what Scripture says on this topic if you'd like to discuss.

[@nathancook2852]

@@michaelg377 No trolls here. We just don't like liars like Calvin, and I point out his lies often.

[@therick363]

@@michaelg377the hypocrisy of you calling others trolls. Such blatant lying

[@Grandliseur]

@@michaelg377 my posts seem to disappear. How can a discussion take place on this limited forum.

[@Grandliseur]

@@michaelg377 I believe I just sent you an email. If not seen, check your spam folder.

[@ChrisFerguson-zm4gt]

4:23 life coming from non life has nothing to do with evolution. He tells lies faster than i can type.

[@michaelg377]

Abiogenesis used to be called "chemical evolution," but similar to you - since "smart" evolutionists need to distance themselves from this increasingly scientifically ludicrous theory, they changed the name and avoid it. In reality, abiogenesis is absolutely evolution - it's the first part where chemicals evolved themselves into life by chance chemical reactions. Let me ask you this... when all the right chemicals fizzed together into all the necessary proteins required for life, and then into all the necessary cell components inside of a cell enclosure, *how did they overcome the known scientific problem of hydrolysis which inhibits protein formation in water?* *"we've not made the RNA in a prebiotically relevant manner. It hydrolyzes too rapidly."* (Professor Saztech, Chicago, 2021) [Regarding Abiogenesis] *"Chemistry is actually hard to get to work. The molecules precipitate. The molecules hydrolyze. The molecules decompose. And so it's very much a constraint that you have to deal with.. it's one g-d problem after another."* (Steve Benner, former Harvard Professor, Director of Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution, 2019) "Even a single protein could not arrive at its native structure in biological real time because conformational space is far too vast": ~10^95 possible conformations for a chain of 100 residues, so that "even a small protein that initiated folding by random search at the time of the big bang would still be thrashing about today." (Peter Tompa and George D. Rose, "The Levinthal Paradox of the Interactome," Protein Science 20 (2011): 2074.)

[@nathancook2852]

@@michaelg377 More misunderstanding, misrepresenting, and lies. It has to pathological.

[@therick363]

@@michaelg377still with the ignoring and then copy paste lying

[@ChrisFerguson-zm4gt]

@@therick363 exactly what the typical theist does.

[@calvinsmith7575]

Chemical evolution...

[@Jraethyme]

You know what theres no point arguing with this. This should be a self reflection for everyone. Not just a mindless and intellectually dishonest debate forum.

[@jimhughes1070]

WTH? 😂🤣... Let me see if I got that right... "I think the free flow of information should be shut down... I believe videos like this must be spreading misinformation... Because I believe in "smart dirt" 😎"... Yeah, no! 🤣

[@dross4207]

⁠@@jimhughes1070Well, this video is disseminating misinformation, as he was wrong about everything, so the only question that needs to be asked is if creationists have a mental defect that renders them incapable of learning, or do they lie intentionally?

[@YunYumSauce]

@@dross4207 what did he get wrong?

[@dross4207]

@@YunYumSauce He misrepresented what evolution and biologists claim, and he misrepresented what evolution is.

[@YunYumSauce]

@@dross4207 I read all the comments in this vid and see both sides. I’m not as well versed in evolution but I have studied it quite a bit. I have a couple q’s like is there actual evidence that species have evolved from bacteria to amphibians or is it more of an inference? Also, if we all came from common ancestors like from amphibian to reptile to mammals, do we have evidence for that as well? I’m just confused as to how bacteria could evolve into something like an elephant over a long period of time.

[@nathancook2852]

For those claiming humans don't grow tails. From the National Institute of Health: "During the 5th to 6th week of intrauterine life, the human embryo has a tail with 10-12 vertebrae.

[@supernova1725]

When you say evolutionist you just mean scientists right?

[@michaelg377]

Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just wait a long enough *Time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people by chance? Science is a methodology, and science is great - what you're talking about though is a constantly radically ad-hoc rewritten atheistic origins mythology about the untestable and unobservable past (an Ideology) - that's not 'science," that's something else. Let me ask you this... Charles Darwin met the gold standard of science (a methodology) by giving a testable hypothesis for his theory: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex *organ* existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down..." *How did male and female evolve?* Before you answer, consider that these are two separate, yet interdependent, precision tuned sets of organs that all have to be working just right or reproduction, life, and evolution fail. For example: The fallopian tubes are lined with millions of these little hairs that all wave the same direction, and their purpose is to guide the egg from the ovaries down into the uterus. If they stood still, laid flat, waved the wrong direction, or didn't exist - the egg would either die or it would implant in the fallopian tube thus killing the mother. Some of these are known medical conditions that prevent pregnancy - "Evolution" had to get these millions of hairs just right.... "by numerous, successive, slight modifications." *Simultaneously* the sperm has a whip like rotor, a motor encasing, a bushing like material, a nutrient transfer system, and several other components that all have to be working *just right* or the sperm can't find the egg. Reproduction and life fails. "Evolution" had to get the interdependent parts of the sperm "just right" ... "by numerous, successive, slight modifications." *Then* you have the placenta which does everything for the baby including keeping the mother's and baby's blood separate, the expanding and contracting uterus and cervix, the mechanism which only allows one sperm into the egg, and numerous other components that all had to be *designed* just right, or reproduction and life fails. "Evolution" had to *SIMULTANEOUSLY* get all of these just right "by numerous, successive, slight modifications." Which gender evolved first, and how did it reproduce while the other hadn't evolved yet? And going backwards in time, which of these critical organs do you gradually reduce first "by numerous, successive, slight modifications" without causing reproduction to fail? *"“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’"* (Matthew 19:4). Such *specified complexity* looks like the product of an Intelligent engineering mind, not the result of chance fizzing chemicals in a puddle. Puddles don't turn themselves into people no matter how much *time* you add to the mix.

[@michaelg377]

@@VisshanVis You didn't answer the question. *How did male and female evolve "by numerous, successive, slight modifications"* (Darwin), specifically the critical organs in these two separate yet interdependent precision tuned systems - keeping in mind that women today literally can't get pregnant because of known minor issues with some of them? Until you can, per Darwin, evolution is "absolutely break[ing] down..." - meanwhile the biblical creation worldview explains creation of male and female just fine. You can believe that God created man and woman from the dirt (chemicals) intentionally, or you can believe dirt (chemicals) fizzed itself into man and woman accidentally, just add loads and loads of *Time* - I just don't have enough faith to believe that dirt can do that. *"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths."* (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

[@samburns3329]

@@michaelg377 I think that's the 100th time you spammed the board with the same already answered question. Is Calvin going to give you a prize for being such a dedicated creationist liar?

[@therick363]

@@michaelg377copy paste dodging lying spam!!! I mean seriously. The OP asked a clarifying question and you just copy pasted your lies. It really made you look bad

[@michaelg377]

@@therick363 You're lying again. What "clarifying question" did he ask about how male and female evolved in accordance with Darwin's testable hypothesis ("Organs," and "by numerous, successive, slight modifications)? I can't see it above, please share. This question has most definitely not be answered yet lol, and the fact that you have to resort to lies and scoffing concerning comments that simply were not made to support your position should deeply trouble you my friend. Why not just follow the evidence?

[@nathancook2852]

The vast majority of flat earthers are also hard right young earth creationists. It shows in the similar debate tactics. Tactic #1: Hand wave away any evidence you don't like. Tactic #2: Lie. Tactic #3 Lie some more to cover your previous lies.

[@luish1498]

@@joefriday2275 as the OP says joey everyone just show evidence for evolution to you but you will just «Hand wave away any evidence you don't like.» and then liyng by say « thats not evidence» wich of course is a lie!

[@therick363]

@@joefriday2275we all see how you lie lie lie

[@nathancook2852]

@@joefriday2275 We can walk upright. But you have already hand waved that one away in this very comment section. Just proved my point.

[@itsamystery5279]

@@joefriday2275 You mean besides the strong consilience of 160+ years of positive scientific results from dozens of independent science disciplines like paleontology, genetics, geology, biology, astrophysics, comparative anatomy, radiometric dating, dendrochronology, 14C dating, biochemistry, etc.?

[@nathancook2852]

@@itsamystery5279 Remember, YEC's and flat earthers have the same motto. Hear No Science, See No Science, Do No Science.

[@steinjarl4915]

Where do you buy your straw?

[@luisocasio3595]

I'm surprised people still wrestle with this theory.I took it into consideration when I first learned it but after dissecting it in my mind for a while I realized it created more questions than answers.Its just as shallow as those atheists that claim that everything came from nothing.Its about time to come out with something new.

[@therick363]

Ooooo so your personal incredulity and misrepresentation you think is okay? No Evolution is a scientific theory. Hardly any atheists suggest from nothing

[@nathancook2852]

How about dissecting the evidence? You obviously didn't do that. I love how all the fringe groups (YEC's, FE's, etc.) think they are smarter than everyone else. They even think they are smarter than experts in the field. Oh, shit, I can't refer too an expert, that would be "an appeal to authority fallacy."

[@globalcoupledances]

"everything came from nothing" violates 1st Law of Thermodynamics

[@Bomtombadi1]

You “dissected it in your mind,” and found yourself asking too many questions. Heaven forbid you actually find out whether or not you asked the right questions; or were curious enough to overcome the intellectual laziness of “this is too hard,” to find out more … that’s just too much work, right?

[@Florida79578]

​@@globalcoupledancesme when chemicals actually help evolution also the big bang was made by a priest you can believe in Science and god at the same time

[@supernova1725]

Omg there is no difference between macro and micro. They are just referring to the scale! 😂😂😂

[@michaelg377]

Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just wait a long enough *time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people by chance? We ONLY observe biblical speciation within each creature's kind (finch>finch, dog>dog, bacteria>bacteria - "microevolution"), never even ONCE a change between kinds as atheistic evolution requires (fish>philosopher, dinosaur>chicken, placoderm>shark, etc. - "Macroevolution"). All the best observable evidences for 'evolution' can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, which A) says something about the "evidence" evolutionists think they have, and B) as atheistic evolution is constantly radically ad-hoc rewriting itself because it doesn't match reality, all of these evidences fit the biblical worldview just fine - no radical rewrites required. Science is a methodology - what you're referring to is a constantly radically ad-hoc readjusted atheistic origins mythology about the unobservable and untestable past (an Ideology) - not "science." Fish don't evolve into philosophers no matter how much *Time* you add to the pot - that's just not how "science" works.

[@samburns3329]

@@michaelg377 He says it because it's true you C&Ping 🤡

[@magic_honey]

A micro evolution is just the acquisition of genetic or epigenetic change that brings about a beneficial outcome. Macro evolution is the adding of new genetic information via acculative mutation to an animal's homeotic and other essential genes that become fixed in the population and provide a survival advantage. They're obviously different things.

[@supernova1725]

@@magic_honey they are not different! They are in fact the same thing! Stop spreading misinformation, the mechanisms behind macro/micro EVOLUTION are exactly the same, and if you can’t propose another mechanism or device that separates the two respectfully. Stfu 😊

[@michaelg377]

@@supernova1725 That's because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers. As an Atheist, you don't need dogs to "evolve" into dogs, finches to 'evolve' into finches, and bacteria to 'evolve' into bacteria... you need fish to evolve into philosophers, fins to feet, gills to ears, dinosaurs to chickens, complex placoderm jaws to devolve into non-complex jaws to re-evolve into complex jaws (!) into sharks, etc. We observe biblical speciation within each creature's kind exactly as God said He created them IAW their kind - never even ONCE do we observe a change between kinds - that is a constantly radically ad-hoc rewritten atheistic origins mythology about the unobservable past, not "science." Do an honest critical self assessment of your belief system my friend - you've been brainwashed. We are all Uncritically Indoctrinated into this atheistic origins mythology today as young children, it's not your fault.

[@lebogangncongwane4298]

They will still don't understand rather they use ridicule knowing full well they can't refute his argument.

[@nathancook2852]

I have refuted arguments on many of his videos. Calvin is a liar.

[@michaelg377]

You are correct, these trolls resort to ad hominem attacks and appeals to ridicule (ie. logical fallacies) and just reassert their constantly radically ad-hoc rewritten atheistic origins story instead - it's a delusion, and unfortunately it's often a form of judgment against them (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12). When you don't have a rational refutation, the best you can do is call your competition a "liar" and claim "it's been refuted" - which is a lie itself. They hate understanding, but love sharing their opinions (Prov 18:2).

[@nathancook2852]

@@michaelg377 Ah, the serial liar again. Go away troll.

[@Ozzyman200]

All this time and money and still creationists can't find a flaw in evolution that creationism can fix. Anyone? Anyone at all?

[@michaelg377]

All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, and as atheistic evolution keeps having to radically ad-hoc rewrite itself every time it runs into a new problem (rewritten because it simply doesn't match reality), a biblical worldview doesn't have to keep rewriting itself. You can't "fix" the embarrassing history of evolution's radical ad-hoc readjustment - but a competing worldview that is able to explain all the same evidence without that same problem is logically preferable. So, yes, that is an embarrassing flaw in evolution. *Scientific theories are also supposed to be falsifiable: Given its history of constantly radically ad-hoc rewriting itself as it runs into more and more problems, what would it take to falsify evolution today?* In 1982 a federal court ruled that Creation can't be taught in schools because "it is not falsifiable." Evolution has a long history of radically rewriting itself as it runs into more and more problems - what would it take to "falsify" Naturalistic Evolution? Over 500 Living Fossils? Debunked "Junk" DNA? Finding a 70M year extinct *evolutionary ancestor to tetrapods still alive, unevolved, with no evidence of it ever evolving?* Discovering that many "vestigial" (leftover) organs actually have a normal function, like the appendix? Finding "millions of years" old creatures with no signs of evolution? Fully developed vertebrate creatures in the Cambrian explosion? An Ankylosaurus fossil found where it's not supposed to be buried among sea creatures? Whale fossils deep inland in the United States? Trilobites found appearing suddenly and fully developed with complex eyes in the Cambrian - and in every fossil layer indicating they were buried rapidly? Maybe measurably young tissues in dinosaur fossils that look similar to 4000 year old mummies or the Tyrolean Ice Man? Early jawed placoderm fossils showing fully developed complex jaws - causing evolutionists to claim that they must have evolved, de-evolved, and then re-evolved those jaws to maintain their story of shark evolution? What if scientists admitted that Human-Ape DNA is down from 99% "similar" to only 84% "similar" and admitted their bias in "humanizing" the ape genome? ...or should we just reinterpret all of these problematic evidences to keep the belief in Atheistic/Naturalistic evolution alive, and why? We are all *uncritically indoctrinated* into this Atheistic-Naturalist religion of evolution in our public education system today... Should evolution be held to the same religious standard as Creationism? All of the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, and if you understand "science" then you understand the implications of a competing explanation. *"The evidence of God... has been clearly seen since the beginning in all that has been created, so they will have no excuse"* (Romans 1:20)

[@Ozzyman200]

@@michaelg377 You've made a lot of claims there, but no evidence to back them up. You've been very vague and not given any valid sources, and not explained how creationism can fix them. Well done for having a go.

[@michaelg377]

@@Ozzyman200 That post is actually chock-full of evidence my friend, you just ignored all of it, and in the 7 minutes that elapsed between our posts I seriously doubt that you even read or honestly considered most of it. Radical ad-hoc readjustment is a sign of a faulty worldview - evolution has to be constantly rewritten because it simply does not match reality (you ironically call it "progress") - the biblical worldview can explain all the same evidence, no radical rewrites required. Here are a few recent examples: *Discovering fossilized soft tissues in early armored fish, the predecessors to modern jawed creatures like sharks, showing that they actually had fully developed and complex jaws from the beginning - so evolutionists claim they evolved those jaws, must have de-evolved them, and then evolved them back to maintain their story?* Evolutionists *Believe* that jawless creatures evolved into jawed creatures, and believe that certain ancient armored fish were the evolutionary predecessors to modern jawed fish, sharks, etc. However, they discovered placoderm fossils with preserved soft tissues showing that they had fully developed and complex jaws - not the soft early less developed jaws they expected which "present an anatomy that differs radically from the shark model" of evolution. *Now they theorize that these placoderms evolved fully developed complex jaws with more advanced modern muscle connection points, the muscles then disappeared in later descendants, and then they "re-evolved" later.* Meanwhile, while evolution is rewriting itself and adding side stories to sustain itself, it seems those fish had everything they needed from the very beginning of their existence, almost like they were deliberately created and engineered from the start. *Discovering lignin in algae that wasn't supposed to be there, and consequently that the SAME material had to evolve TWICE in two entirely separate evolutionary trees by chance...:* "Because monolignol [lignin chemical] synthesis is exceptionally complex, it seems unlikely that Calliarthron and terrestrial plants evolved monolignol biosynthesis and polymerization completely independently." (ie. Scientists discovered that the algae Calliarthron contained lignin - something that wasn't supposed to exist, and this necessitate that it evolved twice, separately, in completely different creatures according to evolutionary thinking). (Martone, "Discovery of lignin in seaweed reveals convergent evolution of cell-wall architecture," Current Biology, 2009) Related to this: "The pathways, enzymes and genes that go into making this stuff are pretty complicated, so *to come up with all those separately would be really, really amazing. Anything is possible, but that would be one h_ll of a coincidence."* (Professor Mark Denny) ("Discovery of Land Plant Characteristic in Seaweed May be Evolutionary Curve Ball," UBC science news, 2009). *Falsifying and rewriting a 70 year old assumption on allegedly higher oxygen concentrations producing a mass evolution of oceanic fauna:* "No, oxygen didn't catalyze the swift blossoming of Earth's first multicellular organisms. The result *defies a 70-year-old assumption* about what caused an explosion of oceanic fauna hundreds of millions of years ago" (University of Copenhagen Faculty of Science, Sciencedaily, 2023) *Falsifying and rewriting the story of human evolution over time - again:* "In an evolutionary eyeblink, our species has gone from hunting and gathering to living in complex societies. *We need to rethink the story* of this monumental transition… "Their most prevalent narrative describes a sort of trap: once people started farming, there was no way back from a cascade of increasing social complexity that led inexorably to hierarchy, inequality and environmental destruction. This bleak view of civilisation’s rise has long held sway. However, *the more societies we look at, the more it falls to pieces. Confronted with inconvenient evidence, we are being forced to retell our own origin story.* In doing so, we are also rethinking what a society can be..." “Now, *growing evidence suggests it is a fiction...”* “It *misrepresents hunter-gatherer societies,* which turn out to be far more variable and complex than we thought... [There] are *dramatic examples of hunter-gatherers acting in unexpectedly sophisticated ways.”* (Marshall, "The Civilization Myth: How new discoveries are rewriting human history," Newscientist, 2023) *All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12,* except it doesn't have to keep getting rewritten as we discover more and more problematic scientific evidence. That's a problem for Atheistic-Naturalistic evolution.

[@Ozzyman200]

@@michaelg377 So in 4 minutes, you seriously considered your case and could honestly respond for a request for evidence- which is all I care about? Spectacular science there. Yet, all you can do is copy and paste quotes. Proof by quotation. You sure did a number on those strawmen, but you can't address evolution. That's exactly what I mean. That was just a knee-jerk. Why not provide some evidence? You've also failed again to explain how creationism can fix and of these flaws, even if you could find one.

[@michaelg377]

@@Ozzyman200 You just ignored a LOT of evidence above my friend... does that concern you? My friend, I stated the problem right at the beginning that your worldview just can't accept - *All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12,* so your request for a "flaw in evolution that creationism can fix" in terms of *Evidence* is a Red Herring. An embarrassing and anti-evidence problem in evolution that creation CAN fix, however, is your embarrassing history of radical ad-hoc readjustment as an evolutionist. As we keep having to rewrite evolution, the evidence just fits a biblical worldview just fine - no rewrite required. Creation is just more rational at this point, no "fixing" required - it's already "fixed." Unless, of course, you have an a priori commitment to this radically ad-hoc rewritten atheistic origins mythology, then there is no circumstance in which you can possibly honestly consider an alternative, especially from a God who says you are going to be held accountable for your lies, theft, adultery, fornication, hatred, greed, selfishness, blasphemy, idolatry, dishonoring your parents, and every other evil deed you've ever done. Lots of evidence has been provided above, you're just ignoring it. Here are a few examples, again - *It is probably going to take more than 6 minutes to read it, be honest:* 1) *Discovering fossilized soft tissues in early armored fish, the predecessors to modern jawed creatures like sharks, showing that they actually had fully developed and complex jaws from the beginning - so evolutionists claim they evolved those jaws, must have de-evolved them, and then evolved them back to maintain their story?* Evolutionists *Believe* that jawless creatures evolved into jawed creatures, and believe that certain ancient armored fish were the evolutionary predecessors to modern jawed fish, sharks, etc. However, they discovered placoderm fossils with preserved soft tissues showing that they had fully developed and complex jaws - not the soft early less developed jaws they expected which "present an anatomy that differs radically from the shark model" of evolution. *Now they theorize that these placoderms evolved fully developed complex jaws with more advanced modern muscle connection points, the muscles then disappeared in later descendants, and then they "re-evolved" later.* Meanwhile, while evolution is rewriting itself and adding side stories to sustain itself, it seems those fish had everything they needed from the very beginning of their existence, almost like they were deliberately created and engineered from the start. 2) *Discovering lignin in algae that wasn't supposed to be there, and consequently that the SAME material had to evolve TWICE in two entirely separate evolutionary trees by chance...:* "Because monolignol [lignin chemical] synthesis is exceptionally complex, it seems unlikely that Calliarthron and terrestrial plants evolved monolignol biosynthesis and polymerization completely independently." (ie. Scientists discovered that the algae Calliarthron contained lignin - something that wasn't supposed to exist, and this necessitate that it evolved twice, separately, in completely different creatures according to evolutionary thinking). (Martone, "Discovery of lignin in seaweed reveals convergent evolution of cell-wall architecture," Current Biology, 2009) Related to this: "The pathways, enzymes and genes that go into making this stuff are pretty complicated, so *to come up with all those separately would be really, really amazing. Anything is possible, but that would be one h_ll of a coincidence."* (Professor Mark Denny) ("Discovery of Land Plant Characteristic in Seaweed May be Evolutionary Curve Ball," UBC science news, 2009). 3) *Falsifying and rewriting a 70 year old assumption on allegedly higher oxygen concentrations producing a mass evolution of oceanic fauna:* "No, oxygen didn't catalyze the swift blossoming of Earth's first multicellular organisms. The result *defies a 70-year-old assumption* about what caused an explosion of oceanic fauna hundreds of millions of years ago" (University of Copenhagen Faculty of Science, Sciencedaily, 2023) 4) *Falsifying and rewriting the story of human evolution over time - again:* "In an evolutionary eyeblink, our species has gone from hunting and gathering to living in complex societies. *We need to rethink the story* of this monumental transition… "Their most prevalent narrative describes a sort of trap: once people started farming, there was no way back from a cascade of increasing social complexity that led inexorably to hierarchy, inequality and environmental destruction. This bleak view of civilisation’s rise has long held sway. However, *the more societies we look at, the more it falls to pieces. Confronted with inconvenient evidence, we are being forced to retell our own origin story.* In doing so, we are also rethinking what a society can be..." “Now, *growing evidence suggests it is a fiction...”* “It *misrepresents hunter-gatherer societies,* which turn out to be far more variable and complex than we thought... [There] are *dramatic examples of hunter-gatherers acting in unexpectedly sophisticated ways.”* (Marshall, "The Civilization Myth: How new discoveries are rewriting human history," Newscientist, 2023) *All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12,* except it doesn't have to keep getting rewritten as we discover more and more problematic scientific evidence. That's a problem for Atheistic-Naturalistic evolution.

[@timothythompson4036]

Wait a minute. Evolution and genetic change have been observed in both plants and animals? How can you say evolution doesn't exist?

[@michaelg377]

We all observe biblical speciation within each creature's kind (dog>dog, finch>finch, bacteria>bacteria, horse>zorse, etc.), never even ONCE a change between kinds as evolution requires (fish>philosopher, dinosaurs>chickens, placoderm>shark, etc.). The former is scientific observation, the latter is a constantly radically ad-hoc rewritten atheistic origins mythology about the unobservable past. *"we see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the lapse of the ages"* (Charles Darwin) *"we are condemned to live only for a few decades, and that's too slow, too small a time scale to see evolution going on"* (Richard Dawkins) Whatever "evolution" is, at least we agree that it's not actually observable. We only observe diversification and environmental adaptation within each creature's kind ("microevolution"), everything else is pure atheistic/naturalistic storytelling that we keep having to rewrite about the unobservable past... and the reason you have to keep rewriting a "theory" is because it simply doesn't match reality. All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, and that says something about the "evidence" evolutionists think they have.

[@samburns3329]

Easy. “In all of these efforts (to promote creationism) the creationists make abundant use of a simple tactic: They lie. They lie continually, they lie prodigiously, and they lie because they must.” -William J. Bennetta, _The Textbook Letters._

[@michaelg377]

"I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves... *For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political."* (Aldous Huxley, "Ends and Means") Fish don't evolve into philosophers, no matter how much *Time* you add to the pot. That's a modern constantly radically ad-hoc rewritten atheistic origins mythology (an Ideology) - that's just not how "science' (a methodology) works.

[@tobias4411]

Snakes do not have vocal cords. The larynx in snakes is small and lacks vocal cords, unlike in other vertebrates. Snakes are physically incapable of producing vocalizations in the way that mammals and many other animals do, due to the absence of vocal cords. Sound production in snakes, when it occurs, is achieved through alternative means such as hissing or vibrating their scales. This anatomical feature of snakes is consistent across species and is a fundamental aspect of their biology. The story in Bible about a talking snake is therefore a fable. There is no other way around.

[@michaelg377]

@@tobias4411 The Bible does not list a "talking snake," first of all, it describes a Super-Natural entity either possessing or masquerading as a natural creature (a "serpent," possibly but not necessarily a "snake" - consider that it also seemed to have legs before it was cursed). You are making a logical category error by attributing modern naturalistic observations of modern day snakes to an event that was claimed to be a Supernaturally influenced event concerning a qualitatively different creature. Second, even with that - consider parrots, that you are an 'evolved ape," or that fish evolve into philosophers in your own belief system - it's really not that far off from your beliefs my mythologian friend. Fish don't evolve into philosophers, and puddles of chemicals don't fizz by chance into people, no matter how much *Time* you add to the pot - that's just not how "science" works. *"But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong."* (1 Corinthians 1:27) *"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them."* (Romans 1:18-19)

[@pendragonshall]

SIX MINUTES of commercials? And a 12 1/2 minute video? You guys have some control over that plus you need to contact KZbin. Put these videos up to educate people but we end up listening to something half as long as the video because we can't always get to the skip.

[@nathancook2852]

No, you hit on it right there at the beginning. They put these videos up to make money. Plain and simple.

[@luish1498]

«The SNEAKY Tactic Evolutionists Use to Convince People They’re Right« In the case aig changes the title i post it here for the future !

[@nathancook2852]

Yes! The called a panda a "Panda Bear" in one and had to change it. They don't even do basic research.

[@sciencerules2825]

@@nathancook2852 Pandas are bears. It was actually a Koala they called a Koala bear.

[@nathancook2852]

@@sciencerules2825 You are correct. Just bugs me when people say Panda bear because that isn't their name, and I was thinking of that.

[@luish1498]

@@nathancook2852 its was a koala!

[@nathancook2852]

@@luish1498 Yep, i misremembered because people call panda's panda bears as well. Still not the correct name, but they are at least a bear.

[@DeborahTammy-de1rv]

I'm favoured, Getting my own Truck has always been my Dream for my business. I just acquired 2 recently, earning $32K weekly has been really helpful. I can now give back to the locals in my community and also support Charity Organizations.

[@GaryDonald-kd8ol]

I'm genuinely curious to know how you earn that much weekly

[@DeborahTammy-de1rv]

Ms Elizabeth Marie Hawley has been of tremendous help and relevance to my household. The guaranteed flow of income at month's end has put lots of smiles on our faces

[@JulieBrenda-zx3jv]

GOD bless you more abundantly for your generosity

[@MarkWilliam-uv1dm]

Her top notch guidance and expertise on digital market changed the game for me

[@intentionally-blank]

SCAM ALERT!!! 🚨🚔👮‍♀

[@ZEBULON181]

So it's kinda like this small changes add up when it keeps on changing.

[@jimhughes1070]

What?...

[@HS-zk5nn]

evolution is based on a hypothetical organism. not science.

[@sciencerules2825]

H S, why did you lie and claim to have a PhD in "Evolution" from an Ivy League school?

[@OurSavior-xr3yc]

​@@sciencerules2825A knowledge and a degree are 2 different things. If he claimed to have a degree in a specific study and obviously he didn't. You're absolutely right. He shouldn't say that now. All the comments I've ever seen on here that I've actually seen. Have never said that if he is a liar produce the information. I'd like to know myself because even if he believes in creation as I do I don't defend lawyers. I'd like to know the truth and if you're lying to make him look bad. I want to know the truth. So I can make sure that you are posted everywhere. So I would no not to trust you so since you put it out there. Prove it show the evidence that he lied about having a degree in those particular study fields.

[@Bomtombadi1]

@@OurSavior-xr3ychey, Helen Keller is back! I thought you were on your death bed last time you were here looking for attention?

[@rickallen9167]

Creation is based on an actual insentient.

[@HS-zk5nn]

@@rickallen9167 illogical: red herring fallacy

[@Gek1177]

Darn those facts and data. So sneaky.

[@jimhughes1070]

Now that is cognitive dissonance at its finest!! 😎 I guess if your religion begins with *smart dirt*... You're pretty much believe any foolish idea they throw at you 🤣

[@nathancook2852]

@@jimhughes1070 Your evidence is a 2,000 year old book that has been changed hundreds, if not thousands of times. We have thousands upon thousands of fossils, DNA evidence, embryonic development, etc, We have proof the earth is billions of years old which matches evolutionary evidence as well, and destroys YEC's position entirely. You can't explain how organisms disseminated after the "flood", you can't even explain how sedimentary layers would have formed in the manner they did after the "flood." And you have absolutely zero credible evidence for anything you claim. You are a hypocrite, and a liar, through and through.

[@switchie1987]

Damn those facts, always perfectly describing reality, always changing to reflect that reality... 😂 So sneaky indeed- 😉

[@jimhughes1070]

@@switchie1987 Been in here for a couple of days now, mate... And I still haven't read any facts from the "debunkers" 😎... It's been more like a tragic comedy set in "INSULT CITY" 😭

[@erikt1713]

Please do not misquote the theory of evolution to be based solely on selection. This of course would not work. The other principle that's needed is mutation. The offspring varies from the parents mainly by combination of their traits, but a little also by mutation. Natural selection can therefore act on beings that are a bit different and if the change is in any way beneficial there is a chance that it will be passed on to more offspring. Micro evolution can be observed, but where do you draw the line? The species are not all all well-defined without possible hybrids as current humans. Even current humans hybridized with Neanderthal humans. I know the line is drawn at "separately created kinds". Is a Eurasian red squirrel a separate such "kind" from it's North American equivalents? Are rabbits a different kind? It's hard to say. It seems to me the step from "micro" to "macro" is only a question of time and adaptive pressure.

[@tsopmocful1958]

Gee, you somehow forgot to mention observed speciation. Who would've guessed at such a convenient omission?

[@michaelg377]

We observe biblical speciation within each creature's kind (dog > dog, finch > finch, bacteria > bacteria) never even ONCE a change between kinds as evolution requires (fish > philosopher, dinosaur > chicken, placoderm > shark). All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12 - which says something about the "evidence" evolutionists think they have. *"we see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the lapse of the ages"* (Charles Darwin) *"we are condemned to live only for a few decades, and that's too slow, too small a time scale to see evolution going on"* (Richard Dawkins) Whatever "evolution" is, at least we agree that it's not actually observable. We only observe biblical speciation within each creature's kind.

[@therick363]

@@michaelg377evolution IS observable. Hence why it’s a scientific theory’s

[@michaelg377]

@@therick363 *"we see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the lapse of the ages"* (Charles Darwin) *"we are condemned to live only for a few decades, and that's too slow, too small a time scale to see evolution going on"* (Richard Dawkins) Apparently, Darwin/Dawkins disagree with you. Whatever "evolution" is, at least we agree that it's not actually observable. All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12.

[@samburns3329]

@@michaelg377 Michael why do you hate God?

[@therick363]

@@michaelg377 evolution IS observable. Which is why it’s a scientific theory. Please learn the basics. We all see you’re still showing nothing but blatant dishonesty and disrespect with your copy paste cherry picking misrepresentation.

[@metadragon6209]

Lactose tolerance is an example of an additive mutation. People with lactose intolerance are unable to produce lactase, the enzyme needed to digest lactose, for very long, but a mutation caused lactase to be produced for our entire lives.

[@pronewbofficial]

Retaining the ability to produce lactase is not generating a new ability. Gaining the ability to produce cellulase would be something quite remarkable.

[@samburns3329]

@@pronewbofficial Retaining the ability to digest lactose through adulthood is most certainly a new ability. You guys will deny the daytime sky is blue in trying to push your creationist idiocy.

[@antiloser-NFS]

@@samburns3329 No its not, if we used to lose the ability to digest lactose, that means there was a gene that turned that enzyme off. Why else would we lose it? So, therefore if we retain it, the gene to deactivate it was turned off. You can consider it a new ability but no new gene was added, just the deactivation of one.

[@kosardb]

I wish this guy understood science as well as he understands how to make quality videos. But sadly, he's doing all of the false equivocations he says people shouldn't do. Then rejects scientific terms he doesn't understand rather than learning them.

[@spatrk6634]

its not him making the video. creationist videos always have great editors, well if you are not kent hovind.

[@philipgrobler7253]

Strawman upon strawman upon strawman, yup, very convincing, LOL!!!

[@michaelg377]

Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers?

[@philipgrobler7253]

@@michaelg377 Are you seriously this utterly ignorant to reality? Wow!!!

[@michaelg377]

@@philipgrobler7253 What do you mean "ignorant to reality," do you not believe that humans have fish ancestry? That's a staple doctrine of evolution...? *"Human Ears Evolved from Ancient Fish Gills"* (Bjorn Carey, Live Science, 2006) *"We are fish"* (P.Z. Myers, PhD, Associate Professor of Biology, University of Minnesota Morris) *"That’s because we, and in fact all tetrapods (four-limbed vertebrates, many of which live on land), share a more recent common ancestor with the coelacanth and lungfish than we do with ray-finned fishes."* (evolution berkeley edu)

[@philipgrobler7253]

@@michaelg377 Your brain is simply incapable of seeing the bigger picture, don't worry, I understand. Seems like this running around in circles by theists while failing to address the core issues regarding the glaring failures of religion(s) is not going to end anytime soon.

[@michaelg377]

@@philipgrobler7253 And yet now you realize that I was accurately representing your mythology which very much holds that fish evolve into philosophers. We observe biblical speciation within each creature's kind (dog>dog, finch>finch, bacteria>bacteria) never even ONCE a change between kinds as atheistic evolution requires (fish>philosopher, dinosaur>chicken, placoderm>shark, etc.). The former is scientific observation, the latter is a constantly radically ad-hoc rewritten atheistic origins mythology - that's just not how "science" (a methodology) works my friend. Let me ask you this... *How do you get from meaningless goo to meaningful and valuable you just by adding time + chemicals + chance in a meaningless universe?* I notice that *for some reason you live in contrast to the atheistic "we're all just chemicals" belief system, but perfectly in line with everything the God you reject said about you instead as a valuable human being made in His image and likeness - why do you do that?* That is powerful evidence you can see in yourself that God created you, and that you're not just "meaningless evolved protoplasm" in a meaningless chemical universe that doesn't care about you, and I love that He put that into you so you can see clear evidence in yourself that He exists. God said you are a meaningful and valuable human being made in His image and likeness (Genesis 1:27), with a purpose and a unique capacity for "dominion" over creation as you sit here typing this (Genesis 1:26), morality and a sense of justice (Genesis 9:6), a sense of dignity and respect towards others (James 3:10), a capacity for free will rational thinking and decision making (Genesis 2:16), and a conscience which reflects the principles of His law (Romans 2:15), among other things. These are observable qualities that we all observe in you, and being made in God's image and likeness makes perfect sense of that. How do you explain these qualities of the image and likeness of God in you from your own worldview? For example, *is "rape" always wrong in your worldview, or is it sometimes morally permissible - and why?* Where does that come from in your worldview? Animals do it all the time, it's "normal" - it's "natural" - and we're just "evolved animals," right? Chemical reactions destroy each other all the time, it's "normal" - it's "natural" - and who cares - we're "just chemicals," right? What's the difference...? *"They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them."* (Romans 2:15) It's not my belief in God that's weird. It's yours, as evidenced by your own internally inconsistent behavior and self-contradiction.

[@razark9]

There's no such thing as an ''evolutionist''. There are people who understand/accept science and then there are creationists and flat earthers.

[@michaelg377]

Science is a methodology, what you're talking about is an often untestable, unfalsifiable, constantly radically ad-hoc readjusted (ie. rewritten) atheistic origins mythology (an Ideology) - it is indisputably not "scientific," you're just confusing the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers with a methodology for measuring natural phenomena. Here are a few examples of radical ad-hoc rewrites in recent evolutionary history - examples abound: *Discovering fossilized soft tissues in early armored fish, the predecessors to modern jawed creatures like sharks, showing that they actually had fully developed and complex jaws from the beginning - so evolutionists claim they evolved those jaws, must have de-evolved them, and then evolved them back to maintain their story?* Evolutionists *Believe* that jawless creatures evolved into jawed creatures, and believe that certain ancient armored fish were the evolutionary predecessors to modern jawed fish, sharks, etc. However, they discovered placoderm fossils with preserved soft tissues showing that they had fully developed and complex jaws - not the soft early less developed jaws they expected which "present an anatomy that differs radically from the shark model" of evolution. *Now they theorize that these placoderms evolved fully developed complex jaws with more advanced modern muscle connection points, the muscles then disappeared in later descendents, and then they "re-evolved" later.* Meanwhile, while evolution is rewriting itself and adding side stories to sustain itself, it seems those fish had everything they needed from the very beginning of their existence, almost like they were deliberately created and engineered from the start. *Falsifying and rewriting a 70 year old assumption on allegedly higher oxygen concentrations producing a mass evolution of oceanic fauna:* "No, oxygen didn't catalyze the swift blossoming of Earth's first multicellular organisms. The result *defies a 70-year-old assumption* about what caused an explosion of oceanic fauna hundreds of millions of years ago" (University of Copenhagen Faculty of Science, Sciencedaily, 2023) *Falsifying and rewriting the story of human evolution over time - again:* "In an evolutionary eyeblink, our species has gone from hunting and gathering to living in complex societies. *We need to rethink the story* of this monumental transition… "Their most prevalent narrative describes a sort of trap: once people started farming, there was no way back from a cascade of increasing social complexity that led inexorably to hierarchy, inequality and environmental destruction. This bleak view of civilisation’s rise has long held sway. However, *the more societies we look at, the more it falls to pieces. Confronted with inconvenient evidence, we are being forced to retell our own origin story.* In doing so, we are also rethinking what a society can be..." “Now, *growing evidence suggests it is a fiction...”* “It *misrepresents hunter-gatherer societies,* which turn out to be far more variable and complex than we thought... [There] are *dramatic examples of hunter-gatherers acting in unexpectedly sophisticated ways.”* (Marshall, "The Civilization Myth: How new discoveries are rewriting human history," Newscientist, 2023) *Discovering lignin in algae that wasn't supposed to be there, and consequently that the SAME material had to evolve TWICE in two entirely separate evolutionary trees by chance...:* "Because monolignol [lignin chemical] synthesis is exceptionally complex, it seems unlikely that Calliarthron and terrestrial plants evolved monolignol biosynthesis and polymerization completely independently." (ie. Scientists discovered that the algae Calliarthron contained lignin - something that wasn't supposed to exist, and this necessitate that it evolved twice, separately, in completely different creatures according to evolutionary thinking). (Martone, "Discovery of lignin in seaweed reveals convergent evolution of cell-wall architecture," Current Biology, 2009) Related to this: "The pathways, enzymes and genes that go into making this stuff are pretty complicated, so *to come up with all those separately would be really, really amazing. Anything is possible, but that would be one h_ll of a coincidence."* (Professor Mark Denny) ("Discovery of Land Plant Characteristic in Seaweed May be Evolutionary Curve Ball," UBC science news, 2009). *All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12,* except it doesn't have to keep getting rewritten as we discover more and more problematic scientific evidence. That's a problem for Atheistic-Naturalistic evolution.

[@nathancook2852]

@@michaelg377" Discovering fossilized soft tissues in early armored fish, the predecessors to modern jawed creatures like sharks, showing that they actually had fully developed and complex jaws from the beginning - so evolutionists claim they evolved those jaws, must have de-evolved them, and then evolved them back to maintain their story?" No, this is wrong. It shows they had jaws earlier than previously though, not from the beginning. Multiple sources stat this. Stop lying. You cannot account for their age anyway. More quote mining: Falsifying and rewriting a 70 year old assumption on allegedly higher oxygen concentrations producing a mass evolution of oceanic fauna: "No, oxygen didn't catalyze the swift blossoming of Earth's first multicellular organisms. The result defies a 70-year-old assumption about what caused an explosion of oceanic fauna hundreds of millions of years ago" (University of Copenhagen Faculty of Science, Sciencedaily, 2023) Just keep reading and you will find "We know that animals and humans must be able to maintain low concentrations of oxygen in order to control their stem cells, and in so doing, develop slowly and sustainably. With too much oxygen, the cells will develop, and in the worst case, mutate wildly and perish. It is far from inconceivable that this mechanism applied back then," concludes Christian J. Bjerrum. Again, why wouldn't we update what we think with when we get new information. This is multiple times I have caught you quote mining. I am not bothering with your quotes anymore. Plus, I am not subscribed to New Scientists, so I can't find your sure quote mine there.

[@michaelg377]

@@nathancook2852 Sure, which means they had to evolve those jaws, de-evolve them, and then re-evolve them - all just to sustain your story of shark evolution. And for your second comment, *Radical ad-hoc readjustment is a sign of a faulty worldview - it means it's not predictive except for circular reasoning - it's not a matter of 'why wouldn't we update what we think with.. new information?" it's a matter of "at what point do you abandon a worldview that has to constantly be radically rewritten?* Another popular lie that is still being promulgated is our "99% similarity to apes." Here are a few examples of what scientists say on that today: *“the percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 84.38%” and “4.06% had no alignment to the chimp assembly.”* (Richard Buggs, PhD, University of London's specialist in evolutionary genomics). "The higher-quality human genome assemblies have often been used to guide the final stages of nonhuman genome projects, including the order and orientation of sequence contigs and, perhaps more importantly, the annotation of genes. *This bias has effectively “humanized” other ape genome assemblies."* (Kronenberg, Z. N. et al. 2018. High-resolution comparative analysis of great ape genomes. Science. 360 (6393). [Regarding Human-Chimp DNA similarity]: "There is a 13.3% difference in sections of our immune systems when insertions and deletions are considered." (Anzai, et. a., "Comparative Sequencing of Human and Chimpanzee MHC Class 1 Regions Unveils Insertions/Deletions as the Major Path to Genomic Divergence," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100, no. 13 (2003). "The chimpanzee genome was 12% larger than the human genome... gene copy numbers revealed a 6.4% difference" (Jeffery Demuth, et al., "the Evolution of Mammalian Gene Families," 2006). [Regarding Human-Chimp DNA similarity]: "There is a 17.4% difference in gene expression in the cerebral cortex" (Jon Cohen, "Relative Differences: the Myth of 1%" Science 316, no. 5833, 2007). ...but this mythology is still popular in children's textbooks, we are all *Uncritically Indoctrinated* into this modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, apes evolve into people, and that you are a distant cousin to that banana you're eating. Unfortunately, time and scientific advancement are not proving very friendly to some of these staple doctrines of modern atheistic evolution.

[@razark9]

@@michaelg377 Science is indeed a methodology, but evolution isn't unfalsfiable nor untestable. Creationism is. That's why evolution is accepted as scientific globally whereas creation is only preached about on KZbin. There's no belief needed. What you're doing is copy+pasting the mother of all gish gallops and strawmen and cramming your religious beliefs in there as an ''alternative'', once again showing creationists refusal to engage in honest, good faith discussions.

[@razark9]

​@@joefriday2275 Knowledge usually has some applications, yeah. Evolution doesn't only give us deep insights about Earth's past, we can and already have applied our understanding to things like medicine and agriculture. Sooooo yeah.

[@steveOCalley]

We can think about apologetics in this manner: _The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause._ _Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause_ .” *PROPAGANDA* merely means “propagation” as _propaganda fides_ the propagation of the faith. Strictly speaking, Paul was the chief propagandist of Christianity. Modern propaganda (above) aside from the connotations, and apologetics, are pretty much the same. Propaganda can be judged fairly on whether only genuine facts are used in arguments, not the reasoning of the speaker or conclusions drawn. There’s no danger in listening to propaganda, as long as you understand the intent of the speaker and the veracity of example.

[@michaelg377]

Do you say that because you are an apologist for the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just wait a long enough *time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people by chance? We are all Uncritically Indoctrinated into this atheistic origins mythology from a young age today, they just don't talk about its scientific problems or its embarrassing history of radical ad-hoc readjustment every time it runs into a new problem. This is a matter of competing worldviews over the same evidence, and you have to evaluate the worldviews to determine which one is more rationally handling the evidence using tests like internal consistency, can it explain what it ought to, does it have a history of radical ad-hoc readjustment, and is it existentially viable (ie. can you live it out in reality)? All of these tests are problems for Atheistic-Naturalism/Evolution. None of them are problems for a biblical worldview, and even Atheists live out the qualities of the image and likeness of the God of Scripture rather than their own "we're all just chemicals" or "meaningless evolved protoplasm in a meaningless chemical accident universe" worldview. *"The evidence of God... has been clearly seen since the beginning in all that has been created, so they will have no excuse"* (Romans 1:20)

[@samburns3329]

@@michaelg377 Lying spammer gotta spam. 🥱

[@michaelg377]

@@samburns3329 No lies at all my friend. For example, let's take the last one: existential viability (ie. the ability to live your worldview out in reality). Tell me something, as an Atheistic believer in the modern mythology that "we are just chemicals" or "meaningless evolved protoplasm in a meaningless universe," *how do you get from meaningless goo to meaningful and valuable you just by adding time + chemicals + chance in a meaningless universe?* For that matter, in your worldview, your very "thoughts" are just chemicals fizzing in your brain which are subject to the physical laws of chemistry which govern how they fizz - you're not even "thinking" really, but merely mindlessly "dancing to your DNA." Two worldviews, same evidence, two very different interpretations: Biblical Creation) You have meaning, value, purpose (Genesis 1:26-27), morality, a sense of justice (Genesis 9:6), a conscience which reflects the values and principles of God's moral law (Romans 2:15), a sense of dignity and respect for others (James 3:9-10), and a capacity for free will thinking and rational decision making (Genesis 2:15). Everything you're doing, even as an Atheist, makes perfect sense because God programmed these qualities and values into you, you can't help it. Atheistic Naturalism) You are "just chemicals," "meaningless evolved protoplasm in a meaningless universe," a chemical accident for no reason - an evolutionary cousin to leprosy, cancer cells, cockroaches, and tapeworms, that evolved alongside death and Nazi Germany. Your "thoughts" are just chemicals which are subject to physical chemical processes governed by the laws of chemistry, which means you are literally incapable of "thinking" beyond physical chemistry. Nothing you're doing makes any sense... Meaningless evolved protoplasm in a meaningless universe cannot possibly attribute meaning to anything. You live in contrast to your own 'we're just chemical accidents' worldview, and instead live perfectly in line with everything the God you reject said about you instead - why? *"They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them"* (Romans 2:15)

[@samburns3329]

@@michaelg377 Michael G the lying spammer hates God.

[@michaelg377]

@@samburns3329 You had to say that, in your worldview - your physical brain chemicals forced you, you're not even "thinking" - just "dancing to your DNA." A meaningless chance chemical accident in a meaningless universe reacting to meaningless chemical stimuli, it's not your fault, your brain chemicals made you do it. Again, *How do you get from meaningless goo to meaningful you just by adding time, chance, and chemicals in a meaningless universe?* And why do your chance chemical reactions have to obey immaterial rules of logic that exist outside of your chemical reaction brain, for no reason... where do those laws come from, there wasn't any consensus one what "logic" would be? Nothing you're doing here makes any sense, in your worldview. Two worldviews, same evidence, two very different interpretations: Biblical Creation) You have meaning, value, purpose (Genesis 1:26-27), morality, a sense of justice (Genesis 9:6), a conscience which reflects the values and principles of God's moral law (Romans 2:15), a sense of dignity and respect for others (James 3:9-10), and a capacity for free will thinking and rational decision making (Genesis 2:15). Everything you're doing, even as an Atheist, makes perfect sense because God programmed these qualities and values into you, you can't help it. Atheistic Naturalism) You are "just chemicals," "meaningless evolved protoplasm in a meaningless universe," a chemical accident for no reason - an evolutionary cousin to leprosy, cancer cells, cockroaches, and tapeworms, that evolved alongside death and Nazi Germany. Your "thoughts" are just chemicals which are subject to physical chemical processes governed by the laws of chemistry, which means you are literally incapable of "thinking" beyond physical chemistry. Nothing you're doing makes any sense... Meaningless evolved protoplasm in a meaningless universe cannot possibly attribute meaning to anything. You live in contrast to your own 'we're just chemical accidents' worldview, and instead live perfectly in line with everything the God you reject said about you instead - why? *"They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them"* (Romans 2:15)

[@andrewshear2927]

There is no sneaky tactic we use to trick people about evolution. Evolution is the change in characteristics of a species over several generations by the process of natural selection. Let's take the Dinosaurs as an example. Dinosaurs first appeared in the Traissic and later they evolved in the subsequent periods into the forms we are used to, like T Rex and Triceratops. Now, if you wanted to disprove it you would have to show the Dinosaurs that we have in the Jurassic and Createceous are also in the Traissic. That has not happened.

[@jwc713]

How do evolutionists explain new information? Since natural selection can only cull, today’s evolutionary theorists rely on mutations (random copying mistakes in the reproductive process) to create the raw material on which natural selection can then operate. But that is a separate issue. It has been shown convincingly that observed mutations do not add information, and that mutation is seriously hampered on theoretical grounds in this area. One of the world’s leading information scientists, Dr Werner Gitt from Germany’s Federal Institute of Physics and Technology in Braunschweig, says, ‘There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.’ His challenge to scientifically falsify this statement HAS REMAINED UNANSWERED since first published. Even those mutations which give a survival benefit are seen to be losses of information, not creating the sorely needed new material upon which natural selection can then go to work. Step out the echo chamber and learn some actual science.

[@nathancook2852]

@@jwc713 So now you just blatantly lie. New information is added via mutation all the time. Hell, the marmorkrebs crayfish (or marbled crayfish) is known to have fully spectated from a slough crayfish egg after a mutation made it a triploid. I"ll explain that to you because I know you won't look it up. A slough crayfish laid an egg, and what come out of it was a marmorkrebs crayfish, a completely new species. It happened because of a mutation that added a third chromosome to cells with the new marmorkrebs crayfish. This is also an example of "evolution in the present day", just like humans still not having fully lost our tails yet. Did you know, that even you, grew a tail in utero and it had to be reabsorbed and repurposed by your body. Unless you are one of the few who's body didn't actually reabsorb it and you were born with a small tail. This is why the coccyx is nicknamed the tailbone. Because, wait for it, our TAIL attaches there.

[@therick363]

@@jwc713_learn some actual science_ Why don’t creationists do that?

[@jwc713]

@@nathancook2852 Ahh, nathan the troll is babbling and lying yet again. Are the checks sent weekly or fortnightly? I lifted my post from a science professor, you fraud.

[@globalcoupledances]

@jwc713 - 1/64 of all mutatins add new information

[@samburns3329]

The 60 year old quote Calvin provides at 7:25 has been shown wrong. It is recognized there are two distinct subspecies of _Biston betularia._ There is the light form _Biston betularia_typica_ and the dark form _Biston betularia_carbonaria._ Genetics show the dark form evolved through a genetic mutation around 1819.

[@prefeitogustavo124]

Nothing you said contradicts what he said. Biston betularias stay Biston betularias, that's what he said and that's what you confirmed, that's their species. Typica and carbonaria are SUBspecies. He said the species dont even change, he is correct. Youre just misrepresenting his speech.

[@samburns3329]

@@prefeitogustavo124 No one said or thought this was an example of speciation. It *IS* a verified example of evolution through natural selection acting on new genetic information, the thing creationist clowns claim can never happen. 🙂

[@mrfuriouser]

​@@samburns3329That is a misrepresentation of fact. You are disingenuous in your description of the opposing argument. That's what happens when you get your points from only one side- you only have half an argument. Creationists ABSOLUTELY agree with INTRA-Kind adaptation. What we don't agree with is INTER-Kind adaptation, as it has NEVER ONCE, NOT EVER been proven. And it won't be. Because it never happened. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, bud.

[@samburns3329]

@@mrfuriouser It's a fact the peppered moths are a well verified example of evolution. All your creationist bawling won't change that fact. 🙂

[@usapatriot444]

@@samburns3329 It is you who does not understand what he was saying. Science proves that it is only limited change that mutations can do. Fruit fly studies prove it so.

[@janailtongoncalvesdesouza4160]

Adaptation is different than evolution

[@nathancook2852]

No, they are the same thing. Trying to claim otherwise does not make it so.

[@janailtongoncalvesdesouza4160]

@@nathancook2852 I didn't try to claim. I claimed. Claiming they are the same does not make them the same as well.

[@tobias4411]

​@@janailtongoncalvesdesouza4160 There is no barrier between microevolution and macroevolution. They are just two sides of the same coin. They are both evolution. A lot of small scale things are going to make a big scale thing. A lot of bricks make a house. You accept 2+2=4 but not 2+2+2+2+2=10?

[@janailtongoncalvesdesouza4160]

That would be the case if adaptations brought something new to existence, which was never the case. They are different claims. Make something to adapt forever and it will create any new useful information in their DNA.

[@janailtongoncalvesdesouza4160]

@annieoaktree6774 missed a NOT while typing.

[@cptrikester2671]

Given enough time and research, most evolutionists will conclude that there is a Creator.

[@sciencerules2825]

The statistics say just the opposite. According to a 2019 Pew poll 98% of all scientists and 99.9% of scientists in the Life Sciences (biology, genetics, etc.) accept evolution as the best explanation for the history and diversity of life on Earth. There is also a large positive correlation between education level and acceptance of evolution.

[@_TheSubZero_]

Creator of what? The earth was formed by natural processes.

[@cptrikester2671]

@@_TheSubZero_ EVERYTHING. The natural processes didn't exist until the Creator started 'The machine'.

[@RM-lu1kx]

There is an almost impenetrable barrier, human Ego.

[@nataniyaldemerachew3025]

good one

[@rolandgerard6064]

Thanks for your work.

[@therick363]

His work of being a hypocrite?

[@rolandgerard6064]

@@therick363 his work to expose a fallacy.

[@razark9]

@@rolandgerard6064 By depending almost exclusively on them? Calvin's favorites are the false dichotomies, appeal to incredulity and the strawman. He employs these in just about every single video.

[@rolandgerard6064]

@@razark9 ad hominem attacks do not refute his arguments and many sources are available for audi alteram partem obviously.

[@razark9]

@@rolandgerard6064 Where was the ad homs? It's hypocritical given that most of these propaganda videos use ad homs and distortions of reality in their titles and taglines, always to make scientists/science look nefarious. Are you calling Calvin out for this? No, of course not.

[@shadowlazers]

This is the most insane off the wall ignorant comments section I've ever read

[@RivaZA1]

You seem new here. I've been calling AiG for trash for years. But it does not stop, it carries on and on and on. Life is not fair

[@nathancook2852]

@@RivaZA1 And some people are stupid and will never learn. YEC's and FE's are prime examples. But we will keep trying, and at the very least get some good laughs out of it

[@luisocasio3595]

Evolution suggests from simple to complex, from worst to good and that is not what is observed.What we see is the opposite

[@richardgregory3684]

Wrong. Evolution can include complex to simply too and what is "good" and "bad" is completely subjective. Fopr example, would you say that having eyes and then losing them is good or bad? Ah, but what if you (as a species) got trappe din some permanently dark caves? Then eyes become a liability, and so losing them is good.

[@nathancook2852]

@@richardgregory3684 Such as, ya know, cave fish, which, as you know, have done exactly as you described! Not creating the eyes also saves time, energy, and resources to put into more useful features.

[@globalcoupledances]

No, it is to better survival

[@nathancook2852]

Creationists want to think this because it allows them an out. Evidence doesn't suggest this at all. Most changes are neutral and have neither a positive nor negative effect. If an organism develops a negative trait, it is likely to die off and not mate, so that trait doesn't get passed along. The opposite is true for positive traits. But this isn't always the case, and sometimes a trait can be positive for while, and them become a disadvantage again. Ask the peppered moths of England that lived during the industrial revolution about this. (That was a turn of phrase. Only creationists think former living creatures can be raised from the dead and that humans can have a full blown conversation with another species.) Evolution is random, it was never "suggested" to be otherwise, and it itself does not "suggest" simple to complex.

[@michaelg377]

"The experiments beautifully demonstrate natural selection, or survival of the fittest - in action, but *they do not show evolution in progress,* for however the populations may alter in their content of light, intermediate, or dark forms, *all the moths remain from beginning to end Biston Betularia."* (L. Harrison Matthews, Forward to 1971 Edition of Darwin's Origin of Species)

[@samburns3329]

The "sneaky tactic" is to support evolution with a huge quantity and quality of positive scientific evidence. Something which creationists can never understand.

[@LimeGuy101]

If there were such evidence you wouldn't need to employ sneaky tactics to try validate your ridiculous theory

[@Xulios16]

Does macro evolution pass the bacon scientific method? If the answer is no then that's not science.

[@samburns3329]

@@Xulios16 Er, things don't "pass" the scientific method. Scientific investigation employs the scientific method.

[@samburns3329]

@@LimeGuy101 If creationists were honest about the evidence they wouldn't have to lie and claim science uses sneaky tactics.

[@Xulios16]

Reality is not a game of pokemon. We all will be held accountable for our evil. Death is coming for us all repent and trust in the lord jesus

[@carllere7682]

I think the most interesting part of evolution is that it appears that everything started in water and evolved to living on land, then turned around and involved to go back into the water. Apparently evolution is a revolving door.

[@spatrk6634]

yes. population will adapt to new environments or go extinct.

[@gregoswald7723]

Calvin Smith always uses the same sneaky tactic he ALWAYS uses when he says, "No One has ever observed one kind of creature turning into another." Like that is proof that it can't happen. If you follow the theory of Evolution, then EVERY creature is in the process of turning into another kind of creature. Therefore, Every person has "seen one kind of creature turning into another." Very few remain stagnant. Sharks and stromatolites are only two examples of a creature that has remained largely the same today as in the fossil record. But not all current versions of the shark exist in the fossil record. We don't know if stromatolites have changed over time. All we have is the structures they build and built, whose form appears the same, currently and in the fossil record. We can assume from the similarities that they are very similar creatures, past and present. But that is not proof that they are unchanged. 95% of the creatures in the fossil record have gone extinct. Did God wipe them all out in the flood? Or did they evolve into the current creatures we have today? And, why do so many of the current creatures not appear AT ALL in the fossil record? Were all of them saved from the flood? Not just the "two of each kind" from Noah's account. IF as Calvin Smith states that "Nothing New is Created" by genetic mutation, then that means that Adam and Eve had all the genetic material for Down Syndrome, Cystic Fibrosis, Haeomophilia, and thousands of other genetic disorders in their genetic makeup. And in most people those traits are only suppressed. Maybe the genetic mutation, to NOT have Cystic Fibrosis, is the "beneficial mutation" that Calvin Smith ignores.

[@michaelg377]

That's because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers - all the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, and most of what you said just isn't true my friend. For example, the claim that "95% of the creatures in the fossil record have gone extinct" is a patently falsified assumption-ridden faith-claim, not science - here's the problem: Two worldviews, exact same evidence, two very different interpretations. Let's look at them side by side, the assumptions that undergird their conclusions, and which one actually better fits the evidence we see today: Common evidence) We have named about 250,000 fossil "species" in the fossil record. There are about 1.3 million "species" alive today. Evolutionary Worldview) The evolutionary worldview operates on a web of assumptions in how it *interprets* the fossil record, and based on these *assumptions* it *believes* that roughly only 2% of Species have been preserved. These assumptions include the *assumption-based* radiometric dating "ages," covering the *assumption-based interpretation* of about "30 million years" in the fossil record per species group, which encompasses all the layers in which animal fossils are discovered (covering what they *interpret* as "600 million years" total). 600M years total/30M years per species = 20 species groups. Based on this *assumption-based interpretation,* they conclude that there were about 20 species groups over time (ie. 20 times the species changed out completely). They *assume* based on evolutionary expectations that the number of species alive at any other time was much less than the 1.3 million alive today (because they *believe* a priori that simple single-celled organisms evolved and grew in complexity over time) estimated to be around 650,000 species at any other time. By this *assumption-based* logic, 650K species * 20 groups of species over time = 13 million species total in earth history. So 250K "species" in the fossil record out of 13 million total (ie. 250K/13M) results in the *heavily assumption-laden* conclusion that only 2% of species are still alive today. Biblical Worldview) Actually nearly 100% of all "species" God made have been preserved. This position rejects the radiometric dating evolutionary *Assumptions* as demonstrably inconsistent, unverifiable, and unreliable on a long time scale, and thus does not *interpret* the fossil record as a record of evolution over time. (Gould and Eldredge (evolutionists) also recognize that the fossil record does not show gradual evidence of evolution, but only stasis and sudden appearance of fully developed organisms... though they just modified the theory of evolution to keep it alive). The biblical worldview holds that God created every creature according to its "kind," defined generally by a creature's reproductive boundaries, with a capacity for diversification and environmental adaptation pre and post flood. Only representatives from each "kind" were taken onto the Ark, meaning all the rest of the diversified species within each "kind" died during the global flood. Then after the flood each "kind" of creature continued to speciate within its "kind" up to the modern state today - relatively few creatures have gone extinct, most notably the dinosaurs, as most other "kinds" have been preserved over time. While evolutionary *assumption-based interpretations* above *believe* that there were about 20 replacements of species over evolutionary time, the biblical worldview holds that there was only 1 replacement at the flood, and the pre-flood "species" died in the flood but representatives from their "kind" after the flood continued to speciate into new "species" only within their "kind" (dogs > dogs, finches > finches, etc.). Based on the animal fossils found buried in ash and other materials found in post-flood/upper layer fossils, Creation-proponents believe many of these fossils died in catastrophic geological events (volcano eruptions, etc.) post-flood. Evolutionist Conclusion) 250K/13M = only 2% of all "species" over time still alive today. The fossil record contains about 98% of the total of all species that have ever lived, therefore evolution must be true because they all died off in the past. As Atheistic-Evolutionist scoffers claim: "Creationism has no explanation. 99% of God's created species dead? Impossible!" (Oldtinear, 18 February 2024). Biblical Creation Conclusion) Using this line of reasoning above, Creation proponents expect that we have a nearly complete record of all species that ever lived, whether preserved as fossils or still alive today... which also explains the hundreds of living fossils we've discovered that look identical to their living counterparts. Two worldviews, same evidence, two very different interpretations. *So how can we test which one is true, and which one is a biased mis-interpretation?* One way to determine how good the fossil record is at preserving species is simply to *count how many living species are also known as fossils, regardless of whether the fossils were made before, during, or after the Flood. At least two studies have done that:* *Evidence A)* In one study Björn Kurtén determined that *88% of the mammal species living in Europe today are also present in the fossil record in Europe,* and *99% are present in the fossil record somewhere on earth.* (B. Kurtén, Pleistocene Mammals of Europe (Chicago: Aldine, 1968) *Evidence B)* In another study, James W. Valentine, in his PhD dissertation, found that *76.8% of the marine mollusk species currently living along the southern California and Baja California coast are also found in the fossil record.* (J. W. Valentine, “How Good Was the Fossil Record? Clues from the California Pleistocene,” Paleobiology 15 no. 2 (1989) These findings seem to suggest that the Biblical Creation view is actually much closer to our observed reality - 88%, 99%, and 76.8% are much closer to the nearly 100% that Creation proponents claim - but these observations are MUCH further away from the *heavily assumption-laden* 2% that Evolutionists believe in. Once again, as Evolutionists are rewriting their belief system to include "Stasis" and "Sudden Appearance" (Gould) while admitting that evolutionary paleontologists simply "looked the other way" (Eldredge) at this problematic evidence, Biblical Creation's expectations are once again supported by the actual evidence and even secular scientists' observations. Two worldviews, same evidence, two very different interpretations.

[@samburns3329]

@@michaelg377 Michael why do you want people to think Christians are dishonest idiots?

[@michaelg377]

@@samburns3329 Why are you ignoring the evidence and doubling down on your worldview assumptions without thinking? Again, the quoted evidence at the bottom of my post above suggests the biblical creation model more closely describes our observed reality than the atheistic evolutionary assumption that "98% of all species are dead in the fossil record," etc. The question is: *Why do continue representing Atheism in such a staunchly willfully ignorant light?* Keep being you my friend, just stop lying to yourself.

[@samburns3329]

@@michaelg377 Why do you C&P the same stupidity and dishonestly quote-mine endlessly? Why do you have no ethics or morals?

[@michaelg377]

@VFA666 You are correct in that "all interpretations aren't equally valid," but you are grossly mistaken when you say ""evolutionary theory... explains ALL the evidence as a consilient unified whole." You have to evaluate both worldviews using tests like internal consistency, can it explain what it ought to, does it have a history of radical ad-hoc readjustment, and is it existentially viable (ie. can you live a "we're just chemical accidents" worldview out in reality?). *These tests are all problems for Atheism/Naturalism, none of them are a problem for a biblical worldview.* Here are a few examples for your consideration: 1) Internal Consistency) Evidence: The 1st law of thermodynamics doesn't allow our universe's energy to be created or have a beginning; The 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't allow it to remain usable forever, so it can't have existed forever. Energy can't be created, and it can't have always existed - these 2 laws of "nature" contradict each other, causing nature, and "science," to break down. Biblical Creation: This isn't a problem, because God supernaturally created the laws of nature (Jeremiah 33:25), including the laws of thermodynamics, time, space, and matter (Genesis 1:1) themselves. Atheistic Naturalism: This is a major point of internal inconsistency, and this is a self-refuting worldview. The Naturalist has no logical choice but to invoke a solution that supersedes the limitations of these laws of nature (ie. "Super-Natural"), and/or attributing qualities of the Super-Natural God to "nature." The only way for nature to create itself is if nature is pre-existent, like God - and the 2nd law of thermodynamics in particular doesn't allow "nature" to "naturally" be eternal, otherwise we would have reached heat death by now. 2) Can it explain what it ought to) Evidence: We have immaterial mathematically precise laws of logic and nature which exist outside of our chemical reaction brains and yet all of material chemical "Nature" has to obey them. There was no "consensus" on what "logic" would be, this immaterial reality "just is." Biblical Creation: God created the laws of the heavens and the earth including the laws of logic (Jeremiah 33:25), and all of this mathematical precision and order we see ultimately came from Him and these immaterial realities are evidence that proves that the immaterial exists (Romans 1:20). Atheistic Materialism: Everything is only chemicals, and only material, there is no immaterial - so immaterial realities like the laws of logic which exist outside of our physical chemical reaction brains, for example, is a problem. This worldview cannot explain things it ought to be able to if its assumptions were true, thus it is a faulty worldview. Furthermore, Naturalism is a philosophy that everything is "naturally" explainable - but based on the problem in #1 above, since the laws of nature break down, Naturalism likewise breaks down at this point, meaning Naturalism is literally incapable of rationally explaining the beginning of our universe - it is literally incapable of explaining something that it ought to be able to because it violates its own "natural" assumptions. 3) Radical Ad-Hoc Readjustment) Evidence) We had to come from somewhere, whether we were intentionally created by God as revealed in Scripture, or if we were the product of chance meaningless chemical reactions over time. The biblical worldview has been preserved and reliably passed down with over 99% accuracy since at least before 300 BC based on tangible manuscript evidence. The Atheistic Naturalist theories like evolution and the big bang have been radically ad-hoc readjusted numerous times - naturalists call this "progress." Biblical Creation) All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, only we don't have to keep rewriting Scripture every time we make a new discovery like young soft tissues in dinosaur fossils, debunked "junk" DNA, discovering that human-ape similarity is down from 99% to only 84%, measurably young magnetic fields/comets/objects in our solar system, fully developed galaxies discovered by the James Webb telescope, etc. etc. The evidence just fits, and biblical creation proponents actually predicted many of these things - *the Creation model is predictive.* Atheistic-Naturalism) Has an embarrassing history of constantly radically ad-hoc rewriting itself and having to make implausible excuses for the evidence - placoderms having to evolve, de-evolve, and re-evolve their complex jaws to maintain the story of shark evolution, preservative theories to make young tissues look "old," evidence-less Oort Clouds to explain away measurably young comets, theorized dynamos to circumvent measurably young magnetic fields, etc. etc. This model has to keep making excuses and tacking on additional ad-hoc theories to *explain away the contradictory evidence* - it is not predictive, relies on circular reasoning, and it is a constantly radically ad-hoc readjusted storytelling model. 4) Existential viability) Evidence) You are a meaningful, valuable, purposeful human being (Genesis 1:26-27) with morality and a sense of justice (Genesis 9:6), a conscience which reflects the principles of God's law (Romans 2:15), a capacity for free will thinking and decision making (Genesis 2:16), a sense of dignity and respect for others (James 3:9-10), and other qualities. Biblical Creation) Everyone, even Atheists have these qualities in them because these are aspects of God's image and likeness. They are made in the image and likeness of God, and He is our self-existent source of objective meaning, value, etc. Atheistic-Naturalism) We are all "just chemicals" or "meaningless evolved protoplasm in a meaningless universe." Some engage in logical non-sequiturs and beg the question of their meaning because they "think," are "social," or *"Need* to survive" for some reason - they tend to erroneously refer to Objective values ("goodness," "well-being," etc.) which literally do not exist in their meaningless chemical reaction worldview - but meaningless evolved protoplasm in a meaningless amoral universe can't possibly attribute meaning to anything, and a meaningless universe literally does not care about our well-being. Evolution/Abiogenesis holds that chemicals + chance + time produced everything alive today, which begs the question: *How do you get from meaningless goo to meaningful you just by adding time + chemicals + chance in a meaningless universe?* It's a logical non-sequitur... yet even Atheists recognize they have all of these qualities of God's image and likeness in them above despite not being able to rationally explain it. *"The long and short of it is that I became convinced that atheism implies amorality; and since I am an atheist, I must therefore embrace amorality... The religious fundamentalists are correct: without God, there is no morality. But they are incorrect, I still believe, about there being a God. Hence, I believe, there is no morality."* (Joel Marks, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, University of New Haven, "Philosophy Now," Sep 2010). ... You just can't live a 'we're just chemicals in a meaningless universe' worldview out in reality, and even Atheists live out a very Christian-Atheism rather than living in accordance with their own "we're just chemicals in an amoral universe" worldview, recognizing Objective human value, dignity, morality, etc. - they just can't admit or explain it. Two worldviews, same evidence, two very different interpretations. One is internally consistent, can explain what it ought to, doesn't have to keep rewriting itself, and can be lived out in reality (Biblical Creation). The other is demonstrably internally inconsistent and self-refuting, fails to explain entire aspects of reality, has an embarrassing history of radical ad-hoc readjustment (they call it "progress"), and simply cannot be lived out in reality - so they live in accordance with God instead (Atheistic-Naturalism). The question is: *why would you still knowingly follow a demonstrably irrational worldview?*

[@nunobispo5245]

"sneaky tactics" = facts

[@luish1498]

"sneaky tactics" = facts / evidences

[@JuanManuel-ep8do]

Theists use their tactics to show their fictitious deity exists

[@switchie1987]

@@JuanManuel-ep8do Sad, how their efforts always seem to be in vain~ 😼

[@BruceFox-Lefriche]

Calvin Smith you could at least make the effort to respect the ninth commandment : Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. You repeatedly publish videos accusing honest people of being liars (even dangerous liars) or, in this instance, “sneaky”. You may disagree with them. Some of them may at times be wrong. But that does not make them liars. And it certainly does not authorise you to make false, scathing accusations. You have been told this time and time again, but you continue, regardless, under the delusion of your own supreme righteousness.

[@The.Timeless.Science]

God is not real.

[@michaelg377]

Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just wait a long enough *Time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people by chance? Let me ask you this... in your belief system, when all the right chemicals fizzed together into all the necessary proteins required for life, and then into all the necessary cell components inside of a cell enclosure by chance chemical reactions, *how did it overcome the known scientific problem of hydrolysis which inhibits protein formation in water?* *"we've not made the RNA in a prebiotically relevant manner. It hydrolyzes too rapidly."* (Professor Jack Szostak, Chicago, 2021) [Regarding Abiogenesis] *"Chemistry is actually hard to get to work. The molecules precipitate. The molecules hydrolyze. The molecules decompose. And so it's very much a constraint that you have to deal with.. it's one g-d problem after another."* (Steve Benner, former Harvard Professor, Director of Foundation for Applied Molecular Evolution, 2019) "Even a single protein could not arrive at its native structure in biological real time because conformational space is far too vast": ~10^95 possible conformations for a chain of 100 residues, so that *"even a small protein that initiated folding by random search at the time of the big bang would still be thrashing about today."* (Peter Tompa and George D. Rose, "The Levinthal Paradox of the Interactome," Protein Science 20 (2011): 2074.) *"The evidence of God... has been clearly seen since the beginning in all that has been created, so they will have no excuse"* (Romans 1:20)

[@The.Timeless.Science]

LOL I never mentioned anything about evolution or abiogenesis. All I said was that god isn't real. 🤦🏽‍♂️

[@michaelg377]

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

[@The.Timeless.Science]

Ngl bruh I ain't reading allat. It's 1AM over here and my eyes are already fighting to stay open.

[@michaelg377]

@@The.Timeless.Science That's okay - go get some sleep, if you feel like reviewing some scientific evidence it'll be there, and if not - no worries. In the meantime, I'll give you a simple question to ponder. *How did male and female evolve?* Charles Darwin met the gold standard of science (a methodology) by giving a testable hypothesis for his theory: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex *organ* existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down..." *How did male and female evolve?* Before you answer, consider that these are two separate, yet interdependent, precision tuned sets of organs that all have to be working just right or reproduction, life, and evolution fail. For example: The fallopian tubes are lined with millions of these little hairs that all wave the same direction, and their purpose is to guide the egg from the ovaries down into the uterus. If they stood still, laid flat, waved the wrong direction, or didn't exist - the egg would either die or it would implant in the fallopian tube thus killing the mother. Some of these are known medical conditions that prevent pregnancy - "Evolution" had to get these millions of hairs just right.... "by numerous, successive, slight modifications." *Simultaneously* the sperm has a whip like rotor, a motor encasing, a bushing like material, a nutrient transfer system, and several other components that all have to be working *just right* or the sperm can't find the egg. Reproduction and life fails. "Evolution" had to get the interdependent parts of the sperm "just right" ... "by numerous, successive, slight modifications." *Then* you have the placenta which does everything for the baby including keeping the mother's and baby's blood separate, the expanding and contracting uterus and cervix, the mechanism which only allows one sperm into the egg, and numerous other components that all had to be *designed* just right, or reproduction and life fails. "Evolution" had to *SIMULTANEOUSLY* get all of these just right "by numerous, successive, slight modifications." Which gender evolved first, and how did it reproduce while the other hadn't evolved yet? And going backwards in time, which of these critical organs do you gradually reduce first "by numerous, successive, slight modifications" without causing reproduction to fail? *"“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’"* (Matthew 19:4). Such *specified complexity* looks like the product of an Intelligent engineering mind, not the result of chance fizzing chemicals in a puddle. Puddles don't turn themselves into people no matter how much *time* you add to the mix.

[@psychologicalprojectionist]

I am not a professional scientist, but I have always understood and been fascinated by the theory of evolution. I studied Biochemistry a while back but ended up going into engineering. However I have read and thought a great deal about evolution. The point is, I have never heard anyone, but creationists talk about micro and macro evolution. IMO it is like accepting that I can drive a car down the road, but not across a continent. It is the creationist coping mechanism now that they can no longer completely deny evolution. Small changes over a short period of time is the same as big changes over long periods of time! And we have evidence for both big changes and long periods of time.

[@samburns3329]

Exactly. it's exactly the same evolutionary processes just happening over a longer time span. The objections are like hearing some nutcase argue "sure micro-erosion could wear down a small hill but no one has seen macro-erosion wear down the entire Appalachian mountain chain!"

[@WeBareTheBears]

You worded this perfectly.

[@Harris19941]

doesn't necessarily follow that the small changes lead to the big changes thats an assumption and inference you make also depends on what kind of changes we see if the changes are by breaking existing information and genes then obviously such a change wont lead to the evolution of new genes and functions etc. can you name some evidences of those big changes?

[@sciencerules2825]

@@Harris19941 There is a large amount of both fossil and genetic evidence for the accumulation of micro changes into macro changes, such as this 2014 paper on whale evolution: *Molecular evolution tracks macroevolutionary transitions in Cetacea* But do tell us, what barrier can you identify which would prevent micro changes from accumulating over time into macro changes?

[@Harris19941]

​@@sciencerules2825i want to actually hear the evidence itself well if we can see new functions/genes develop through mutations and selection then you have a better case to make for macro evolution because those are upward changes which the theory needs just pointing at simple changes like evolutionists usuallly do is not enough to turn a bacteria into a man and an elephant and a banana so i m curious to actually hearing some evidences

[@daviddavenport9350]

Only Creationists refer to micro and macro evolution....Evolution means change in Allieil frequency over time....and that is all it is....

[@michaelg377]

Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just wait a long enough *Time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people? We observe biblical speciation within each creature's kind (finch>finch, dog>dog, bacteria>bacteria) never even ONCE a change between kinds as atheistic evolution requires (fish>philosopher, dinosaur>chicken, placoderm>shark, etc.). The former is observational science, the latter is a constantly radically ad-hoc rewritten atheistic origins mythology about the unobservable past... All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, including "allele frequency over time," evolution, common ancestry, etc. not required.

[@Tina-7773]

@DavidDavenport So Darwin discovered micro-evolution? Oh how people love to obscure and trivialize that vital distinction between True science Micro, and Junk science mAcro. I think you left a few things out, no? Microevolution is evolutionary change in the gene pool of a single kind/population it is variation, adaption, natural selection etc and we see it every day. It's 'genuine science'. It is an observable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable confirmed theory. Conversely, Darwin's never-before-seen macroevolution theory is a would-be evolutionary change above the gene pool of a single kind/population, meaning an evolutionary change to a NEW KIND of higher information and complexities, Darwin's theory DEMANDS the formation of new information to go from one KIND/population to a new KIND/population. It has NEVER been observed. It's junk science. It is an unobservable, untestable, not repeatable, not falsifiable, unconfirmed theory that should have been scrapped years ago and sent back to the hypothesis stage.

[@kathyhummel1573]

EVOLUTION has never made any sense to me

[@cptrikester2671]

Good, because it doesn't make sense. It's a cartoon that is promoted so that the Creator can be avoided.

[@nathancook2852]

@@cptrikester2671 Priests were the first grifters to lie so people would give them money. It is fitting that most flat eathers are also YEC's. You all deserve each other.

[@cptrikester2671]

@@nathancook2852 who said anything about YEC or flat earthers? Please realize what the first lie was. I may be (incorrectly) assuming your level of knowledge.

[@therick363]

@@cptrikester2671that’s a lie

[@GregoryHolden-k5c]

@kathyhummel 1537 . I don't even think it makes sense to some of THEM either. But it is as if their pride and biases are like a veil.