This Discovery About Dinosaurs Absolutely DESTROYS Evolution

[@AnswersCanada]

Hello AiG CA video watchers! FYI this is a re-release of 2-part Feature on the Dinosaur Soft Tissue Issue combined into 1 video for continuous viewing. The reason for doing this is because we had an issue with Part 2 and had to take it down, leaving only Part 1 available which we felt was rather unsatisfying for our viewers : ) Should you have already watched Part 1 and want to skip to the second half, just forward to around the 11 minute mark. Blessings, Cal

[@apoliticalobserver2741]

So you made one big pile of 💩 out of two smaller piles of 💩💩 Wonderful.

[@WeBareTheBears]

Before this man changes the caption in the thumbnail, it currently reads “Bible Confirmed.”

[@WeBareTheBears]

He changed it.

[@nathancook2852]

@@WeBareTheBears Yep, I took a picture because I knew it wouldn't last.

[@WeBareTheBears]

@@nathancook2852 He changed it back. He must've seen my comment.

[@sammoore138]

Dinosaurs are pushin me toward the light

[@codyb4016]

Keep digging. There’s so much evidence! Not just with dinosaurs. But also all kinds of evidence for God.

[@Bill_Garthright]

@@codyb4016 _"But also all kinds of evidence for God."_ Really? Name one, please. Pick *one* piece of good evidence, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself, and *make your case.* Can you do that? Because, if you're actually telling the truth, if there really _is_ "so much evidence," then why is *one* specific example too much to ask?

[@Version135]

​@@Bill_Garthright you don't want an example. You want to continue your life of sin.

[@michaelg377]

@@Bill_Garthright Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and that puddles of chemicals can fizz into people if you just add lots of *time?* 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. But you don't believe that, so how do you explain this in your worldview - *how do you get from meaningless goo to meaningful and valuable you just by adding time + chemicals + chance in a meaningless universe?* Your image of God is showing. 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)

[@Bill_Garthright]

@@Version135 _"you don't want an example."_ So,... nothing, then? Yeah, that's what I figured. _"You want to continue your life of sin."_ My life of sin? Well, I'll tell you what. You can fantasize about my 'sins' all you like. I don't care. Enjoy yourself. Pleasure yourself. I don't care. *But keep it to yourself, please, because I don't want to hear it.* You don't even know me, so this is _obviously_ just a matter of your fantasies. But then, you're faith-based, so I suppose you're used to just imagining whatever you want, huh? But again, I don't care. Fantasize about my 'sins' all you like. Just have the common decency to keep your fantasies to yourself, OK? Because I'm not interested in your fantasies.

[@Scablands_Scavenger]

Just want to say, I am in favor of drone ice cream delivery when in the middle of nowhere.

[@calvinsmith7575]

Right?

[@stillraven9415]

I believe in ice cream cones in the desert, but I don't think deserts really exist.😂

[@hansdemos6510]

I'm sure Elon Musk is working on it as we speak.

[@alexstewart8097]

1- As were Obama and Pelosi too , but apparently no longer the ''ice cream'' part though. ''Imagine'' so. 2-Let them all wise up and shape up rather than doubling down on their evil ways and Pronto!, as in 'Yesterday'' so. 3-...Shema!!!

[@noneyabidness9644]

Even IF they accept the fact that fossils can't be millions, or even tens of thousands of years old, they'll just amend the timeline of their belief system and still deny the Creator.

[@jockyoung4491]

I don't know what God has to do with it. But yes, if evidence shows the timeline is wrong, then we know that the timeline is wrong. That's how science works. What does that have to do with "worldviews"?

[@dennishagans6339]

@@jockyoung4491 because atheism itself is a worldview, promoted and defended as religiously as any other religion.

[@seanmataera7101]

@@jockyoung4491 Simply put it this way you have a God whether it's you or creation creating itself you tieing it to science as proof that's the issue between us and secularists because it becomes their truth even though it is a lie they sometimes affirm maybe even you but continue in blind faith leading to destruction.

[@snakewithnolegs]

Oh hell naw you again?

[@seanmataera7101]

@@snakewithnolegs Do I know you?.

[@dennisanderson3895]

True, pure, science welcomes any information which challenges presuppositions.

[@therick363]

⁠@@joefriday2275sigh. Why don’t you back up your claim there about evolution and science for once?

[@michaelg377]

@@therick363 We've actually observed you doing exactly what he said in other threads on this page and on other videos that you troll under this channel as well my friend. Be honest, with yourself. Science is a methodology - you're talking about an Ideology, a constantly rewritten atheistic origins mythology about the unobservable past - not "science." *Scientific Theories are supposed to be Falsifiable; Religions are Not: Given its extensive history of having to radically ad-hoc readjust 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 *evolutionary transitional form 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? *Maybe measurably young tissues in dinosaur fossils* that look similar to 4000 year old mummies or the Tyrolean Ice Man? 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? 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 the story of Evolution be held to the same religious standard as Creation? 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]

@@michaelg377 you just proved my points!!! I’ll make it clear. You can either start acting like an HONEST adult or we will all keep calling you out. You either come back with a “yes let’s have an honest conversation”….or anything else will be taken as you will keep chowing lies and cherry picking and more. Pick one

[@michaelg377]

@@therick363 And you're doing exactly what we observe you doing here and elsewhere - you just proved my point. You asked about evolution and science, and I answered you - specifically showing you why they are not the same thing (see above). And your best response is trolling, and the usual "be an HONEST adult" and "you're a liar." It's time to stop lying my friend, no one is taking you seriously.

[@therick363]

@@michaelg377nope!! You still can’t even handle the basics of conversation!! Come back with the line of “I’m ready to have an honest adult conversation”….nothing else.

[@cyrilnorrie8450]

Finds like these could be pointing to when the Bible talks about “knowledge increasing” ,but it also says that Satan will deceive the nations. God will reward those who have faith thatHis word is true, with proofs that it is true.

[@Bill_Garthright]

_"God will reward those who have faith that His word is true, with proofs that it is true."_ Really? OK, I'll bite. Let's hear one of those "proofs" - just *one.* If you're telling the truth, why would *one* be too much to ask?

[@nathancook2852]

Calvin completely bastardizes Dr. Schweitzer's work. And she is a Christian. Here are some quotes from her about YEC's. "I appreciate Kevin Anderson’s thoughtful engagement with my ideas regarding soft-tissue preservation, but I disagree with his conclusions. Simply put, soft-tissue preservation in fossils is not a valid scientific argument for a young Earth, nor does it provide evidence that the fossil record was laid down as a result of a recent, global flood." “One thing that does bother me, though, is that young earth creationists take my research and use it for their own message, and I think they are misleading people about it. Pastors and evangelists, who are in a position of leadership, are doubly responsible for checking facts and getting things right, but they have misquoted me and misrepresented the data. They’re looking at this research in terms of a false dichotomy [science versus faith] and that doesn’t do anybody any favors.” “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.”

[@michaelg377]

@@nathancook2852 No one here is attacking Mary Schweitzer my friend - in fact in this video it was evolutionists who were attacking her (!!!). In questioning her research and naturalistic excuses for the evidence, however, consider her experiment used as justification for dinosaur soft tissue preservation... she put *ostrich meat* in a *pure hemoglobin (iron)* solution in a *controlled laboratory* environment at *room temperature,* and preserved that meat for *2 years.* Based on this, evolutionists now believe that *dinosaur tissues* with no *pure hemoglobin (iron)* solution in an *uncontrolled* external environment at *variable temperatures* were preserved for *35,000,000 times as long as her experiment.* .... evolutionists don't need evidence, they just need an excuse... Fish don't evolve into philosophers, no matter how much *time* you add to the mix. That's just not how "science" (a methodology) works.

[@l.m.892]

@@Bill_Garthright Seriously? Darwin didn't provide a single proof, yet many there are who have faith in him. Atheists avoid seeking after truth. Why? It may be that they prefer theories and suppositions. The journey is preferred over the destination ... They never get home.

[@Bill_Garthright]

@@l.m.892 _"Darwin didn't provide a single proof, yet many there are who have faith in him."_ Heh, heh. Do you not know how stupid that sounds? Are you _really_ that ignorant about biology? About science in general? Honestly, I'm embarrassed for you. Darwin has nothing to do with modern biological theory. He's rightly praised for his insights, a century and a half ago, but that's entirely historical. Wow! You apparently think that science is just like religion, huh? What, did you go to religious schools all your life? You need to educate yourself, if your teachers did such a piss-poor job. Charles Darwin knew nothing about genetics, and he was wrong about many things. Science progresses, you know (unlike religion). No one today accepts the reality of evolution because of Charles Darwin! _"Atheists avoid seeking after truth."_ I've been _asking_ for evidence. This guy said he had "proofs," so I asked to hear just *one.* (So far, he hasn't even tried.) Normally, though, I just ask for evidence. So how about _you?_ How about *one piece of good evidence, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself,* that your god is real, rather than just imaginary? Just *one.* Why is *one* too much to ask? If you're a Christian, I'd also accept *one piece of good evidence* that _any_ of the magical/supernatural stories in the Bible actually happened. Your choice. And I will _give_ you a guy named Jesus who was crucified by the Romans. Well? You say we atheists "avoid seeking after truth." Now is your time to educate me. Or don't you _have_ anything distinguishable from wishful-thinking? _"It may be that they prefer theories"_ You don't know what "theory" means in science, do you? Wow, you really _have_ let down by the educators in your life, huh? I urge you to google it. Google "theory in science." You don't _have_ to remain this ignorant.

[@noneyabidness9644]

So they found that with a higher concentration than is normal of hemoglobin, they can preserve soft tissue for up to 2 years....okay...cool. now, how does it survive 65-300 million years?

[@ConservativeMirror]

How does it survive 4,400 years?

[@jockyoung4491]

We don't know, but obviously it did. The dates are not in question.

[@Savriell]

May be with the protective factors that was mentioned in 12:13 that he ridiculed and presented as wrong without any evidence or explanation. Seriously how You are falling for such obvious manipulation.

[@AlphaAchilles]

It’s pretty obvious we don’t know exactly how it survived but we exercise some common sense and know that it certainly didn’t last millions of years. Thousands of years is more palatable considering the evidence. Now, young earth would sound stupid if this was the only evidence supporting it. But it’s not, in fact we have a mountain of evidence that supports it. But people who are properly brainwashed will not entertain any information that contradicts their already held view.

[@noneyabidness9644]

@@Savriell how are you falling for such obvious manipulation as to say proposed (not even empirically proven) laboratory (hence, intelligently designed) methods can do what we have never observed it being capable of doing? Naturalism's greatest enemy is empiricism.

[@Justpassinthetime]

I love your perseverance!!! Keep knocking these demons out of the ballpark brother

[@nathancook2852]

The only thing he is "knocking out of the ballpark" is his believers brain cells.

[@Justpassinthetime]

@@nathancook2852 it doesn't matter what you think,it matters what you believe. If you believe this came into existence all by itself, then what started that? There will always be questions and wonders,but that's where faith comes in. Besides there is a ton of evidence proving a flood. I pray you give your heart to Jesus Christ and you seek the Kingdom of Heaven

[@adelinomorte7421]

***I DO NOT PLAY YOUR BALL GAME BROTHER.***

[@militarymarch3006]

Follow the science until the science doesn't support your evolutionist world view, then come up with all sorts of unscientific explanations to account for the data. Sounds like an "evolution of the gaps" argument to me.

[@jockyoung4491]

I have never seen any scientific evidence that could possibly refute biological evolution, so there is nothing to explain away.

[@Gek1177]

I don't think you understand what an "of the gaps" argument is.

[@jockyoung4491]

Find me some science that doesn't support biological evolution, then we can talk.

[@militarymarch3006]

@@Gek1177 I understand exactly what an argument of the gaps is.

[@noneyabidness9644]

Indeed it is.

[@poliincredible770]

The laws of chemistry confirm God's word.

[@saintmalaclypse3217]

There is no law of chemistry that says we can't demineralize a fossil and find remnants of soft tissue. And there is no law of chemisry that proides evidence of talking snakes.

[@therick363]

Back that claim up…..

[@michaelg377]

@@saintmalaclypse3217 Yet you believe you are an evolved fish and a talking ape - also consider parrots - why the incredulity...? But you should know that the Bible also does not contain "talking snakes" - there was a "serpent" with legs (qualitatively a different creature) which was either manifested or possessed by a super-natural entity, but not a talking snake - my talking fish-ape friend. Fish don't evolve into philosophers, no matter how much *time* you add to the pot, that's not how "science" works.

[@cosmictreason2242]

@@therick363see video

[@jockyoung4491]

@@cosmictreason2242 There is nothing in this video that confirmed ANYTHING about God. Obviously.

[@Justpassinthetime]

With them sending out articles to professors trying to cover up their tracks and still spread disinformation is disgusting

[@Gek1177]

AiG is a disinformation factory.

[@michaelg377]

@@Gek1177 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?

[@Gek1177]

@@michaelg377 I say that because any person raised to be honest can see that it's clearly true.

[@Harpazo_to_Yeshua]

That's the cult of mythological evolutionism for you. 🤷‍♂

[@Harpazo_to_Yeshua]

@@Gek1177 The myth of evolutionism is not true; it surely is a myth that is pieced together by a cult who seeks to deny the existence of God as Creator. You've sadly fallen for the lie of evolutionism myth. Actual science proves evolutionism to be totally bogus. It uses SOME partial truths, of course, to dupe those who don't look into it in depth. It always reminds me of the Wizard of Oz: "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" Evolutionism is pushed by those who don't want you to see the clear weaknesses in the myth.

[@bufordghoons9981]

Evolution is the new Lysenkoism. Any evidence you present will not change anything. The commissars in our education system and their blinded proselytes will see to that. "But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." --2 Corinthians 4:3 Unbelievers *must* embrace Evolution --man evolved from lower primates, in order to rationalize their belief that there is no God who "in the beginning created...".

[@jockyoung4491]

Present verified scientific evidence that biological evolution can't be true, and that will change everything. Good luck with that.

[@HS-zk5nn]

@@jockyoung4491 present that the theory of common descent is true. prove that LUCA existed.

[@SAMBUT]

because judgement day can be avoided, though denial

[@Gek1177]

Can you please tell me why creationists are so deeply incapable of being honest about what the theory of evolution is and about the current state of science?

[@michaelg377]

@@Gek1177 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? *Did you know that the evolutionary mythology that "we are 99% similar to chimps" has been debunked by modern science?* We were all Uncritically Indoctrinated with this lie as young children. "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). *“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). [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).

[@newcreationinchrist1423]

Soft tissue and carbon in fossils reveal the many lies we have been told about history, growing up. We can trust the word of God in what it says. 🙏🙏🙏🕊️✝️

[@earthisasphere]

No one found soft tissue. Calving is a liar. Read the actual paper.

[@Joshua-nm8we]

​​@@earthisasphereweird so I checked and turns out there wasn't just one instance of soft tissue found. So I guess your wrong. One example was at CSUN where someone found some in a triceratops horn and they fired him for it so he sued them and won. I wonder how he won if he never found it. Eerie *x-files music*

[@jaysons6101]

@@Joshua-nm8we soft tissue can also be fossilized, but its still not evidence of dinosaurs living with us.

[@Giacobbo88]

I love scientists who dislike data that does not match their understanding of what they think they know

[@CiscoWes]

They like to shoe-horn data to fit preconceived notions.

[@nathancook2852]

@@CiscoWes I see you all have met Calvin.

[@graemeross6970]

And creationists don't?

[@CiscoWes]

@@graemeross6970 At least creation relies on observations.

[@CiscoWes]

@@nathancook2852 Who is Calvin?

[@mk71b]

20:54 Provide them with a little bit of doubt so they can justify to themselves to hold on to the lies and cognitive dissonance. It's a temporary pacifier for adults.

[@heinpereboom5521]

Schweitzer did experiments for preserving tissue, but did she also discover such substances in the tissue she discovered? I hear nothing about that.

[@jockyoung4491]

Then read her conclusions and find out. You hear what you want to hear.

[@slartibartfast5643]

Which of her papers on the subject have you read in their entirety, including the supplemental data?

[@l.m.892]

@@jockyoung4491 Schweitzer is not a chemist. How might you not know that? It's blatantly obvious she was coached into her "conclusion".

[@heinpereboom5521]

@@jockyoung4491 From what I've heard it's only this movie, so what are you suggesting?

[@heinpereboom5521]

@@slartibartfast5643 What I've heard is only this movie and that's what I'm responding to, so what are you trying to tell me?

[@clintonsmith9931]

Today that ice cream could survive, so many precservites.

[@michaelg377]

I hear Wal Mart's ice cream sandwiches literally do not melt. I haven't tested it.

[@calvinsmith7575]

😄

[@l.m.892]

What type of selective advantage would there be to preserve soft tissues for 60 million years?

[@dennisanderson3895]

What a powerful video! Well, for folks of a mind to apply scientific inquiry. It opens such deep doors but they are doors that may leads others to His Word.

[@saintmalaclypse3217]

Yeah, not one thing about new chemical processes points towards the bronze age authors of some unverifiable, anonymous texts being right. Believe it or not, the discovery of new chemical processes leads people to...*drumroll*...STUDY those new chemical processes! How bizarre, right?!

[@michaelg377]

@@saintmalaclypse3217 Amen, and as Atheistic evolution is constantly radically ad-hoc rewriting and making up excuses for the evidence, all the same best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, no rewrite required. 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]

@@michaelg377 keep lying coward

[@mirandahotspring4019]

Calvin certainly elevates BS to pseudoscientific levels!

[@nathancook2852]

WHAAAAAAT?? There is no scientific inquiry here. It opens zero doors to "His Word." This has been known for 20 years. It opened up new doors for scientists to understand how fossils can be preserved. But Calvin won't tell you that.

[@clint8u]

Gods Truth will Always Stand !!!

[@michaelg377]

*"In the face of today's widespread secular religion, admitting that the earth isn't very old would have the ideological impact of a nuclear warhead."* So true, and therein lies the problem... LGBTQ, abortion and human rights, government funding, how taxes are collected and administered, international conflicts with countries that have differing policies in these areas, men participating in women's Olympics competitions... If evolution and 'billions of years' are wrong, then that influences our entire political agenda, worldwide - hence, the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers must survive at all costs, even to the point of making up excuses for the evidence. *The evolutionist doesn't need evidence - they only need an excuse.* All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, except as Atheistic Evolution is constantly radically ad-hoc rewriting itself and making up excuses for problematic evidences, a biblical worldview explains all the same evidences just fine - no rewrite required. *"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them."* (Romans 1:18-19) *"They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness."* (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12)

[@therick363]

There’s the copy paste spamming dishonest disrespectful liar!!

[@nathancook2852]

Dr. Mary Schweitzer, who believes in a 13.8 byo universe, a 4.5 byo earth, and evolution (she even taught classes on evolution) who was a YEC before studying thousands of fossils first hand, has the following to say about YEC's. "I appreciate Kevin Anderson’s thoughtful engagement with my ideas regarding soft-tissue preservation, but I disagree with his conclusions. Simply put, soft-tissue preservation in fossils is not a valid scientific argument for a young Earth, nor does it provide evidence that the fossil record was laid down as a result of a recent, global flood." “One thing that does bother me, though, is that young earth creationists take my research and use it for their own message, and I think they are misleading people about it. Pastors and evangelists, who are in a position of leadership, are doubly responsible for checking facts and getting things right, but they have misquoted me and misrepresented the data. They’re looking at this research in terms of a false dichotomy [science versus faith] and that doesn’t do anybody any favors.” “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.”

[@apoliticalobserver2741]

@@therick363 Copy paste spamming dishonest disrespectful liar AND Big0t.

[@michaelg377]

@@nathancook2852 We are all Uncritically Indoctrinated into this modern mythology of evolution as young children, so it's no wonder there is so much groupthink and confusion today. None of her words were twisted in this video - her beliefs in the billions of years worldview is irrelevant, her evidence and statements were accurately represented.

[@calvinsmith7575]

Writing a series right now with this exact theme in mind.

[@SalvableRuin]

I think the ice age that occurred after the flood likely had a hand in preserving many soft tissues in dinosaur remains that had been buried by the flood.

[@jockyoung4491]

The ice age was over 11,000 years ago, so was the flood before that?

[@NoiTuLovE64]

​@@jockyoung4491Were you there then? There's wide conflicting agreements to the number of years ago of when the last so-called "ice age" happened. And yet, it did occur indeed. I'll give you that.

[@jockyoung4491]

@@NoiTuLovE64 We actually know quite precisely when the last ice age terminated, because it happened very suddenly around 11,700 years ago. And people were there, but that's not how we know. We can date it directly with the ice cores.

[@seanmataera7101]

@@jockyoung4491 In your head no one was even there to begin with.

[@seanmataera7101]

@@jockyoung4491 Not really because a world war 2 squadron was found 260 feet deep in the same ice cores you claim are billions and none of the people you claim were there claimed to it was 11,000 years that's the flaw in your assumption.

[@fouracrefamily9801]

Where's moist-robot..? he hasn't left a comment yet?!

[@NoiTuLovE64]

Don't be surprised they get replaced with new "bot" names, like "Tombomtard" or "Melting-robot"

[@HS-zk5nn]

short circuited 😁😁

[@HS-zk5nn]

@@NoiTuLovE64 yep many of them are the same person

[@derekdavis3004]

@@HS-zk5nn lol

[@logicalatheist1065]

​@@HS-zk5nnAIG doesn't contribute anything to the scientific community. You're scientifically illiterate, you wouldn't understand

[@gfinzer]

Excellent presentation

[@nathancook2852]

Dr. Mary Schweitzer, a devout Christian and former YEC, says the following of YEC's... "I appreciate Kevin Anderson’s thoughtful engagement with my ideas regarding soft-tissue preservation, but I disagree with his conclusions. Simply put, soft-tissue preservation in fossils is not a valid scientific argument for a young Earth, nor does it provide evidence that the fossil record was laid down as a result of a recent, global flood." “One thing that does bother me, though, is that young earth creationists take my research and use it for their own message, and I think they are misleading people about it. Pastors and evangelists, who are in a position of leadership, are doubly responsible for checking facts and getting things right, but they have misquoted me and misrepresented the data. They’re looking at this research in terms of a false dichotomy [science versus faith] and that doesn’t do anybody any favors.” “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.”

[@l.m.892]

@@nathancook2852 "Dr. Mary Schweitzer, a devout Christian and former YEC" How might the rest of us know you're telling the truth?

[@TheHeggert]

Thank you for this very thorough and understandable explanation. You know when someone is thoroughly explaining the other sides' argument that they are attempting to be intellectually honest rather than score points for their team.

[@therick363]

….sarcasm or serious?

[@earthisasphere]

Calvin couldn't explain evolution if his life depended on it.

[@mattweeeee]

You guys have pulled me back to reality. God bless you and thank you for your hard work. Darwin screwed my head up.

[@calvinsmith7575]

You are welcome : )

[@nathancook2852]

So you like being lied too? Have fun with that.

[@mattweeeee]

@@nathancook2852 I was lied to from 3rd grade until I was 39. I’ve had enough of the lies, I take comfort in knowing the truth of this world. I hope someday that you see the truth as well.

[@therick363]

@@mattweeeeewhat are these lies?

[@michaelg377]

@@therick363 *Did you know that the evolutionary mythology that "we are 99% similar to apes" has been debunked by modern science?* We were all Uncritically Indoctrinated with this lie as young children. *“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).

[@yvonnehedeker3441]

"The way of the fool is right in his own eyes." Proverbs 12:15 Thank you and God bless you for all the work putting this together in such a clear, calm, and professional manner!

[@rf7477]

I theism was wise then it wouldn't have invented a petulant god.

[@nathancook2852]

It would be wise of you to actually read Dr. Schweitzer's work. Then you could see that Calvin is lying to you.

[@michaelg377]

@@nathancook2852 With respect, so says the one who keeps misrepresenting her quotes yourself - you really should watch this video my friend, then you'll see some of it for yourself, if you're honest.

[@nathancook2852]

@@michaelg377 I haven't misrepresented anything. Look up the quotes. They are in context. You however, get paid $0.75 to lie by the post.

[@michaelg377]

@@nathancook2852 You said *"They didn't even find "soft tissue"* as Calvin reports. It was *petrified, hard as a rock.* Calvin portrays it as if the blood was still flowing." (Nathancook2852, 24 August 2024) Compare to: "...here they are... blood vessels, *transparent, hollow, pliable, flexible branching blood vessels* that contained *small round red micro structures floating* in the vessels. I said 'this is not possible. Do it again.... when you think about it, the laws of chemistry and biology and everything else that we know say that it should be gone, it should be degraded completely...." (Dr. Mary Schweitzer) And you also said: "He just lies by omission, and probably flat out lies as well. I watched the two videos the first time he put them out, *didn't rewatch it now so I can't recall if he directly lies in this one or not."* (Nathancook2852, 24 August 2024). When a man lies, he lies to himself. You are not fooling anyone but yourself my friend.

[@kennethkatekovich9243]

great work. I particularly like how mad evolutionists get about your videos. its beautiful. keep it up.

[@therick363]

Because this channel thinks it’s okay to lie. Shall I lie about things and see how you like it?

[@therick363]

@@joefriday2275there’s the liar and coward

[@nathancook2852]

I get mad at liars. I don't like flat earthers either.

[@l.m.892]

@@therick363 "Shall I lie about things and see how you like it?" You just did.

[@l.m.892]

@@nathancook2852 Why so many software troolbots (like you)? Too much truth for humans to handle.

[@samburns3329]

Did the Joe Friday troll take his ball and go home? Or did all those reports to YT about his incessant trolling finally do some good?

[@Bomtombadi1]

Yes, he did! Finally! We are almost seeing the same with MichaelG

[@therick363]

About time. I mean it took them long enough

[@BruceFox-Lefriche]

I was wondering exactly the same. Looks like good news. Funnily enough, I shaln't miss him.

[@BruceFox-Lefriche]

@@Bomtombadi1 Certainly hope so. Michaelg was probably the most tiresome of the lot.

[@Bomtombadi1]

my guess is MichaelG is still watching. Last time he got called out for being a bot, he disappeared and then reappeared as if to prove he’s not one. Pretty fragile ego. He’s been called a bot a few times and my guess is he’s working on more copypastas. He’ll be back with new material again to prove he’s not a bot and has more substance than a paid shill for AiG.

[@danielmathews63]

Good stuff buddy

[@baileypanama]

This information been out years ago. People are just now catching on

[@nathancook2852]

Sometimes it takes a while to figure out a coward like Calvin is actually lying to you in every video.

[@samuelrodriguez9199]

Dinosaurs definitely lived among us. No question. The real question is, what finally killed them off? Likely humans hunting them and not being able to adapt to the different clinate changes that occurred after the flood itself.

[@nathancook2852]

Dino's never lived among us. There is no evidence to even suggest they did.

[@samuelrodriguez9199]

@@nathancook2852 wrong on all counts brother but you believe what you want. God's word is always going to prove true and will endure long after this world is gone.

[@nathancook2852]

@@samuelrodriguez9199 There is no proof corroborating the Bible. Good try though.

[@samuelrodriguez9199]

@@nathancook2852 speak for yourself. Lol You atheists are funny, man.

[@Bomtombadi1]

Cool story, Sammy. Too bad there isn’t a shred of evidence for your conjecture. But hey! Keep up the fantastic work fiction. It is how 50 Shades of Gray was written

[@steelersMIZ]

Atheist mad on this one😢😂

[@Bomtombadi1]

For deliberate misrepresentation and quote mining? Yes, I’m sure they will be

[@jockyoung4491]

This video makes no argument against atheism. And what does atheism have to do with science anyway?

[@gubernator4814]

@@jockyoung4491 Atheists like to use Science to "prove" their religion, which is kinda hypocritical.

[@TearDownThisWall]

@@jockyoung4491 Everything. Is it a coincidence that most establishment owned "scientists" are atheists?

[@forestlaycock8996]

@@jockyoung4491 i hope you are not serous

[@larrybedouin2921]

The story of evolution reads much the same as a children's fiction novel does.

[@apoliticalobserver2741]

To most creationists scientific knowledge must sound like children's fiction.

[@larrybedouin2921]

​@@apoliticalobserver2741 The story of evolution isn't scientific knowledge.

[@jockyoung4491]

How do you know? You don't even know what it says.

[@HS-zk5nn]

shapeshifting just like the potter series

[@WeBareTheBears]

Sometimes I wonder if creationists are being satire if they really think that this analogy doesn't apply to their religious holy book? 🤔

[@gregghumphreys5455]

Now they are just saying that, it's all amazing & surprising how long this collagen & blood vessels ect have lasted and now we're looking into why it lasts for so long. So they are coming at it from, dinosaurs must be millions of years old and that's it, period.

[@nathancook2852]

They found petrified iron from the blood....Calvin is a liar.

[@IAMMRPATRICKBORNAGAIN]

Mark H. Armitage was part of this as well. He has a channel talking about this very subject.

[@samburns3329]

Mark Armitage the scientifically incompetent YEC and microscope technician who found a late Pleistocene bison horn and mistook it for a triceratops horn, then got all excited when he found unfossilized biomatter in it? Mark Armitage who had the find radiocarbon dated and refused to show the results of 41,000 years BP because he was embarrassed by them? Mark Armitage who to this day refuses to let qualified paleontologists examine the find? That Mark Armitage? 😂

[@michaelg377]

@@samburns3329 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 my atheist friend... when all the right chemicals just happened to fizz into all the necessary proteins required for life (already an atheistic miracle), and then programmed themselves with mass quantities of ordered, sequenced, encoded instructions in its DNA (information from non-information without an intelligent source), and then into all the necessary cell components inside of a cell enclosure by chance chemical reactions... *how did it overcome the problem of hydrolysis which inhibits protein formation in water?* Here are a few examples of what scientists who actually work with this say about it: *"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.) Minimum requirements for a simpler cell: *"The minimal gene set* included genes for: DNA replication, repair, restriction, and modification; a basic transcription machinery; aminoacyl-tRNA synthesis; tRNA maturation and modification; ribosomal proteins; ribosome function, maturation, and modification; translation factors; RNA degradation; protein processing, folding, and secretion; cellular division; transport; energetic and intermediary metabolism (glycosis, proton motive force generation, pentose phosphate pathway, lipid metabolism, and biosynthesis of nucleotides and cofactors)." (Joana C. Xavier, Kiran Raosaheb Pahl, Isabel Rocha, *"Systems Biology Perspectives on Minimal and Simpler Cells,"* Microbiol Mol Biol Rev, 2014 Sep 76(3): 487-509).

[@samburns3329]

@@michaelg377 Michael why do you hate God? Why do you embarrass all honest Christians by lying in His name?

[@logicalatheist1065]

When are the creationists going to tell all the biologists they are wrong. ?

[@OgdenCrimmcramer8162]

They're on the list after the geologists, and paleontologists, and geneticists, and physics researchers. 😆

[@logicalatheist1065]

​@@OgdenCrimmcramer8162😂😂😂

[@l.m.892]

Your wording is deceptive. Your punctuation follows.

[@logicalatheist1065]

​@@l.m.892cry about it, the message gets across.

[@logicalatheist1065]

​@@l.m.892ok...?

[@jgrahamiii7749]

Since the evolutionary crowd embraces radiometric dating, why not subject these samples to a test?

[@nathancook2852]

Please, do. You won't like the results.

[@nathancook2852]

@@joefriday2275 Still peddling the same lies I see.

[@CiscoWes]

@@nathancook2852 The results are manipulated to conform to what you want it to be.

[@nathancook2852]

@@CiscoWes Yes, Calvin does lie and manipulate the results. I am glad you realize that.

[@logicalatheist1065]

Science destroys creationism, so the more you dig the more creationism looks idiotic

[@christtheonlyhope4578]

God bless you AIG 🙏

[@rf7477]

Why? Actually, god has never blessed anyone. He seems indifferent.

[@christtheonlyhope4578]

@@rf7477 how would you know if God has blessed anyone or not? "He seems indifferent" since you don't know, why speculate?

[@rf7477]

@@christtheonlyhope4578 Um, a christian asking me to not speculate? How odd. gods don't bless anyone. That would be elitist, and immoral. I doubt very much that you have the authority to extend a blessing from even your own god. The complete absence of deified blessing on those who need it most indicates indifference. BTW every time you utter the word god you are speculating.

[@christtheonlyhope4578]

@@rf7477 you are welcome to believe whatever you wish. Nobody is stopping you. As for me I will serve the Lord forever. Until the day I die.

[@rf7477]

@@christtheonlyhope4578 According to christian theology you have no choice. In fact you must continue to do that in some sort of post organic state for eternity or risk a fate worse than death. That is something far more sinister than mere servitude. Why an omnipotent deity requires limitless worship from his fatally flawed children reeks of tyranny. How you have come to believe that perpetuating the philistine 6000 year creation myth is of service to your deity defies logic. I do not require your benefaction, no matter what you believe.

[@Gek1177]

Any creationist watching this video please read the "Not So Dry Bones" article to see what Dr. Schweitzer thinks about what people like Calvin are doing with her work.

[@Gek1177]

@@joefriday2275 so just do it. See what the person who actually did the research thinks about apologists twisting her work.

[@Gek1177]

@@joefriday2275 "One thing that does bother me, though, is that young earth creationists take my research and use it for their own message, and I think they are misleading people about it. Pastors and evangelists, who are in a position of leadership, are doubly responsible for checking facts and getting things right, but they have misquoted me and misrepresented the data." Mary Schweitzer

[@logicalatheist1065]

​@@joefriday2275 separate findings? AIG hasn't contributed anything to science ...

[@logicalatheist1065]

​@@joefriday2275young earth creationists are scientifically illiterate, yes... They shouldn't talk science...

[@logicalatheist1065]

​@@joefriday2275science isn't an opinion...

[@donaldmiller2963]

Loved it, Calvin!!!

[@Ninjaskeptic]

I have a question, do these creationists actually think this stuff is rational? Or are they being intentionally dishonest?

[@samburns3329]

@@joefriday2275 *They're being dishonest.* Joe the troll accidentally describes creationists correctly for once.

[@Bomtombadi1]

@@joefriday2275hey Joey! Back to tattletale on people? Does it make you feel safe?

[@lindavanzwol2643]

I'm wondering that about team evolution too. They don't take the debunking of evolution well 😊

[@Bomtombadi1]

@@lindavanzwol2643 except evolution isn’t debunked. Sorry. Creationists lying to maintain their pinheaded beliefs is a creationist problem.

[@calvinsmith7575]

I have a question, do these evolutionists actually think this stuff is rational? Or are they being intentionally dishonest?

[@logicalatheist1065]

Creationists are the most dishonest people ive ever come across

[@Columbo-r4z]

I think Calvin claims that Mary Schweitzer is not a real Christian because she’s an evolutionist.

[@logicalatheist1065]

She would be a better Christian , she doesn't lie ... ​@@Columbo-r4z

[@l.m.892]

@@Columbo-r4z Show me a single traceable reference where she says she is a Christian.

[@l.m.892]

I could truthfully say the same thing about atheists, and give instance after instance where I was lied to. How would we know you aren't lying in the face of what you presece as an existential threat? Christians have a standard for truth and a reason to uphold it. Atheists don't.

[@jameshale6401]

Honest😮 Is a unlocked car safer at a church or bar or rock concert or a gay parade or public school or college😮

[@SamsonVegas]

Another long pointy nail in the evolutionist coffin!

[@jockyoung4491]

How so? What if there HAD been a recent T-rex? That still wouldn't refute any of the obvious evidence for biological evolution.

[@gubernator4814]

@@jockyoung4491 Aren't they saying that dinosaurs went extinct?

[@jockyoung4491]

@@gubernator4814 As far as we know, all non-avian dinosaurs went extinct, yes. But if that turned out to be wrong, it wouldn't change the probability of EITHER evolution or creation being true. It would just mean dinosaurs didn't go extinct.

[@Paul-sv5qb]

@@jockyoung4491 So do we throw out the dating methods used to date the original fossil samples? remember the samples age was determined by common dating methods used in long age dating.This would be alot bigger problem for evolution

[@gubernator4814]

@@jockyoung4491 Problem, it is told in the video that the tissue that was taken was from dinosaur that lived over "8 mln years away"

[@danielanthony8373]

The Universe is 14 billion years old This points to a moment of creation A point in the past where Time Space and Matter came into existence from something or someone that had to be Timeless Spaceless Immaterial Powerful and Personal This Universe is so extremely fine tuned that the odds of it randomly coming into existence are infinitely remote

[@rf7477]

What has any of that got to do with the 6000 year tale promoted by AIG? Are you going to attribute everything to an invisible yet infinite omnipotence? Then you must consider that this creator is also possibly malevolent or at least indifferent.

[@solipsist3949]

I was with you right up to the Personal. The universe seems to me to be anything but. It's not listening or paying attention to puny, predatory, pugnacious, pestilential, overly populated primates.

[@calvinsmith7575]

How do you know its 14 billion years old? That's not what the Bible says...

[@solipsist3949]

The fine tuning argument is interesting at many levels. Examples of fine-tuned systems can be found from the cosmic level to cell biology and ecology, down to particle physics. Why? Meanwhile, absence of evidence of life or tech on exoplanets and the advances in astronomy tell us that advanced forms of life may be extremely rare out there. It's possible that the Earth's biosphere (loosely including humanity) is a one-off in our galaxy, if not beyond. One thing we know for sure is that it happened here. Could the universe have been different, making it sterile, with nobody there to look at it? Good it have been even better and be teeming with life? Can't say.

[@jasc4364]

I stumbled on this channel and I don’t know if I should cry or laugh.

[@calvinsmith7575]

Weep?

[@therick363]

@@calvinsmith7575it’s both because how blatantly dishonest and disrespectful your are

[@earthisasphere]

I sometimes laugh so hard at their nonsense that I cry.

[@billy19461]

Amen!

[@prk30]

Show evolutionists all the data, but they won't change their minds. Evolutionism is a creed that is absolutely impervious to facts.

[@therick363]

Sigh. Would you like an adult reply or shall I reply how you posted?

[@prk30]

@@therick363 If I said anything nonsense, you should have refuted me by now. Since you haven't refuted anything, I suppose you have nothing to say to me.

[@BruceFox-Lefriche]

Once again, when you don't understand the first thing about a subject, you can always fall back on meaningless slogans such as "evolutionism is a creed". Have you ever even spent a single day alongside an evolutionary biologist (the term "evolutionist" also falls into the "unthinking slogan" category) or a geologist, seeing how research is carried out, how data are assessed, how findings are scrupulously compared and reviewed ? Can you give me one example - one single example - of a piece of scientific evidence that has given Calvin Smith or his fellow creationists pause to reconsider the tiniest detail of the Genesis myth ? An "evolutionist" as you choose to call them would give you 1000 examples that have permitted scientists to adjust, correct, complete and refine their understanding of the world and of the universe, as research has progressed from generation to generation, free from the shackles of sclerotic creationist dogma.

[@Gek1177]

​@@prk30there is no data that supports creationism.

[@therick363]

@@prk30 okay so you can’t handle answering a simple question. I offered you an opportunity for adult conversation. You showed you don’t deserve it. I’ll help you but I doubt you’ll actually address anything which makes you reply here to me pure hypocrisy. Evolutionists? Why aren’t you saying scientists? That would be accurate but you can’t handle being honest. Why don’t you present some SCIENTIFIC data disproving the theory? Why don’t you? If you claim to have it the do it….. Evolution is a scientific theory. It’s a fact it happens. Do you criticize plate tectonics or gravity theory? I bet not. It’s also funny you say I haven’t refuted anything when all I was doing was asking if you wanted an adult conversation…. As well as how your comment didn’t refute anything!

[@Shane_The_Confessor]

Here come all the evangelizing atheists desperate to unironically convince everyone that nothing matters.

[@therick363]

Sigh. Shall I reply like you or more mature

[@Shane_The_Confessor]

@@therick363 You wrote the word "sigh" down, which is pretty cringe, so that really sets the tempo.

[@therick363]

@@Shane_The_Confessor not it’s not cringe. And mate you set the tempo with your opening post. And considering you couldn’t answer my question I’ll take it that you’re not ready for respectful discussion? I get you can’t be honest about atheists, cause it ruins all your arguments.

[@therick363]

@@joefriday2275 not at all Joe Joe. But we all see how you only have childish comments and lie.

[@Shane_The_Confessor]

@@therick363 You get nothing, or else you wouldn't be an atheist. If you were really committed to atheism you wouldn't be here trying to discuss the topic because you would get that we're all random cosmic fizz and we have no free will, just atoms colliding. I have no control over the words I'm typing right now. You didn't decide on atheism because of the evidence or lack thereof, you were programed by a random collection of chemicals in your head. You're a walking absurdity machine.

[@boni2786]

Great!

[@KristianHannler]

Great video! I was a convinced evolutionist for many years. I was also a convinced atheist. I hated Christianity extremely much! However, I am a christian now! I recommend to study the arguments for and against young earth creationism! I also recommend to study the arguments for and against the resurrection of Jesus! Read about Gary Habermas minimal facts approach to the resurrection of Jesus, and read about the Shroud of Turin!

[@Bomtombadi1]

Wow! A typical, “I was once a hateful atheist, and now I’m a dedicated Christian,” story! Let’s chalk this up to never happened!

[@OgdenCrimmcramer8162]

@@joefriday2275 100% of the comments you post are full of hateful lies. Where do you think your hate comes from? And the need to express your hate to the people you hate?

[@logicalatheist1065]

​@@joefriday2275it's not hate when all you demonstrate is ignorance...

[@Bomtombadi1]

@@joefriday2275 having disdain for you is a fun pastime

[@BruceFox-Lefriche]

@@joefriday2275 There is more hatred in the Bible than in all scientific literature put together. Hatred is the foundation stone of the teachings in the Old Testament, and upon those foundations, the building blocks of biblical teaching are injustice, immorality, torture, rape and murder.

[@robertulrich3964]

The part I like the best is that they can't deny the evidence they can only say that evolution uses magical properties to support their worldview LOL

[@therick363]

Oh the irony and hypocrisy. Evolution is a scientific theory. Do you know what that means? Do you say the same about “magical properties” when talking about gravity or plate tectonics?

[@michaelg377]

Evolution is actually not a scientific theory - it's a constantly radically ad-hoc rewritten atheistic origins mythology about the unobservable past, and that's just not how "science" works. *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 in an Arkansas federal court, the 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 transitional form 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 - forcing 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.... except as atheistic evolution is constantly radically ad-hoc rewriting itself, a biblical worldview explains all the same evidences just fine - no rewrite required. *"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)

[@nathancook2852]

@@michaelg377I see you are still trying to hijack threads to keep others from learning.

[@therick363]

@@michaelg377still lying coward

[@robertulrich3964]

@@therick363 evolution as a theory falls under "historical science" not observable science. Besides its an appeal to authority fallacy to assume anyway. Remember when the earth was the center of the universe? You should think for yourself and not run to the nearest Nature/NIH article.

[@bohem5568]

Science goes by discovery and changes in accordance with facts and empirical evidence. Explained. Has nothing to do with being religious or not.

[@michaelg377]

Science is a methodology - many people today confuse it with an "Ideology" called Atheistic-Naturalism ("evolution," "billions of years," "big bang,' "abiogenesis," "oort clouds," "dynamos," "early greenhouse gas atmosphere," etc.). Science is a great tool for testing and measuring naturalistic phenomena - but Atheistic-naturalism Assumes A Priori that "nature" is all there is, and by conflating this Ideology (Atheistic-naturalism) with the Methodology (Science) they literally build up an origins mythology that excludes God a priori. It's a deliberately closed minded worldview, and atheistic evolution is a constantly radically ad-hoc rewritten worldview because it simply does not match reality.

[@therick363]

@@michaelg377 keep lying there. We all see the cowardness of you

[@sciencerules2825]

Interesting. I posted two recent peer-reviewed scientific papers with a detailed explanation of the mechanisms for soft tissue preservation in fossils. Not a *single creationist* read the papers or would comment, except for serial liar Michael who has to spam every conversation with his same repetitive lies.

[@1VFA666]

It's been my experience in 20 years of debates creationists are not only compulsive liars they are also abject intellectual cowards.

[@michaelg377]

And both of these above are Ad-Hominem logical fallacies - your trolling, name calling, and bullying tactics speak volumes about what is really going on here. I actually did address your comments - and the abstracts that you copied and pasted championed content that was already addressed in this video. Just watch the video my friend. Blessings to you and yours. "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)

[@rf7477]

@@michaelg377 and yet you are quite happy to bring down the wrath of your sinister sky giant on anybody that you declare to be wicked. And then bless them. Or the other way round. The greatest implement of bullying is the invisible one. BTW when are you actually going to say that nothing, including light, is older than 6000 years? Quoting someone who has been obliquely credited with resurrection will not help you disprove evolution.

[@michaelg377]

@@rf7477 That's 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 - which is scientifically ludicrous for reason we are discussing in the thread above. Also, your Red Herring on Paul has already been answered, it's just not a good argument - check out "Did Paul deny the virgin birth?" at CARM my friend... don't trust everything you read on Atheist Activist sites, it's almost always shallowly researched and twisted out of context. *All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12 - and your true motive of your hatred for God is showing.* Blessings to you and yours my friend, no ill will intended. *"All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"* (Romans 3:23) "Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as *our dear brother Paul* also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. *His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."* (2 Peter 3:15-16)

[@rf7477]

@@michaelg377 Peter didn't believe in virgin birth either. Nor do you. If you are going to bless me try not to do it out of spite.

[@solipsist3949]

"To Schweitzer, trying to prove your religious beliefs through empirical evidence is absurd, if not sacrilegious. 'If God is who He says He is, He doesn't need us to twist and contort scientific data,' she says. 'The thing that's most important to God is our faith. Therefore, He's not going to allow Himself to be proven by scientific methodologies.' Some creationists, noting Schweitzer's evangelical faith, have tried to pressure her into siding with them. 'It is high time that the 'Scientific' community comes clean: meaning that the public is going to hold them ACCOUNTABLE when they find out that they have been misled,' reads a recent e-mail message Schweitzer received. She has received dozens of similar notes, a few of them outright menacing. These religious attacks wound her far more than the scientific ones. 'It rips my guts out,' she says. 'These people are claiming to represent the Christ that I love. They're not doing a very good job. It's no wonder that a lot of my colleagues are atheists.' She told one zealot, 'You know, if the only picture of Christ I had was your attitude towards me, I'd run.' Ironically, the insides of Cretaceous-era dinosaur bones have only deepened Schweitzer's faith. 'My God has gotten so much bigger since I've been a scientist,' she says. 'He doesn't stay in my boxes.'" (Discover Magazine)

[@nathancook2852]

She has made many statements like this. She grew up a YEC and they are pissed off because after she studied the evidence, she now understands there is no possible way the Earth is only 6,000 yrs old.

[@michaelg377]

@@nathancook2852 She's also fallen victim to the groupthink in that community - if she were to advocate for "YEC" then she would be attacked, as she was, by evolutionists across the board. People like you would troll her, and probably put her career and reputation in jeopardy. An example of evolutionist pushback was shared in this video even - it's no secret. We are all Uncritically Indoctrinated into this modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, derived from Lyellian-Darwinian intent to "separate science from Moses." It's no wonder there's so much confusion and groupthink today, even among Christians. ...but fish don't evolve into philosophers; no emotion or name calling required.

[@samburns3329]

@@michaelg377 Michael why do you hate God?

[@samburns3329]

This video shows how little morals creationists like Calvin have. Attacking and attempting to smear a devout Christian woman simply because she had the audacity to do honest scientific work they didn't like. Shame.

[@michaelg377]

@@samburns3329 No one here is attacking Mary Schweitzer my friend - in fact in this video it was evolutionists who were attacking her (!!!). In questioning her research and naturalistic excuses for the evidence, however, consider her experiment used as justification for dinosaur soft tissue preservation... she put *ostrich meat* in a *pure hemoglobin (iron)* solution in a *controlled laboratory* environment at *room temperature,* and preserved that meat for *2 years.* Based on this, evolutionists now believe that *dinosaur tissues* with no *pure hemoglobin (iron)* solution in an *uncontrolled* external environment at *variable temperatures* were preserved for *35,000,000 times as long as her experiment.* .... evolutionists don't need evidence, they just need an excuse... Fish don't evolve into philosophers, no matter how much *time* you add to the mix. That's just not how "science" (a methodology) works.

[@v1e1r1g1e1]

EVIDENCE: The soft tissue found in fossil remains is a clear indication that dinosaurs did not die out as long ago as previous theories claim. SCIENTISTS: We're not about to give up our theories just yet. Make the evidence fit into the theory. We call this part of our particular interpretation of the Scientific Method.

[@therick363]

Creationists: we have to lie and can’t even be honest about what is a scientific theory.

[@nathancook2852]

Scientists: Every piece of evidence we have supports evolution and an old earth and universe. Dr. Schweitzer is rightfully shocked at her discovery, but understands the evidence and realizes there must be some unknown method that preserved this fossil. She does multiple tests and finally figures out how the fossil was preserved, and verifies it with future tests. A new preservation technique was uncovered that broadened our understanding. Creationists: We have zero understanding of science, no willingness to learn, and this doesn't fit my fairy tail -, I have no evidence to support my claim, but "they lied!"

[@mmaimmortals]

It seems like every time a creationist disagrees with the opinions of evolutionists they are accused of lying.

[@therick363]

@@mmaimmortals well that’s probably because they (creationists) demonstrate cherry picking, misrepresenting, or actual lying and hypocrisy. Thats my guess.

[@michaelg377]

@@nathancook2852 All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, and we actually have plenty of evidence for a young universe - it's just that Atheists force the evidence through their paradigm and make excuses for all the obviously young evidences - including these soft tissues in dinosaur fossils which both sides recognized "look young," hence the evolutionist panic, and the preservative theory excuse. *What are your thoughts on the fact that planets and moons in our solar system, including our own Earth, show measurable evidence of being 'young,' not billions of years old?* Magnetic fields on planets in our solar system are measurably young based on data collected through probes we've deployed over the last few decades, and on a billions of years time scale you start to have a lot of problems with them. Creation scientists actually predicted this accurately - the evidence just fits a biblical worldview. We also observe tiny geologically active celestial objects which shouldn't be if billions of years old - like Pluto, Enceladus, Europa, and even our own Moon. There's no way the icy dwarf planet should still be geologically active with active nitrogen flows after 4.5 Billion years - scientists recognize this. Enceladus is spewing out material via a giant geyser, which is not sustainable on a billions of years time scale - secularists have an excuse for this, but that excuse doesn't apply to these other objects which are likewise geologically active - they are observably young. Even our moon was recently observed to be geologically active, including evidence of recent tectonic activity. For another, Jupiter is losing heat at a much faster rate than it is gaining heat from the sun, and this giant gas planet cannot be "billions of years old" as a result. Examples abound - these are problems for the Atheistic-Naturalistic "billions of years" evolutionary worldview - but none of this evidence is a problem if the universe is young, as in a biblical worldview. In fact, it's what we would expect to find. *"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). These evidences (among many others) make sense in a biblical worldview - they look young because they simply are young. Right alongside measurably young comets in our solar system, measurably young tissues found in dinosaur fossils, the faint young sun paradox which causes a lot of problems for early atheistic abiogenesis and evolution, and the sedimentation off the coasts which would have only taken 12 million years to accumulate (assuming atheistic naturalist standards), among many others. In contrast, Atheistic-Naturalists like yourself have to invoke a number of various excuses to *circumvent these problematic young evidences and sustain your modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers and puddles can fizz into people if you just add enough Time.* Is that how "science" is supposed to work? Meanwhile, *All 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)

[@lesscommonsense1804]

Textbooks will have to be rewritten but the word of God never will.

[@nathancook2852]

The "word of god" has been rewritten an innumerable number of times.

[@lesscommonsense1804]

@@nathancook2852 The word you are looking for is “translated”

[@michaelg377]

@@nathancook2852 that's just not true, it has actually been verifiably transmitted with over 99% accuracy over the last 2300+ years based on tangible manuscript evidence that we have in hand (Dead Sea Scrolls, Septuagint, etc.), and the remaining 1% is almost always easily resolved through the discipline of Textual Criticism, and never even once affects a major doctrine. It's unparalleled.

[@logicalatheist1065]

​@@michaelg377source: trust me bro

[@logicalatheist1065]

​@@lesscommonsense1804rewritten, retranslated many times

[@solipsist3949]

Fact: Every objective, qualified geologist, paleontologist, etc. in the world knows all about Schweitzer's work, yet they all still seem to agree that both the bone and the rock it was embedded in are far older than 6000 or 10,000 years, actually well into the millions. You'll never find even one who claims otherwise and isn't on some apologist payroll. 99.99% of legitimate, working scientists will tell you the same thing about life, the Earth and the universe. That's plenty good enough for me.

[@michaelg377]

That's an Ad-Populum logical fallacy - and that's because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers, and if you just wait a really long *time* puddles of chemicals can fizz into people by chance. We are all Uncritically Indoctrinated into this modern constantly radically ad-hoc rewritten atheistic origins mythology as young children, so it's no wonder there's so much groupthink and confusion. *How many PhD creationist technical papers do you suppose a PhD evolutionist had to read in their education? But how many PhD evolutionist technical papers do you suppose a PhD creationist had to evaluate in their secular education? One side lives in a closed-minded bubble, the other has to evaluate both worldviews.* Why follow the bubble crowd...? *"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."* (Matthew 5:28) *"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 myth"* (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

[@burnttoast2790]

@@michaelg377 *That's an Ad-Populum logical fallacy* I mean, you'd have a point, if it weren't for the fact that these are all the experts on the topic, who actually go out and do studies, the very people we would -expect_ to be creationists if that's what the evidence pointed towards. But no, they're overwhelmingly _not_ creationists. So sure, don't trust their word from the get-go, but you _should_ still consider the question, of what they know that you don't. *We are all Uncritically Indoctrinated into this modern constantly radically ad-hoc rewritten atheistic origins mythology as young children, so it's no wonder there's so much groupthink and confusion.* You mean that children are educated about science, and what's known is what's taught. You just wanna whine like a pathetic child that your particular beliefs aren't being taught; like a kid complaining that doctors aren't having expectant mothers build nests on their roof to accommodate the incoming stork. *How many PhD creationist technical papers do you suppose a PhD evolutionist had to read in their education? But how many PhD evolutionist technical papers do you suppose a PhD creationist had to evaluate in their secular education? One side lives in a closed-minded bubble, the other has to evaluate both worldviews.* The reason one won't see any YEC technical papers when studying those fields typically described as "evolutionist" (usually biology, geology, cosmology, physics, and a handful of other related topics) is for a similar reason that WWII mechanics never really saw any planes with bullet holes to the more vital parts; the planes couldn't survive the damage, and the YEC papers (whenever y'all actually muster up the brass pair to submit any) never survive the scrutiny of peer review. *Why follow the bubble crowd...?* The _real_ bubble crowd is the creationists, because y'all tend to outright shun any non-creationist source for no other reason than that it isn't creationist, and instead focus entirely upon the non-peer reviewed journals of websites that themselves are exclusively creationist, and go so far as to have statements of faith admitting to such dishonesty. There's a reason creationist papers don't even _try_ getting submitted with any regularity, and it's because y'all's "research" couldn't survive an ounce of scrutiny.

[@samburns3329]

Michael the lying Godbot just doesn't that "AIG says NUH-UH!" isn't scientific evidence against evolution.

[@nathancook2852]

@@joefriday2275 Oh look, Joe and Michael making fools of themselves again!

[@solipsist3949]

@@michaelg377 "One side lives in a closed-minded bubble..." Again, textbook projection, my friend. There aren't enough creation 'scientists' to even keep up with what real researchers are doing. The latter have no time for, or interest in following ultra-fringe conspiracy theories - uh, creationist so-called 'technical papers', a contradiction in terms. Apparently, you're referring to bible verses, which (surprise) aren't peer-reviewed. 'They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myth.' In fairness, your god nailed that one for reelz!

[@bennielaars]

Quote Mary Schweitzer: “One thing that does bother me, though, is that young earth creationists take my research and use it for their own message, and I think they are misleading people about it. Pastors and evangelists, who are in a position of leadership, are doubly responsible for checking facts and getting things right, but they have misquoted me and misrepresented the data. They’re looking at this research in terms of a false dichotomy [science versus faith] and that doesn’t do anybody any favors.”

[@pikador0078]

I've seen dozens of articles and videos on this topic. This video is the best of them. Nothing to add. Just perfect :)

[@Gek1177]

Are you aware that this video is misrepresenting Schweitzer's work and is being used by Calvin to mislead his audience for profit?

[@pikador0078]

@@Gek1177 No, I am not, but I am interested if dinosaurs lived 70M years ago.

[@Gek1177]

@@pikador0078 you should read not so dry bones, it's an article about an interview age gave where she touches on how people like Calvin twist and misrepresent her work.

[@Gek1177]

@@joefriday2275 Joe, don't lie to people.

[@michaelg377]

​@@Gek1177 No one attacked Mary Schweitzer here my friend - in fact in this video it was evolutionists who were attacking her (!!!). In questioning her research and naturalistic excuses for the evidence, however, consider her experiment used as justification for dinosaur soft tissue preservation... she put *ostrich meat* in a *pure hemoglobin (iron)* solution in a *controlled laboratory* environment at *room temperature,* and preserved that meat for *2 years.* Based on this, evolutionists now believe that *dinosaur tissues* with no *pure hemoglobin (iron)* solution in an *uncontrolled* external environment at *variable temperatures* were preserved for *35,000,000 times as long as her experiment.* .... evolutionists don't need evidence, they just need an excuse... Fish don't evolve into philosophers, no matter how much *time* you add to the mix. That's just not how "science" (a methodology) works.

[@logicalatheist1065]

Creationists exist so Scientologists have someone to laugh at

[@adelinomorte7421]

***atheism has nothing to do with EVOLUTION, evolution is a simple scientific subject. I am a believer and believe that God is the Creator, God is a spirit not a magitian with a staff making things to marvel us, we the humans are very far from understand how a Spirit like God creates, but we believe on it. Some of us , the scientists , are the few gifted people , that received from God the task to explain how Creation was donne, never in my 92 years of life heard any scientist or evolutionist say that God did not create, even if they say it, is not proper to call them atheists, no relation. An ATHEIST is a person that do not believe in God as we conceive God to be, it is just a matter of a consept, they are skeptic on our concept as in theyr most inner self have a consept of God that most of us are far to understand, most of them are closer to God than most of us that call ourselves believers. An atheist deserves our respect. ***

[@michaelg377]

Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers? Charles Lyell openly sought to "separate science from Moses" with his theory of old-earth geology, and Darwin was heavily influenced by Lyell and built his theory of naturalistic (Atheistic) evolution upon Lyell's work, to the point where Darwin said "it's as if my books came out of Lyell's brain." In other words, that means that the theory of evolution demonstrably, historically has an atheistic motive at its foundation. And Jesus Himself refuted evolution when He said *"“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’"* (Matthew 19:4) - He created male and female "at the beginning," not after billions of years of chemical reactions, and death entered the world as a result of sin (Romans 5:12), not for billions of years prior to sin for no reason. I agree that we need to love Atheists, absolutely, and while there is value in exposing their foolish arguments when applicable (Proverbs 26:4-5, etc.), it is important to not treat them the same way that they treat Christians as they troll these Christian channels. If they're wrong they're wrong; if they're lying they're lying; but there's no need for name calling. But evolution absolutely is an Atheistic ideology, with a motive of "separating science from Moses" at its foundation - it is an attempt to explain our creation without our Creator, "naturalistically" (ie. without the Super-Natural God). All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, without evolution... we are all Uncritically Indoctrinated into this modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers as young children today, so it's no wonder there's so much groupthink and confusion even among Christians.

[@samburns3329]

@@michaelg377 Michael the lying Godbot back with his "fist to philosophers" ignorance and stupidity. Like clockwork.

[@therick363]

I’m an atheist. Thank you for your kind words. You’ll notice how Michael only have dodging, ignoring, cherry picking and a copy paste lying script

[@logicalatheist1065]

​@@therick363Micheal is all creationists wrapped into one... Idiotic

[@calvinsmith7575]

So Jesus used billions of years of death suffering and disease to create and called it very good all before Adam sinned?

[@logicalatheist1065]

Creationism is completely baseless

[@solipsist3949]

It's almost like a religion with these people!

[@Edwin-pw7cu]

It’s real

[@logicalatheist1065]

​@@solipsist3949correct, creationism is a religious belief

[@logicalatheist1065]

​@@Edwin-pw7cuit's real that's it's completely baseless, yes

[@solipsist3949]

@@logicalatheist1065 I was just going for some dry humor. We agree.

[@andreasreich3933]

120.000 subscribers and 15.000 views? The algorithm is really really not happy 😅 good job

[@calvinsmith7575]

Actually a 10% of your subs as view is considered a successful channel.. So we are doing very well thank you : ). And I thank you for your algorithmic contribution...

[@Savriell]

Lets play a game. Wach that video trying to point out every social engineering, fallacy or manipulation that author used i'll start - 0:01he taken statement of mentioned resercher out of context making it looks like she's agreeing with him, while in reality she is researching possible ways for that tissues to be preserved that long, she even proposed possible explanation but that imformation isn't mentioned until 12:35 . For full 12 min person who wach that video belives that person who made that discovery is a creacionist and then surprise... obviously only if watcher remember how video started.

[@michaelg377]

It wasn't misrepresented, that was clear - you just misunderstand my friend. He actually went on to clearly explain how Mary Schweitzer's claims were problematic - he absolutely did not "taken statement of mentioned resercher out of context making it looks like she's agreeing with him," but what she said there was an important admission... no one in their right mind would have looked at those materials and said "these are billions of years old" unless they already had an a priori commitment to such an evolutionary worldview. In other words, both sides agree - *those soft tissues look "young" - hence the scandal, and the need for a preservative theory to make them "old" again.*

[@Savriell]

@@joefriday2275 You can't? I would tell you to watch out for scammers, but you are already a believer, so it's probably too late.

[@nathancook2852]

@@michaelg377 Everything on AIG is misrepresented.

[@nathancook2852]

@@Savriell He and Michael like to hijack threads so no actual discussion can take place.

[@Savriell]

@@michaelg377 Interesting i didn's say anythink about mispresentation only simple use of first ipression to steer the narration but if you see mispresentation it's probably there.

[@HS-zk5nn]

meanwhile, those who believe in the pond daddy rush here to attack something they claim that doesnt exist

[@OgdenCrimmcramer8162]

Why did you lie and claim to have a PhD in "Evolution" from an Ivy League school when in fact you have zero college level science education at all?

[@HS-zk5nn]

@@OgdenCrimmcramer8162 your claim has already been debunked as an assertion since it didnt have any factual evidence. false accusations are evil. repent or face judgement

[@apoliticalobserver2741]

@@OgdenCrimmcramer8162 Creationists love to lie about their credentials. This guy is not an outlier. An out and out liar yes but not an outlier.

[@HS-zk5nn]

@@apoliticalobserver2741 prove that I did. you dont even know me. unless you are ogden and just talking to yourself. remember false accusations are evil. repent or face judgement.

[@OgdenCrimmcramer8162]

@@HS-zk5nn _prove that I did._ Your demonstrated complete ignorance of everything to do with the evolutionary sciences is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

[@jockyoung4491]

I still think it is funny that there is no evidence for creation in this video.

[@slartibartfast5643]

There is no evidence for creation in any video because there is no evidence for creation, period.

[@nathancook2852]

Nor does he offer any actual evidence that refutes Dr. Schweitzer's findings that the bones are much older than 6,000 yrs old. He just lies by omission, and probably flat out lies as well. I watched the two videos the first time he put them out, didn't rewatch it now so I can't recall if he directly lies in this one or not.

[@michaelg377]

@@nathancook2852 You should consider watching the video - you've lied several times as a result in this forum because of your ignorance on this and everyone who has watched the video can see it for themselves.

[@samburns3329]

@@michaelg377 Michael you repeat known creationist lies with every post. You're the last person here who should comment on ignorance and dishonesty.

[@michaelg377]

@@samburns3329 This is an honesty check for you, let's see if you can spot the lies. Nathancook2852 said *"They didn't even find "soft tissue"* as Calvin reports. It was *petrified, hard as a rock.* Calvin portrays it as if the blood was still flowing." (Nathancook2852, 24 August 2024) Mary Schweitzer said *in this video:* "...here they are... blood vessels, *transparent, hollow, pliable, flexible branching blood vessels* that contained *small round red micro structures floating* in the vessels. I said 'this is not possible. Do it again.... when you think about it, the laws of chemistry and biology and everything else that we know say that it should be gone, it should be degraded completely...." (Dr. Mary Schweitzer) Many sources in close historical proximity to this discovery likewise said things like: "When this shy paleontologist found *soft, fresh looking tissue* inside a T.Rex femur, she erased a line between past and present. Then all hell broke loose." (Yeoman, B. "Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery," Discover, 2006). He also admitted to trolling, and clearly hasn't even watched this video (by his own admission): "He just lies by omission, and probably flat out lies as well. I watched the two videos the first time he put them out, *didn't rewatch it now so I can't recall if he directly lies in this one or not."* (Nathancook2852, 24 August 2024). This explains so many of the lies he's spammed above here... *wouldn't it be more rational to watch the video, so you can understand what it is you're rejecting, before you reject it - and at least accurately represent it...?* I'm curious about your integrity here, because you've demonstrated that you're just here to troll as well. But I can be wrong.

[@OgdenCrimmcramer8162]

The answer is....Calvin's next big creationist lie is another repeat, the stale old lie about *dinosaur soft tissue!* 😆😆😆 Looks like Calvin's creationist nonsense well has run dry and he's forced to do these old reruns to keep his sheep happy.

[@ElectricBluJay]

You should read the tagged comment in this video from the content creator… it explains the circumstances for the repost. I think you are seeing only what you want to see. Not just with respect to the republishing of this video, but also with respect to its contents. The attempts at mockery and denial of what is plainly in front of you is a defense mechanism to prevent your core worldview from being shaken - at the expense of your intellectual integrity as well as your future. I would suggest that finding truth is always a benefit in the end; even if the process is difficult.

[@nathancook2852]

@@ElectricBluJay He has posted this 3 times now. Part one, part two, which was up for a while, and now this. He is digging real deep for content. He's been recycling the same nonsense for years.

[@calvinsmith7575]

@@nathancook2852 Nope. We published Part 1 (still up) then Part 2 (which got taken down) so we wanted Part 2 available so we put both parts together into this one video. : )

[@mirandahotspring4019]

@@ElectricBluJay Even Dr Mary Schweitzer herself has refuted videos like this one saying it is deliberately misusing her research!

[@nathancook2852]

@@calvinsmith7575 Like I said, 3 times....

[@davidrandell2224]

THM in Gen.1:2 refers to the Tihamah regions- Hijaz, Asir and Yemen- in western Arabia not the ‘deep.’ The OT has yet to be translated. The little- but significant- parts Kamal Salibi has tells different stories. Start at start. “The Bible Came from Arabia “, Kamal Salibi,1985, plus his 3 other bible study books and blog for facts not fantasies. The Bible contains myth, legend, history and science. The sun’s cast shadow reversing itself occurs in the Tropical Zone- western Arabia,not Palestine, Pennsylvania or Pleiades- around summer solstice as recorded with King Ahaz in the OT.

[@OrthodoxChristian809]

I've found belemnites which had crystals inside and weren't fully fossilised.

[@charlesdavis3923]

The mental gymnastics one is willing to do to keep from admitting there may actually be a creator

[@littleacorn2244]

@@joefriday2275 Pointing out creationist willful dishonesty isn't trolling. Lying about science every day like you do is trolling.

[@therick363]

Why don’t you back that claim up?

[@therick363]

@@joefriday2275keep showing you’re a child

[@nathancook2852]

None. You don't have evidence for one. But this video isn't even about that. Calvin doesn't give you the whole story. He lies by omission, and often lies outright. You all just blindly follow him. Dr. Schweitzer has many papers that are easy to access on the topic. Have you read any?

[@charlesdavis3923]

@@nathancook2852 can you give an example of what he's lying about? I haven't read any of her work but I'll check them out, it's certainly an interesting subject regardless of your world view.

[@JamesRichardWiley]

Evolution (change and adaption) is observable and continues without any agreement from the unknown writers of Genesis.

[@badideass]

Creationists can't come up with a single credible reason as to why evolution is false 😂😂😂. It hurts their feelings 😢

[@AirIsGood4UAll]

Micro is observable, macro isn’t. Explain the soft tissue? Can’t? Exactly.

[@badideass]

@@AirIsGood4UAll dumb... Shows you have no clue about evolution

[@badideass]

@@AirIsGood4UAll micro evolution is change over time. Macro evolution is the same thing as micro evolution change over time. Both are observed as they're the same thing... The macro part comes in because you're looking at a different time scale... Welcome to BASIC science

[@badideass]

@@AirIsGood4UAll Mary Schweitzer already explained the soft tissue, maybe learn from her and not idiots from Aig who know nothing about science

[@igorkrugly4842]

Poor believers. Their aplogists think they are too dumb to understand what's true and what's BS.

[@TboneWTF]

LOL. When in reality they ARE as you say.

[@BruceFox-Lefriche]

What is sad and utterly immoral is that AiG and the likes of Calvin Smith, Ken Ham et al prey on the gullibility of the simple-mided in order to line their own pockets.

[@TboneWTF]

​@@BruceFox-Lefriche Not just the dullards, but the fanatical also. They insist that people obey unquestionably and with out thought.

[@TboneWTF]

​ @user-ex4wx1rj7s Not just the slow witted, but the fanatics also. They insist that people obey unquestionably and with out thought.

[@BruceFox-Lefriche]

@@TboneWTF You're right. I have no sympathy for the fanatics, but I do feel genuine pity for those who fall prey to the clutches of these smug, vicious, immoral purveyors of lies.

[@nathancook2852]

Um, it was basically rock when found. That is what fossils are. Rock can be preserved... indefinately.

[@jwonderfulsuccess]

Creation 🙌 no time to waste unbelievers, this life is but a blink of an eye

[@BruceFox-Lefriche]

It is indeed. That's why we don't waste it by believing in ridiculous stories that all the suffering and misery in the world was brought about because a supposedly all-powerful, omniscient and all-loving God threw a tantrum when a talking snake (that he had created) encouraged a woman to eat some fruit (that he'd also created for no good reason), causing her to notice that she was naked (which, of course, is how God had made her).

[@TboneWTF]

it is also the only life you have so don't be fooled into believing in an after-life.

[@cynicallyskeptic4295]

You not only completely misrepresent Mary Schweitzer (a fellow christian), you quoted her completely our of context, and you FLAT OUT LIED about her findings and statements. I used to have hope that evidence would be presented that would bring me back to being a young earth creationist but this not only pushes me away but makes me ashamed to be a christian.

[@apoliticalobserver2741]

Guys like Calvin just don't realize they are doing much more harm than good to their religion.

[@michaelg377]

How was she misrepresented -please share? 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? Jesus said *"“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’"* (Matthew 19:4). Not after billions of years, but "at the beginning" God created man and woman. The question is: *As a Christian, do you agree with Jesus, or do you disagree with Him?* All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12, without evolution.

[@ElectricBluJay]

I don’t think she was misrepresented at all. This video does not claim the discoveries of Mary and her team changed Mary’s beliefs regarding theology or timelines in any way. In fact, this video doesn’t speak at all of what Mary ‘believes’.. it simply cites (accurately, I might add) what she discovered, and what has come from it. So what’s the problem?

[@therick363]

@@michaelg377you’re a proven liar

[@nathancook2852]

They didn't find soft tissue. They found petrified tissue that needed a strong chemical bath to rehydrate it. This is well understood at this point. So it is lying to say they found soft tissue. Also, Dr. Mary Schweitzer, who's work you are bastardizing, was a YEC until she grew up and studied thousands upon thousands of fossils. She is still a devout Christian, just not a YEC. She believes the universe is 13.8 or so billion years old, and the Earth is 4.5 billion years old See her quotes below: "I appreciate Kevin Anderson’s thoughtful engagement with my ideas regarding soft-tissue preservation, but I disagree with his conclusions. Simply put, soft-tissue preservation in fossils is not a valid scientific argument for a young Earth, nor does it provide evidence that the fossil record was laid down as a result of a recent, global flood." “One thing that does bother me, though, is that young earth creationists take my research and use it for their own message, and I think they are misleading people about it. Pastors and evangelists, who are in a position of leadership, are doubly responsible for checking facts and getting things right, but they have misquoted me and misrepresented the data. They’re looking at this research in terms of a false dichotomy [science versus faith] and that doesn’t do anybody any favors.” “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.”

[@andrewshear2927]

This doesn't disprove evolution at all.

[@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?

[@andrewshear2927]

Ok, evolution is not individuals changing it is populations that change. Yes a population of fish in the Devonian through chance had mutations that gave it an advantage to survive on land. These adaptations then were passed on through generations until you get to hominins.

[@nathancook2852]

@@andrewshear2927 Michael is a paid liar for AIG. Don't pay him any attention.

[@michaelg377]

I'm actually not paid by anyone to share the truth about evolution, our friend Nathan is just one of the half a dozen resident trolls on this site. He doesn't want us to discuss the truth. "I poke the bears here so to speak until their ignorance becomes to much, then I move back over the the flat earthers for a while...." (Nathancook2852, 20 August 2024) To Troll: "make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them." (Oxford)

[@michaelg377]

We only observe biblical speciation within each creature's kind ("adaptation" - finch>finch, dog>dog, bacteria>bacteria), never even ONCE a change between kinds as atheistic "evolution" requires (fish>philosopher, dinosaur>chicken, scales>feathers...). The former is observational science, the latter is a constantly radically ad-hoc rewritten atheistic origins mythology about the unobservable past - and All the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12. Let me ask you this... *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,* in accordance with Darwin's testable hypothesis? 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. Women today literally cannot get pregnant because of known minor issues with just one of these, and "evolution" had to get them all "just right" "by numerous, successive, slight modifications." 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.

[@saintmalaclypse3217]

First of all, why would you even expect an atheist to "...Explain This Evidence for Creation"? You talk to SCIENTISTS about science, and you talk to ATHEISTS about atheism. Can you kind of see the pattern, or...too complicated? Let me dumb it down. If you wanted to ask about preaching, would you a) Ask the choir, or b) ask a PREACHer. Hint: Only ONE of those is a Preacher. C'mon, you can do this... Anyway, right there IN the article you showed, it stated "...she DEMINERALIZED a portion of a T-Rex fossil..." But you kinda glossed over the fact that she didn't FIND soft tissue, she caused it. And when she did that, you claim she ignited a firestorm in the creation vs. evolution debate. No, no it didn't. Creationists alone tried to create a firestorm by deliberately or ignorantly misunderstanding the implications. Nobody in the scientific community suddenly thought the earth was young. What they concluded was that there weas some type of unknown preservation going on in these fossils that we don't understand. But even if your ignorant assumptions are correct, and we DID just discover that ALL dinosaurs could not possibly be as old as we thought they were, your conclusion is still ridiculous. Geologists don't determine the age of the earth based on dinosaur bones. That's not how it works. And finding out that chemicals did something we didn't expect is EXACTLY what science is about - pushing the limits of our understanding until we find new information. Discovery of soft fossilized tissues didn't change what we know about the methods we use to date the earth, and discovery of a process to demineralize tissue in a fossil doesn't change anything about the way we determine the age of the earth. Of course, I'm preaching to the choir - YOU already knew this, Cliff, but as usual, you cherry-pick snippets of science, blend it with pseudoscience and call it "proof of God!"

[@michaelg377]

Do you say that because you believe in the modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers? No one in their right mind would look at those soft "young looking" tissues (which both sides recognized look "young" btw) and think "oh, this must be billions of years old" unless you had an a priori commitment to the *belief* that they were already billions of years old. Science is a methodology - you're talking about an Ideology about the Unobservable Past that is often Anti-Science - that's not 'science,' that's something else. " Nobody in the scientific community suddenly thought the earth was young. What they concluded was that there weas some type of unknown preservation going on in these fossils that we don't understand." Exactly, and yet as Dr. Schweitzer said plainly in the beginning of this video, this evidence of soft young tissues in these fossils went against everything we knew about tissue preservation in science. What's interesting is that rather than concluding that the paradigm/worldview belief in particles to man evolution was wrong and the evidence is right at face value, you chose to side with the implausible excuses for the evidence and sustain the worldview beliefs despite the evidence... This is a matter of competing worldviews over the same evidences, and you have to evaluate the worldviews my friend - *your unscientific assumptions and biases that influence how you interpret the evidence are showing here.*

[@therick363]

@@michaelg377copy paste lying coward again!

[@cosmictreason2242]

Op your fallacy is: Special pleading

[@therick363]

@@cosmictreason2242that’s what theists use

[@mmaimmortals]

“...she didn’t FIND soft tissue, she caused it.” That’s like saying taking crust off of your bread caused the bread to exist. Absurd.

[@pattitempleton4881]

Creation is all I will believe! God created this world! Only planet in just the perfect place from the sun, spinning just right with air and water!!

[@donteatthecats0001]

Life evolved to fit the parameters of the planet. The planet wasn't consciously designed for life.

[@michaelg377]

@@donteatthecats0001 Then it's suspicious that life seems to not have evolved to "fit the parameters" of any other planets despite years of specifically searching - you're indirectly proposing alternate "biology" and alternate forms of "abiogenesis" - that's pure imagination, not "science" my friend. Consider this: Our planet earth meets 122 precise conditions required for life, which is estimated to be about 1 in 10^138 chance (that's a number with 138 zeros) from something like a "Big Bang." For example, it's just the right distance from the sun - just a little closer and we'd incinerate, a little further out and we'd freeze. The tilt of our axis is just right to allow seasons and agriculture without causing the polar ice caps to melt or extreme temperatures. The rotation speed is just right so we don't have violent tidal waves running over the continents, etc. The oxygen content of our atmosphere is 21% - just a few percent higher and we'd have random fires and/or gas explosions, just a few less and life as we know it would suffocate. *Do you believe there was a "Big Bang" and earth randomly clumped together meeting all these conditions required for life?* The odds that a planet could randomly meet all of these conditions is estimated to be 1 in 10^138. To give you an idea, the number of particles in our entire observable universe is about 10^90. In other words, the idea that earth could form so perfectly to be able to support life is 40 orders of magnitude less likely than if I were to draw an X on a Particle somewhere in our universe and I sent you out blindfolded to randomly pick that one. It's a miracle. *How do you believe this happened?* *"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) "For this is what the LORD says- he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; *he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited* - he says: “I am the LORD, and there is no other." (Isaiah 45:18)

[@BruceFox-Lefriche]

How many other planets are you familiar with ? And how many suns, for that matter ?

[@logicalatheist1065]

​@@michaelg377more uneducated nonsense from you.

[@Bomtombadi1]

@@michaelg377so Michael’s counter argument is “why hasn’t it happened elsewhere if life has evolved to fit the parameters of our planet?” That’s the entire argument.

[@cosmictreason2242]

Mandela Effect: why do i remember reading something about dinosaur soft tissue discovery in 1998/1999?

[@nathancook2852]

This isn't new. And it is well understood in the scientific community, and it doesn't mean what Calvin claims it does. Dr. Schweitzer presented her findings in 2005, and notice, evolution is still the prevailing explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. Why? Because the people who have actually studied her findings realize that she discovered new ways of preservation. Her findings do not show dinos were alive recently.

[@BrianBadondeBo]

I wish, i WISH that this could be true. What's true is that it was a remarkable find that casts new light on our understanding of whats possible in fossilization. I've spoken with paleontologists who worked with her, i asked if they found proteins, they said yes. I asked if that meant they had dna, they said no. Dna had not survived, because it IS millions of years old, far older than the shelf life dna can last. Also don't forget they had to pour a solution over the uncovered materials of the cells in order to make them squishy, they weren't like that when they were uncovered

[@mmaimmortals]

This is a non sequitur. DNA doesn’t normally last hundreds of years, let alone millions. The absence of DNA does not by default mean millions of years have passed. and the solution you’re referring to and the removal of mineral is like scraping paint off of steel. It had a crust over it. That doesn’t mean that there wasn’t real soft tissue under neath it.

[@sciencerules2825]

@@mmaimmortals No one has found intact DNA in dinosaur fossils. Sadly that is just one more creationist lie.

[@sliglusamelius8578]

@@sciencerules2825 No prominent creationist ever claimed that DNA was found, who told you that?

[@sliglusamelius8578]

The fact is that mainstream scientists had zero expectation to find RBCs or proteins inside fossilized bones. Nobody made any false claims except to say that's very odd and suggests a younger age than 65 million years. That's all, why so defensive?

[@sciencerules2825]

@@sliglusamelius8578 ICR - the Institute for Creation Research - has claimed it many times in their articles. So has Kent Hovind. The lie is often repeated by internet creationists.

[@revv45acp71]

Well presented! Thank you for sharing this truth!

[@logicalatheist1065]

What truth?

[@therick363]

Evolution is still a fact

[@BruceFox-Lefriche]

The truth ? I'll have to watch it again - I seem to have missed that bit.

[@antoniobrown6210]

I love how much evolutionists use the terms 'may be', 'may have', 'it could've' in their papers it is clear that their belief is not supported by the science.

[@TboneWTF]

LOL. And I laugh at the way Creationist believe in magic and fantasy and can never show credible evidence to support their claims.

[@TboneWTF]

​@@joefriday2275 Evolution presently is an accepted and proven fact accepted by the scientific community. Unless some unknown and heretofore undiscovered evidence is shown than evolution remains viable and factual. I agree when you say science is self correcting and so far that needn't happen with evolution.

[@BruceFox-Lefriche]

@@joefriday2275 As new information becomes available and measurements become ever more precise, adjustments (often tiny adjustments) are part of the process which we adults call "learning". Unlike you, who, having been told some ridiculous creation tale when you were five years old, still believe every word of it now that you have just turned seven.

[@nathancook2852]

Would you rather them lie outright like creationists when they aren't yet sure about someething?

[@antoniobrown6210]

@@nathancook2852 I would trust them more if they made it clear they don't have the answer so that I don't have to cross check everything that they say, don't you?

[@BiologosDebunked-h2v]

Thank you! Love these videos.

[@rf7477]

Unfortunately, AIG wants you to think that nothing is older than 6000 years. Not even light. They will never show you anything from the vast library of science that contradicts the philistine mentality at the core of AIG dogma.

[@michaelg377]

@@rf7477 Science is a methodology, what you're talking about is an Ideology - that's not 'science,' that's something else. Science also cannot "prove" anything, it works in the realm of falsification - not in propping up an atheistic origins mythology, that's just not how 'science' works. *What are your thoughts on the fact that planets and moons in our solar system, including our own Earth, show measurable evidence of being 'young,' not billions of years old?* Magnetic fields on planets in our solar system are measurably young based on data collected through probes we've deployed over the last few decades, and on a billions of years time scale you start to have a lot of problems with them. Creation scientists actually predicted this accurately - the evidence just fits a biblical worldview. We also observe tiny geologically active celestial objects which shouldn't be if billions of years old - like Pluto, Enceladus, Europa, and even our own Moon. There's no way the icy dwarf planet should still be geologically active with active nitrogen flows after 4.5 Billion years - scientists recognize this. Enceladus is spewing out material via a giant geyser, which is not sustainable on a billions of years time scale - secularists have an excuse for this, but that excuse doesn't apply to these other objects which are likewise geologically active - they are observably young. Even our moon was recently observed to be geologically active, including evidence of recent tectonic activity. For another, Jupiter is losing heat at a much faster rate than it is gaining heat from the sun, and this giant gas planet cannot be "billions of years old" as a result. Consider that the average comet can't last longer than about 100,000 years at maximum at the rate they are observably losing their material - this fits a biblical worldview just fine, it just fits... but "billions of years" believers have to fabricate an entire unobservable celestial object (Oort Clouds) to circumvent this problematic evidence. Examples abound - these are problems for the Atheistic-Naturalistic "billions of years" evolutionary worldview - but none of this evidence is a problem if the universe is young, as in a biblical worldview. In fact, it's what we would expect to find. *"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). These evidences (among many others) make sense in a biblical worldview - they look young because they simply are young. Right alongside measurably young comets in our solar system, measurably young tissues found in dinosaur fossils, the faint young sun paradox which causes a lot of problems for early atheistic abiogenesis and evolution, and the sedimentation off the coasts which would have only taken 12 million years to accumulate (assuming atheistic naturalist standards), among many others. In contrast, Atheistic-Naturalists like yourself have to invoke a number of various excuses to *circumvent these problematic young evidences and sustain your modern mythology that fish evolve into philosophers and puddles can fizz into people if you just add enough Time.* Is that how "science" is supposed to work? Meanwhile, *All 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)

[@samburns3329]

@@michaelg377 Lying is the only methodology you know.

[@rf7477]

@@michaelg377 Why are quoting Paul? He didn't even believe in virgin birth, and that is an enormous admission from the bibles worst misanthrope.

[@michaelg377]

@@rf7477 That's a Red Herring my friend, a logical fallacy - the relevancy of that Scripture above is evident from the context, and for your deep dive theological assertions I recommend you check out GotQuestions. You're trying to divert away from evidence which challenges your position above. Again, what are your thoughts on those verifiable young evidences above?

[@msmd3295]

It’s called “BONE MARROW” !! And in the core of a bone it can survive for very long times depending upon the conditions the bones were buried in for all those years. Just because some ancient or extinct species are painted on cave walls doesn’t necessarily mean those painter actually had contact with some of those ancient paintings. Paleontologists largely agree that dinosaurs were extinct long before the rise of Homo sapiens. So how could cavemen know anything about dinosaurs that died out long before humans ?? Evangelical apologists ALWAYS stretch the evidence to fit their theology. And the evidence of their supernatural claims is for morons. People who’ve either abandoned the science they SHOULD’VE learned in high school. Or, people who abandoned science because science hasn’t “proven” any other possible scenarios for the BEGINNING even though physicists believe they “know” to within seconds of the Big Bang what happened. I almost loathe saying this, but when the U.S. was first formed those in leadership who were All largely well off and educated, they were “honorable” people and they’d be rolling over in their graves if they say the result of their decision about “free speech”. Those early founders had sufficient personal honor to avoid lying and modern America is now inundated with lies, conspiracies on social media and EVEN on the “news”. Because of “free speech” even if free speech is full of lies like this guy.

[@msmd3295]

That’s not the point. The point being that beliefs should be limited to the “real world” ! All that religious stuff is all lies and conspiracy. If people don’t have any commitment to “facts” (and none of the “facts” in the Bible can be proven in any way) !! If an opinion is not anchored in the real world then people who believe that crap are delusional. Perhaps even YOU !! 🤣

[@msmd3295]

You haven’t the foggiest idea how the universe came to be. So you decided to buy into the beliefs of “simpletons” !! Who are too “dull” to understand Science. And it has been science that has led to ALL the conveniences you now have access to. Religion never invented Anything except childish mysticism. And I just checked… according to cosmologists and physicists, there is a consensus that the universe is estimated to be 13.8 Billion years old. And that’s based upon chemistry, physics, etc. So whomever claims the universe is 26 Billion years old, they have their proverbial head up their gluteus Maximus.

[@logicalatheist1065]

​@@joefriday2275you know what each and every atheist has said on this topic? Why do you say such stupid bs?

[@calvinsmith7575]

"It’s called “BONE MARROW” !!" : ). Red blood vessels, red blood cells, collagen, protein...

[@logicalatheist1065]

@@calvinsmith7575 commenting on science you don't understand... :-/

[@hasadiahjones620]

The earth isn't that old. Time is defined and not known

[@drjones762]

First off, to the man featured in this channel - you are absolutely phenomenal! You have wonderful content, and you present it in such a clear, compelling, easy to understand way. Next the first guy mentioned who completely dismissed these findings out of hand and said that “no data would persuade him” - you have to at least give him credit for being honest that he has no interest in the truth, but only his agenda. his mind is made up and he doesn’t want to be confused with the facts. 🙄🤡🤡🤡

[@Bomtombadi1]

Except the guy didn’t completely dismiss the findings out of hand. What he did was dismiss the creationists out of hand. Calvin Klown doesn’t provide useful content. He’s a liar and a propagandist. A shill for Ken Ham. You think he is phenomenal? Methinks you’re the clown.

[@Bomtombadi1]

Looks like you have nothing. Not surprised. Love pointing out how ridiculous you sound, though.

[@therick363]

You do know this man lies on purpose

[@solipsist3949]

Why do you suppose the famous Hell Creek formation the bone came out of is full of dino bones, and permafrost is full of mammoths, but there's never any crossover? Could it be that the two didn't live in overlapping time periods? If your whole narrative contained a grain of truth, you could show us a fossil of a T Rex chomping on a human or any mammal, or just find the two in the same rock formation. Or a trilobite and a rabbit. That's all it would take to upset the evolutionary model. Is that so hard? And please, spare us flood sorting. Have you checked out whether any of the beautifully preserved Pleistocene mammals recovered from permafrost died with seawater in their lungs? That's ok, don't waste your time.

[@calvinsmith7575]

There are unfossilized dinosaur bones all over the place in the Arctic. They used to think they were Bison because they weren't perminilized. And we've found mammal fossils showing they've eaten dinosaurs. We've found beavers, ducks and platypus buried in the same layers as dinosaurs, pine trees etc. All reported in secular articles and journals. Convinced yet? I doubt it. I have discussed these things with evolutionists for years and for many, each time you supply them with more evidence showing the Bible is true they dismiss it and come up with something else they demand before they will abandon evolution. Its an ideology and a worldview...

[@jaysons6101]

@@calvinsmith7575 But have mammoths and non-avian dinosaurs been found together? I don't think so.

[@Malakite-]

ok just like how you were skeptical about the blood lasting millions of years how did it last thousands of years in a hot climate

[@logicalatheist1065]

Go to Mary Schweitzer's research for this, she explains it... Don't come to AIG for science, they've got nothing to do with science

[@Bomtombadi1]

Funny how that works, right? They claim it’s evidence for a young earth, but can’t quite articulate why.

[@calvinsmith7575]

Sooo, it lasting 4400 years is LESS likely than it lasting HALF A BiLLION years? 😄

[@logicalatheist1065]

@@calvinsmith7575 You're scientifically illiterate bud...

[@Bomtombadi1]

@@calvinsmith7575 care to have a conversation about this, Calvin?

[@hansdemos6510]

What should we do when presented with new data that challenge our current view? Should we just stubbornly deny the data, or should we change our current view to accommodate the data? Mr. Smith stubbornly denies that finding soft tissue remnants in dinosaur fossils *_could mean_* that some biochemicals under some circumstances are hardier than we used to think. This is a dogmatic view, not a scientific one.

[@samburns3329]

Creationists like Calvin just can't grasp that science can and does sometimes change its views when new evidence becomes available. That's how progress in science is made, and a better understanding of reality is gained.

[@michaelg377]

Science is a methodology - Evolution is a constantly radically ad-hoc rewritten atheistic origins mythology about the unobservable past (an Ideology), not "science." Every time it runs into problematic evidence, rather than falsifying it, we just radically ad-hoc rewrite it. Let me ask you this... a century ago we taught evolution as "the truth." Since then its's undergone numerous radical ad-hoc readjustments, and today it is still "the truth." In another 30-40 years when we inevitably rewrite it again, it will still be "the truth." *Which version was true, and which ones were the lies?* Meanwhile, all the best evidences for evolution can also be explained by Genesis 1-12 - no rewrite required... and if you understand "science" then you understand the implications of a competing explanation.

[@samburns3329]

@@michaelg377 Michael you have to realize what a clown you are around here. You can't make a single post with copy/pasting several old rancid creationist lies.

[@rf7477]

@@michaelg377 Is that your recipe for 6000 year old everything? You seem oddly unaware that the theory of evolution is secular and that many christians support it. The 'explanation' supplied by genesis is both facile and contradictory.

[@therick363]

@@michaelg377still showing the world you can’t be honest about what you say. It’s blatant disrespect from you. Your parents should be ashamed

[@danielanthony8373]

Could be from another lifeform from another more recent time

[@calvinsmith7575]

Thats the bio film idea I mentioned that has been dismissed by evos...

[@J0PHIEL]

great video

[@bobbieleland7687]

God sends them plenty of facts to prove He is real

[@rf7477]

How do you know they are facts? If you think that water walking is factual, then you don't really have much need for any further 'facts'.

[@logicalatheist1065]

Such as ??

[@michaelg377]

@@rf7477 That's because you're an Atheistic *Naturalist,* and a *Uniformitarian* naturalist at that. For the God who created the very laws of nature (Jeremiah 33:25) including time, space, and matter themselves (Genesis 1:1) "water walking" is hardly a problem - your Argument of Incredulity there (a logical fallacy) is fueled by your *Atheistic Uniformitarian Naturalist Assumptions.* 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)

[@davelundergoesunder]

Well done.

[@logicalatheist1065]

Yeah, they were great at making a useless unscientific video full of lies.

[@Telorion]

The further science reaches out the more it proofs creation and therefore God. 🙏 Edit: Typo corrected

[@BruceFox-Lefriche]

1) No surprise that you don't give any examples. 2) Even if, at best, science does not categorically disprove creation (nor does it set out to do so), "therefore God" is utter balderdash. Please show me one piece of scientific evidence to prove that : a) Earth and water both existed before light. b) The Earth existed before the Sun. c) There were days and nights before the creation of the Sun. d) There is water above the "firmament" (wherever that is). e) The first human male was created out of the dust of the Earth (that should be pretty easy to prove, surely). f) Prehistoric species of snakes were able to talk, and spoke the same language as humans. Thank you.

[@logicalatheist1065]

Until you can spell science, please don't comment about it. You're wrong.

[@therick363]

The opposite

[@bobbieleland7687]

They know if God is real they are accountable

[@rf7477]

If? Has some doubt crept in? How did that happen?

[@nathancook2852]

This is such a lazy and ignorant argument. You are basically saying "I don't like the evidence so if I just say they want to deny God that makes me not have to look at the evidence."

[@burnttoast2790]

if we thought God was real then we'd just stay Christians and sin all we like. Remember, the position that tries to remove accountability is the _Christian_ position; any sin may be forgiven if you but believe, after all.

[@michaelg377]

@@burnttoast2790 No, Christianity does not "try to remove accountability," for your sins against your Creator you earned a fine - and Jesus offered to pay it on your behalf... *Accountability is taken, a payment was made, and the payment on your behalf was heavy - the alternative is to pay your own fine yourself.* What you misunderstand is that Christians don't say "we're forgiven so we'll just 'sin all we like'" - at the moment of salvation God gives you a new heart with new desires for righteousness, and over time you stop desiring the meaningless, harmful, empty things of the world (inappropriate internet content, hedonism, stealing, lying, hatred, etc.) and start actually wanting to be "good" - your statement reflects that you don't understand "Christianity." A "Christian" who just continues living in his sin is not a "Christian" - *"...Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them."* (Matthew 7:15-20) Many repentant Christians frequently report experiencing a radical and progressive transformation at the point they truly turned to Jesus; no Atheist will ever understand because they haven't experienced it. And while Christians are repenting and trying to overcome their sinful nature, Atheists are content to just live in it. If you've ever lied, stolen, hated, been greedy, selfish, dishonored your parents, idolized, blasphemed, looked with lust, or did any other evil deed - you've earned a hefty fine for yourself that will have to be paid on Judgment Day. If you sin just 10 times per day, then after 80 years you will have broken God's mostly common sense Ten moral Commandments over 290,000 times. *Will you be guilty?* Of course, we all will - the difference is that Jesus paid our fine on our behalf for free, and you are choosing to pay your own fine instead. *'But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken."* (Matthew 12:36)

[@Savriell]

There is one single argument that not a single creacionist can fight of. Even if evolution is a lie that doesn't mean that creacion is true. There is no evidence for creation only arguments that You presents are against evolution only thing that you proven by that video is that the both theories are wrong.

[@rf7477]

@@joefriday2275 When you write stuff like 'god deniers' and 'default belief' you mark yourself as unfit to call anybody else whacky. Worse, you seem unaware that many christians support the theory of evolution. When you do all of those things but at the same time avoid committing yourself to the 6000 year tale of creation, then you look quite dodgy.

[@logicalatheist1065]

​@@joefriday2275wrong, many theists accept evolution as fact, you don't know much about anything

[@sciencerules2825]

@@joefriday2275 _I said "evolution is the default for God deniers"_ You lie about a lot of things, that included.

[@Savriell]

lol there is no default that is the difference betwen us and You if someone present better explanation that evolution then we can adapt that is a basic of science.

[@BruceFox-Lefriche]

@@joefriday2275 You're just so utterly and completely wrong, it beggars belief. Have you never heard of other religions besides your own ?

[@l.m.892]

Keep up the good work, Cal. The atheist show is a definite indicator they have been had. It's a waste of time to oppose irrelevant nonsense.

[@logicalatheist1065]

Atheism is the most logical and reasonable position

[@JesusSavedYouu]

​@@logicalatheist1065False😊

[@JesusSavedYouu]

​​@@logicalatheist1065You gave no argument and you have no valid one. There are plenty of arguments for God and archaeology evidence that proves the Bible is historically accurate, well-preserved and reliable with 66k+ evidence. You have no morality without God, cuz it is subjective. You think youre a monkey. You think the big bang, as an explosion, creates order and a well designed universe, but explosions create disorder. Big bang appeared from nothing, thats illogical. Consciousness cant appear from unconscious, evolution is therefore fake.

[@therick363]

@@JesusSavedYouuso you don’t know what the Big Bang was. Got it. You should learn before speaking about things.

[@logicalatheist1065]

@@JesusSavedYouu just false? Nice rebuttal lmao 🤣

[@WeBareTheBears]

Before this man changes the thumbnail caption, it reads “Bible Confirmed.”

[@cosmictreason2242]

And that's true so...?

[@nathancook2852]

@@cosmictreason2242 Oh, damn, so you have no clue what confirmed means. Got it.

[@redeempohtam9358]

Its not about evidence, its about how much arrogance you have at heart

[@MrLogo73]

What is hydrogen fluoride?

[@nathancook2852]

Don't rely on science from AIG. They lie outright, and lie by omission They only tell you what they want you to hear. Find out for yourself.