Watch This Christian Professor SHUT DOWN Evolution Theory in 5 Minutes!

[@Hakeem597]

i see you, lookin like a baby Voddie Baucham! Great video! I'm going to incorporate this in my apologetical arguments. Peace and blessings brother!

[@danielwarton5343]

😂 he will take that as a compliment for sure. Emmanuel is doing a great job and is very good at understanding and communicating the truth

[@FaithTalks]

Huge compliment 😅 God bless you!

[@far1809]

Do you know the pastors name so we can look him up and use him as a reference? Thanks from Nova Scotia

[@Jmart8624]

​@@far1809 Professor Major Coleman I believe

[@Jmart8624]

Baby Baucham 😂 We should all be so lucky to have that sort of nickname

[@duncanapiyo6412]

It is refreshing to have science from a bible point of view.

[@tianzi49]

I do not believe Evolution explains everything, but at the same time, the Biblical claim that the Universe is only around 6,000 years old is ludicrous. The histories of India and China date back more than 4,000 years, yet their history never mentions a great flood wiping them out completely. Also, please show me where history ever verifies King Herod killing male babies that are two years old or less! Btw, was the Sun created after the Earth or vice versa? If you have not noticed, the difference is that evolution is a theory, but the Bible is said to be true in every aspect. Also, if the flood had wiped out everything 4000+ years ago, how would the Pyramid of Giza have existed around the same period and show no evidence of submergence/aka watermarks? .... hmm. Also, where was Jesus between the ages of 23 and 30? That would be 18 years out of 33 years of his life. Is the omission by design or did they just lose the records? .... hmm!

[@thatguyrich9822]

Except that's not science.

[@feelyoung79]

​@@thatguyrich9822😂😂😂 The lies you gobble up (science fiction) comes from people who have allied themselves with the devil.. look around the world you live in... Is it a coincidence that the music industry is satanic, Hollywood satanic, the real movers and shakers who pull the strings on this earth have occult ties, Neil D. Tyson was pushing that men can become women which is against biology.. wake up little buddy because you've been lied to..

[@godsloverevealed5003]

This was a very informative video and the shortest and most compelling arguments for creation that I've seen.

[@godsloverevealed5003]

@@jimster7277Please realize that what you stated is your opinion. On the other hand, the video references biblical scripture that is supported by scientific evidence.

[@-----GOD-----]

Compelling? Strange adjective to use, but ok.

[@wondery6693]

Professor explains fast and factual. Also recognize Helium shows rocks can not be billions of years old. We need more professors like him speaking more openly.

[@markh1011]

_" Also recognize Helium shows rocks can not be billions of years old."_ How so?

[@wondery6693]

@@markh1011 Helium is found in rocks. And the rate of leakage depends on what surrounds Helium, one of the lightest smallest elements. Like helium in a rubber balloon it goes flat in a short time but helium in a Mylar balloon stays in for a while so leakage depends on what surrounds it. Rocks said to be dated millions of years old still hold helium and that can not be as the helium would have leaked out. Rocks are more porous than something lined with thin layers of metal. Therefore if helium is found, that rock can not be millions of years old. I would suggest looking this up to get a better explanation. I'm giving the most basic one here.

[@tims5268]

@@wondery6693 helium gets trapped in zircon, hence why rocks that are millions of years old still contain helium. I don’t get why you guys are so fine with spreading misinformation about a subject you don’t understand. I mean even 5 minutes of research shows your claims to be complete nonsense, if you have actually spent time studying geology then your claims become frankly laughable. I get you aren’t lying intentionally, but you’re still responsible for the misinformation you spread. Do better, fact check what dishonest creationist channels share and you will quickly see how frequently they lie just to support the conclusion they have already arrived at and will never challenge. It’s called dogma.

[@markh1011]

@@wondery6693 _"And the rate of leakage depends on what surrounds "_ This sentence alone undermines your whole argument. What's the rate of leakage and what affects it?

[@wondery6693]

@@markh1011 Hello my friend. Research and find out this for yourself how Helium leaks from each material. Also research how Helium gets there in the first place. I do not need to be an authority to listen to facts. Do the research. Don't believe me but before you doubt this, research it to understand when you have one of the smallest elements in something porous, leaks happen at specific rates from different materials. That I am sure you can agree. What determines the rate of leakage is obviously the material, temp and time. Do you really think rocks, sandstone can hold Helium forever? Helium is made by radioactive decay right? Don't just try to troll me. This natural science and is very informative yet never talked about. Good luck finding out more about this.

[@greatbriton8425]

5:45 I have a Biochemistry degree and you may be interested to know the details about that lab experiment that someone has told you created aminco acids and proteins. No, no, not at all! 1. It created primitive precursor molecules - like a half-formed amino acid. Nowhere near a real amino acid, forget about proteins! 2. All life uses only the L (left-angled) form of the 20 amino acids. But the primitive precursors were mixed L and R as one would expect. 3. The profesoor had to CAPTURE these half-form molecules as soon as they appeared and EXTRACT them to a safe receptacle because if he left them in ther ethey BROKW DOWN AS FAST AS THEY WERE BUILT UP. This is what the progfessor in the video was referring to when he said time is against evolution: the longer these fragile molecules hang around, the more broken they get. Even the human genome is degrading, to the extent that we can no longer marry cousins for fear that the baby will inherit a broken gene from both parents.

[@v1e1r1g1e1]

Well said. And thankyou, good sir. I have often come up against evolutionists who have cited the Miller-Urey experiment as if it were ''proof'' of how Life formed randomly from an hypothesised chemical/protein soup. I have some refutations of the claims made, but it is always valuable to have an expert's opinion / analysis.

[@greatbriton8425]

@@v1e1r1g1e1 Thank you. An often overlooked point is that the 'recipe book' for the proteins is the DNA, but the 'cook' which safeguards, reads and copies the DNA is the proteins themselves, so one cannot survive or replicate without the other, AND YET: both have the exact same code sequence. The DNA sequence codes for the amino acid sequence. So the very first DNA/protein arrangement would have had to generate not only many proteins by accident who can safeguard, read and copy the DNA, not only the DNA by accident which tells the proteins what to do, BUT ALSO the DNA and proteins would have to form in MIRROR SEQUENCE of each other in the same place at the same time. It puts the chicken and egg to shame.

[@v1e1r1g1e1]

Again, thank you. Your statement of how the irreducible complexity of a 'viable' DNA sequence is succinctly and eloquently made. It beggars belief that such a thing could emerge by chance. And yet Evolutionists demand that because such a thing exists (as we observe it in all life right now) then it HAD to ''just happen'' by chance. Not only is this a fallacious argument, the 'construct' that DNA is, defies chance. The hand of a Designer is the only conclusion that can be logically inferred. And yet, Evolutionists still insist on the formulae: 'Stuff + Time = Life' and 'Life + Mutation + Time = Speciation' In reality, neither is true.

[@jjt9201]

@@v1e1r1g1e1 GOd solution is an "has been" solution. In the middle ages, god was the solution. Give time to science. Let's face it: there is one thing that exists: the universe. TO explain it creating an unknow entity is adding to the problem, not solving it. . Let's work with what we have, for sure. Not inventing a timeless, dimensionless, as many discribe it (-> brainless) because they have notthing else to propose. It is so easy. Let's go back to 6000 years in time, to old superstitions.

[@tims5268]

Get your money back.

[@jknga5869]

This professor is right on. Good job.

[@chesterdamolester6990]

He is right on false. Species change over time, ever so incrementally over a very long period of time. Look up the molecular clock. Look up Human Chromosome #2.

[@chesterdamolester6990]

@The_Cynic you can research the evidence for yourself.

[@dogly777]

He says that life does not come from non-life. It happens all the time - it's called food. Follow the food chain down to it's roots. Bacteria in the soil absorb non-living molecules and make more bacteria. Plants absorb non-living molecules and grow. You drink water you breathe air. Every single living thing is made of non-living atoms.

[@chesterdamolester6990]

@The_Cynic The evidence is available so you don't have to take my word for it. Do your own unbiased research.

[@jknga5869]

@The_Cynic bruh you need to learn proper English and grammar.

[@haggismcbaggis9485]

The graphic that he shows says the oldest tree is 4855 years old which would put the flood 2855 BC. He also ignores the Hohenheim dendrochronology which goes back 12,460 years.

[@markh1011]

"if there is no god, you must assume that life comes from non-life" - Or you could just say 'we don't know lets find out'. Just because we don't know the answer to something doesn't mean the answer is .

[@jjt9201]

Right. But people have been told about the solution: god, at their very early age, before they knew the problem. So no effort: god. THis, people did for 4000 then 2000 years. Are we back to the middle ages?

[@jknga5869]

@@markh1011 There is only one God. His name is Jesus.

[@jknga5869]

@@jjt9201 No, we're right in the middle of God's will.

[@MrReasonabubble]

​@@jknga5869simply making assertions about Jesus being the only God isn't helpful in any kind of reasoned debate. Muslims are just as convinced that Allah is the one true God and Jesus was only his prophet. So now what?

[@jknga5869]

@MrReasonabubble It's not an assertion. It's fact.

[@Unknown-ym5gz]

good information, i was not aware of the professor or any of what he said. thanks for sharing

[@johnpritchard8946]

The theory of evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life. This is because it is not what the theory is about. No matter what your view is it's important to understand this.

[@nikadstati9593]

Man said everything 👍👍👍👍👍👍

[@msharp138]

He had me until he said the earth is 6000 years old......Chinese has written history that dates back over 5000 years old and unwritten dating back over 10,000 years old...

[@thomasrfoster4503]

No they don't.

[@jerrykudos9445]

No they don't.

[@lavieenrose5954]

The earth has been scientifically proven to be 4.5 billion years old……and we Homo sapiens were living alongside Neanderthals 100,000 years ago….

[@thomasrfoster4503]

@lavieenrose5954 Where's the proof?

[@markh1011]

@@thomasrfoster4503 Have you bothered to look yourself?

[@gingerlemon865]

THANK YOU!!!! More videos like this please!

[@elmfork52]

Bravo, sir! Please continue.

[@danielwarton5343]

This is a fantastic video. Thank you brother.

[@ffc99]

He brings a pillow to a fact fight.

[@PrayingForTruth]

So, you're saying that the professor shown in this video didn't provide facts/ evidence?

[@IJ72]

Aleluja! Jesus is Life and Truth! Amen

[@TimesTicking666]

@@IJ72 prove Jesus was a real entity!! And claim your NOBLE PRIZE!

[@johnpritchard8946]

While it's true that the oldest living tree is around 4, 800 to 5,000 years old dendrochronology can reliably take us back just over 13,000 years.

[@Hun_Soulo]

EXCELLENT VIDEO! All life came from the trinity, God, from the consciousness that has been here before the universe, that created the universe. GOD BLESS YOU AND THANK YOU.

[@charleyweinhardt]

A critical point is that scientists will tell you that the stars are millions of light years away indicating an old universe, but the Bible clearly says in the first chapter that the Lord made the heavens and then stretched them out is why we can see them being so far away.

[@haggismcbaggis9485]

They do not appear stretched out in that way. There would be far more redshift.

[@charleyweinhardt]

@@haggismcbaggis9485 you assume that the space was made in its distance first, and not with the stretching moving the space with the star.

[@haggismcbaggis9485]

@charleyweinhardt I'm trying to understand this different model. Where were the stars when they originated? Where would GN-z11 be in relation to earth?

[@haggismcbaggis9485]

How does the starlight information from period stars and exoplanets coordinate? Or supernovae?

[@AprilWhite-lv3hs]

Amen brother!

[@brentknudson9131]

Hey this is very good I appreciate your video the part about the nebula and the gas that was new that's really cool thank you😊

[@_n8thagr8_63]

All it takes is one encounter with Jesus. I just wish people would seek him the way the New Testament tells you too. It doesn't take long. He'll come get you.

[@grimmacemack76]

There’s also a huge amount of technical issues with the radio carbon dating rate we use

[@FaithTalks]

Tell us more!

[@JawellNofine]

Hi from South Africa - Thanks a mil for this video, yep, the atheists arguments have no foundation to stand on. God bless.

[@thatguyrich9822]

Atheists don't have an argument. Atheists are simply unconvinced by claims of a god to exist.

[@firecloud77]

*"The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal." --Richard Dawkins*

[@1969cmp]

'Did God really say'. Yes, He said there were six days of creation and Moses affirms this. Cheers, ex-atheist. 😊

[@thehowlingjoker]

How can there be days without a Sun?

[@1969cmp]

@@thehowlingjoker ....if the sun disappeared, would a 24 hour clock still work on a 24 hour cycle.

[@thehowlingjoker]

@@1969cmp We're not talking about the Sun disappearing. We're talking about before there WAS a Sun. Could you measure a day and build a clock with no Sun to begin with? No. You can't. So how can there be days before the invention of the very things that such a timeframe is dependant on? Without miracles please.

[@1969cmp]

@@thehowlingjoker 'without miracles, please'. Are you an atheist?

[@thehowlingjoker]

@@1969cmp I don't know if a God exists or not. I do however firmly disbelieve magic. So without miracles/magic please. Because such a position is unreasonable as it can be used to justify any position.

[@kyzer42]

Sigh, here we go again. Brothers, please consider the possibility that the theory of evolution does make sense. Many of this professor's arguments against evolution have reasonable counter-arguments: 1:21 I agree, I don't think we've ever seen life come from non-life. *However*, if God created life, then that would be an instance of life coming from non-life (one moment, there was no life; the next moment, there was life). Therefore, both creationists and "evolutionists" should believe that life came from non-life. Thus, both groups should be looking for evidence that _abiogenesis_ happened sometime in history. 1:32 The professor seems to be implying that if all life evolved from a single-celled lifeform, there would also be two-celled lifeforms, three-celled lifeforms, etc. However, this is an assumption that a lifeform must evolve from a lifeform with one fewer cell -- an assumption with no clear basis. *Perhaps* instead, "multi-cellularity" is a quality that lifeforms can acquire through evolution (or mutation); lifeforms without this quality don't "know how" to stick together in multi-cellular colonies, but lifeforms with this quality do (and quickly become large multi-cellular colonies). In this way, a multi-cellular lifeform could hypothetically evolve from a single-celled lifeform. 2:01 "Time works against evolution" [...]. This is phrased as an argument against evolution, but it's actually another argument against abiogenesis (life coming from non-life). The professor states that the odds of a single "100-unit" protein spontaneously assembling are 10^141. Now, the professor isn't clear what he means by "unit" in this context. He's also not clear how this number was calculated, and without providing some sort of equation or mathematical explanation for where this number came from, it is meaningless. I could just as easily say that the odds of life coming from non-life are 100%, since "it definitely happened, right?". This is, of course, ridiculous -- you need to provide sound math behind your numbers, otherwise the numbers are meaningless. 2:19 Yes, the fact that we see minor variations between individuals in a species -- and, importantly, that these variations change from generation to generation -- is evidence of "macroevolution". What is macroevolution? Essentially, _speciation_ -- the process of some individuals in a population becoming a new species. How does this occur? By the build-up of many small changes ("microevolution") over many generations, until the changes have added up so much that the individuals can be considered a new species. The fact that we can _see_ microevolution happening* is nearly definitive proof that macroevolution is guaranteed to occur if you wait long enough. *Here's just one example of "microevolution" in action, described in the paper "Predicting rapid adaptation in time from adaptation in space: A 30-year field experiment in marine snails" (I won't post a direct link, since this website likes to delete comments with links, but you can find it on 'Science dot org'). 2:30 Mendel did, if I recall correctly, demonstrate that genes get "shuffled around" during the process of reproduction. However, that is not the only process capable of producing variation within a population. Another big one is mutation, in which the "letters" of the DNA code can get randomly scrambled around. Of course, this often results in a harmful mutation, but that just means the cell containing that mutation dies off (and the loss of a single cell inside a whole organism is no big deal at all). If the mutation results in a neutral or beneficial mutation, that means the cell containing the mutation survives to continue replicating inside the organism. If this cell is one of the organism's reproductive cells, that means it will pass on the mutation to the next generation. Of course, some mutations aren't harmful or helpful at the _cellular_ level, but are at the _organism_ level. That just means we have to wait until they're passed on to the next generation for natural selection (the process where individuals with harmful mutations are less likely to survive) to take effect. Alright, those are my responses to the professor's arguments against the theory of evolution. All of the professor's points, I think, are fair objections. However, I hope you see that each objection has a very reasonable counter-argument. I don't expect to change your minds with this, of course, but I hope you take the time to consider what I've said. If you really value truth, brothers, I hope you continue to look into these questions. ❤✌

[@kyzer42]

For those interested, here are my responses to the professor's statements of the "postulates of creation". 2:44 "Where there's a design, there must be a designer." This is true by definition. However, the fact that DNA _looks like_ code doesn't mean that it _actually is_ code. In fact, I think you'd have to first prove that there was intelligence behind DNA in order to prove that DNA really is a code. 3:00 The Earth and the Universe are, in fact, billions of years old. How do scientists know the age of the Earth? They look at radioactive isotopes inside rocks. Sepcifically, certain isotopes of uranium (if I recall correctly), that decay into lead very slowly, with a rate that we can measure very accurately in a lab. Furthermore, it's possible for uranium to get absorbed into certain zircon crystals -- but lead cannot be absorbed into these crystals. However, we see lead inside zircon crystals. The only way it could have got there is if it was originally uranium, then decayed into lead. If we measure the proportions of lead and uranium inside a crystal, and compare it to the known rate at which uranium turns into lead, we can tell how old the crystal is. Now, this only tells us when the crystal was formed, so the Earth could very well be older than the oldest zircon crystals. However, the oldest zircon crystals on Earth are about 4.4 billion years old, meaning the Earth is _at least_ that old. Some zircon crystals found inside meteorites are even older (about 4.5 or 4.6 billion years old), meaning the solar system is _at least_ that old. Now, how do scientists know how old the Universe is? First, they observe far away stars. All stars in the Universe are moving away from each other, meaning the Universe is expanding. We can measure the speed at which the Universe is expanding, and we can also measure how far away the stars and galaxies are. Using these two pieces of information together, you can calculate how long it took the Universe to grow to its current size (age = size ÷ rate of expansion). Now, it turns out that it's actually pretty tricky to measure the distance to the farthest stars, so this number is a lot less certain than the age of the Earth. However, our current best guess is that the Universe is about 13.5 bilion years old. And anyway, we know that the Universe has to be _at least_ as old as the Earth, obviously. 3:19 "The oldest living trees on the planet are about 4500 years old." Sure, that's probably correct. But _how do you know there weren't any living things before those trees were born?_ This is, to be honest, a pretty terrible argument. Besides, this number is irrelevant to calculate the age of the Earth, since I already provided an explanation of another method to do this above. 3:48 When a star like the sun explodes, it creates a nebula, true. The correct term for this type of nebula is "planetary nebula", since they kind of look like planets to the human eye, not "solar nebula". But the name isn't important. Now, the professor states that we see about 6,000 years' worth of these nebulae. That doesn't mean the Universe is 6,000 years old -- _it just means that these nebulae don't last longer than 6000 years_ . This is _very possible_ in a universe that is billions of years old. 4:08 I've never heard of anything to do with alpha decay that proves the Earth is only 6,000 years old, but that's neither here nor there. 4:32 The fact that different species exist that are incapable of cross-breeding is _not_ evidence against a common ancestor. It's a widely-accepted theory that two populations of a single species can, over time, evolve into two separate species (see my point on macroevolution in my main comment). 4:40 If the Earth really did experience a worldwide flood at about 2500 BC, surely the ancient Chinese people who were around back then would have written something down about it -- and yet, if I recall correctly, their records exist both before and after that period, and make no mention of a worldwide flood. But I don't know, I'm not a historian. 4:49 Limestone is sedimentary, yes, but there are many ways for sedimentary rock to be created other than a worldwide flood. Worldwide limestone deposits are not evidence for the flood. 4:58 It's one thing to _say_ that there are fossils of sea life on every mountain, but you have to actually provide a source for that information for it to be taken seriously in a scientific debate. Besides, at the rate Everest is rising, we can tell it's millions of years old, so those sea-life fossils might have been deposited back before it was even a mountain (in fact, they probably came from the bit of land in between India and mainland Asia -- look up continental drift to learn how India and Asia used to be separated by an ocean).

[@johnstanp9692]

"*However*, if God created life, then that would be an instance of life coming from non-life (one moment, there was no life; the next moment, there was life)." To use your words: if God created life, ultimately then, life would have come from Life, since God is Life, and the Existing. There was always life actually.

[@kyzer42]

I'm not going to respond to your portion of the video, Mr. Faith Talks, since you seem to mostly be elaborating on the arguments the professor presented. I just want you to have an open mind; please don't dismiss genuine science just because it seems like it disagrees with your current beliefs. Now, I've tried to avoid making any emotional comments in my responses, but I just have to say this: These arguments put forth by the professor are all pretty terrible, and can be refuted by just about any scientist you ask. Heck, I'm not even a professional scientist, and I was able to come up with all these responses. Please just consider this: _You do not have to believe in a young Earth to believe in God_ -- I personally know a lot of Christians who believe in the theory of evolution. Please, if you value truth, spend a weekend doing a bit of research on the stuff I've mentioned. I think it can be pretty fun to read "what the other side thinks" -- as evidenced by the fact I've taken the effort to write all this! I love you, and have a good day. ❤✌

[@fatunicorn98]

Stephen Myres wrote in one of his books that for a single celled creature to randomly come together as a life form, the probabilities are 10 to the power of 47,000. I'm going with inteligent design . One protine would be 10 to the power of 80. And that is an easy one.

[@KrisMaertens]

That's just another pseudo scientist,a fraud

[@mirandahotspring4019]

Myers is not a biologist!

[@fatunicorn98]

@@mirandahotspring4019 I idea that evolutionists believe that life came to be with primordial goo and a lightening bolt is laughable. Even Bill Gates said that the information in living cells is far beyond the level of the most powerful computers that we have today. He is also not a biologist. Where does this information come from? The complexity of life on earth is light years beyond what the so called scientists (biologists) know.

[@mirandahotspring4019]

@@fatunicorn98 Bill gates isn't a biologist! DNA is a complex molecule, nothing more. The term "information" is used metaphorically, as is the word "code" in reference to DNA. Nothing in the theory of evolution claims life came from goo or lightening bolts. There have been about 8000 named gods, and thousands are being worshipped to this day. Even if you could prove a god is involved, you'd still have to prove its your god! But you can't even prove the existence of Any god! Evolution happened get over it.

[@discovery_uncharted]

Good job

[@cmwHisArtist]

Just from looking at the evolution chart, we went from a strong creature who could climb and fly through trees, finding his own free healthy food, with enough fur so as not to need any additional covering, to a weaker bare skinned human who has to slave all day to buy clothing and food that’s not healthy for him. Yeah that’s progress ok.

[@The.Adept.Chamber]

Science = Knowledge

[@luisdasilva3879]

Evolution has a sea of gaps , I just don't understand why they continue to study it as a fact .

[@tims5268]

Because even with the gaps there are mountains of evidence for evolution. Furthermore, the gaps in knowledge regarding evolution keep getting smaller and every discovery we make matches what evolution predicts. The theory of evolution is the foundation of modern biology, if it was wrong then tons of what biologists do wouldn’t work… but it does. Evolution is a proven fact.

[@thatguyrich9822]

Because you don't understand evolution. You might think you do, but you don't.

[@luisdasilva3879]

@@tims5268 For evolution to have started on this planet , the number of miracles surpasses those in the Bible by millions . The first great miracle began at the beginning of the universe , which came from nothing . Then billions of years later , our planet was formed , the second great miracle . The third great miracle was that a scalding and poisonous soup created the first cell and then until reaching the complexity that exists only on our planet comes a mountain of miracles and all this without an intelligent mind behind it . But that is science and it is fact . Sorry to tell you this , but evolution is unsustainable and remains a theory in decline .

[@luisdasilva3879]

@@thatguyrich9822 You don't need to study evolution very much to see that it never happened . You just need to know a little chemistry to see that evolution is impossible . The human body is made up of 37 trillion cells and all of them are extremely complex and you want to say that chance did all of this with great perfection and precision ? The human body has to have all the elements ready , complete , finished so that it can be what it is . I have friends and even brothers who believe in evolution , but they don't know anything about evolution and they don't even like evolution , they just chose evolution because they don't want A Creator in the equation of life .

[@luisdasilva3879]

@@tims5268 If evolution were true we would have already found bones that show animals and humans with small transformations from one thing to another , but we never found . If dinosaurs became extinct approximately 65 million years ago, we have found lots of dinosaurs bones and many of them with soft tissue , why can't we find the bones of our ancestors who lived only 200,000 years ago ? We were supposed to find bones from our ancestors that show these small transformations . In my personal opinion , many evolutionists like to study evolution because they cannot stand the idea Of A Creator God , A Intelligent Mind , An Agent , A Force , and if someone say there is evidence for A Creator they say it's religion and evolucao is science .

[@haggismcbaggis9485]

In the beginning, it was actually Adam looking for a mate from a bunch of animals being paraded in front of him.

[@hobbyfarMarm]

Read Genesis chapters 1-3 again

[@haggismcbaggis9485]

@hobbyfarMarm And then what?

[@haggismcbaggis9485]

@@hobbyfarMarm The text has not changed since the last time I read it.

[@torgenxblazterzoid]

If you put two male dogs and two female dogs (all of them black) into a caged field, under ideal conditions for one million years… when you return you will find many thousands of male and female dogs. The vast majority of them will not be black. What you not find is a cat - or a duckbilled platypus, for that matter.

[@thehowlingjoker]

Well of course. If you did that and produced something that wasn't a dog, you would disprove evolution. It would defy the law of monophyly. But that's the issue, you think evolution is jumping branches like Kent Hovind. You expect corn to produce mice lmao.

[@torgenxblazterzoid]

@thehowlingjoker I don't expect any such thing. I'm merely saying that multitudinous changes of colour (and even type) of dogs proves microevolution. The extension would be macroevolution which has to be driven by natural selection - to produce what would be an entirely different organism. Microevolution is NOT a result of natural selection, regardless of the wishful or even fraudulent claims of evolutionary biologists.

[@thehowlingjoker]

@@torgenxblazterzoid Erm no. Micro and Macro evolution both use the exact same mechanisms, the only difference is the timeframe. Microevolution is caused by natural selection, as is macroevolution. This is a fact, we have witnessed this 1st hand. Such as the evolution to consume nylon in bacteria, or the loss of muscles in humans. Macroevolution would be change at or above the species level, so speciation would be an example. We have witnessed speciation and phenomena like ring species. It also doesn't produce an entirely different organism, the changes are always built upon previous generations. In other words, a dog will never produce a non-dog. Instead what we see are nestled hierarchies, like how cows are ungulates, which are mammals etc. They will never stop being any of those things, no matter how much they evolve.

[@torgenxblazterzoid]

@@thehowlingjoker You've lost me and I suspect that's because you've lost yourself also.

[@thehowlingjoker]

@@torgenxblazterzoid Not at all. I'm trying to help you understand that your current idea of what micro and macro evolution are is erroneous.

[@pamelarada9239]

What happened to the sound?

[@FaithTalks]

At what point?

[@Louis-fo8yp]

What’s his name

[@555atU]

Major is a beast.

[@JL-qo7cs]

I love this stuff. I like your hat, also.

[@josephannett3471]

being able to hear him might help.

[@FreeRiderFMX]

Only "shut it down" for those who chose to ignore logic and reason.

[@vishaldive3777]

Ha ha ha, An atheist talking about logic and reasoning? Where did it come from? Might be from the big bang. Everything that came from evolution is subject to evolve, so did logic evolve?

[@awaitingthetrumpetcall4529]

Logic and reason? Cows and sheep prove that grass is delicious. They win that argument every time...

[@rustyshacklferd535]

You didnt even watch the video.

[@thehowlingjoker]

@@vishaldive3777 Evolution only explains biodiversity. Get out of here with your Kent Hovind nonsense.

[@alexdrake8079]

​@@thehowlingjoker How does it bring in biodiversity when living creatures have to die before becoming something new, so how does that bring in diversity buddy 🤦

[@hendersonandre1]

I recall telling someone evolution not real because they was saying we came from monkeys and dogs evolved from wolfs. So I said if we came from monkeys why do you not see any hybrids human monkeys walking around aka Bigfoot. Then they called me stupid and I said okay why is it that if you take a monkey egg and a human sperm but the human sperm will not fertilize the monkey egg. They couldn’t answer. Then I said why is it that I can take a domesticated dog egg and a wolfs sperm and it will fertilize and create a hybrid wolf dog. Something as simple as that disproves evolution is not real.

[@MastaE2288]

Wisdom is better than smarts 💯

[@scottbailey9242]

Kinds are believed to be at the family level. Oh, sorry I didn't see the bigfoot part of your response. This explains a lot.

[@williamgreenfield9991]

Dogs did evolve from wolves through human interference in natural selection. Evolution is a scientific fact. You can't handle the truth.

[@dogly777]

@@hendersonandre1 Dogs did come from wolves. Humans did not come from monkeys. Apes and humans come from a common ancestor. You have not disproved evolution.

[@mirandahotspring4019]

When they called you stupid they were being generous!

[@weightednormal3682]

No sound on the video for me. Must be important information.

[@powerfulmovementspodcast]

As a Senior Pastor, based on what I have heard, we have to be careful of saying that God did not say. According to the Bible, it is a tool and a powerful weapon from God. Anything that is written in the Bible, we need to abide by. The word BIBLE is an anagram meaning Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth so that means anything outside of it, it's not from God. In order to understand God's words, we have to take our time in different versions of the Bible to understand what God is saying. He doesn't want his people to pick out short verses and not read the whole thing. In order to understand the will of God, we have to go to him first because he knows the answers so go to the creator first cause the Bible says to seek God first. He doesn't want you to go elsewhere. That's why we need to go through him first so he can guide you and show you what you need to know. God is bigger than science, math, English, etc. So that means the only person that can answer your questions is God, no one else. If God called you into ministry, he will give you the answers & If he didn't call you into ministry, you will not understand God's rules, God's law and is will for the world. Remember the devil knows the Bible but he doesn't know it very well to understand. He will twist God's words and say something different and what it says. That's why we can't be picking verses and reading just that part. You have to read the whole verse to understand and lastly the guy on the right, the black guy is absolutely right about everything.

[@maylingng4107]

The only truth in the bible are the page numbers, nothing more!

[@mizmera]

​@@maylingng4107so you are stupid or daft? Choose or maybe take both. All the archeological findings prove your idiotism.

[@Mario_Sky_521]

@@maylingng4107 I think you never read the Bible and if you did, you didn't understand it. That is the "truth" I see in your comment. The pastor is speaking from experience and your commenting using ignorance of something you don't understand. Do you think there is truth in what they say. That everything comes from nothing? Everything just makes itself by itself. A clump of rock dust and water over time made humans? In your mind is that possible??

[@maylingng4107]

@@Mario_Sky_521 An incredible cop out. You have no idea who I am or how much I know about the bible, which looks like that it is a lot more than you do. I know that there is no truth in the bible. You could not back up a single bible story with testable evidence. Could you? You reveal your total ignorance by asking the standard strawman question creationists always ask. You also reveal that you have a very limited education in the science. No scientist ever claimed the "everything from nothing" nonsense. Then you proceed with the "clump of rock dust and water into humans" lunacy. Have you ever completed a high school course in biology or physics. It appears that you have not. Entire sciences are dedicated (staffed by over a million+ PhD scientists) to the explanations and demonstration of evolution, and to the explanation of the formation of the universe and earth. Several thousand books and more than a 100,000 science articles were written by those scientists (about 50 by myself). What was the last book you read on evolution/biology if any?

[@rodleyeriffe9149]

​@@maylingng4107There's a place in the Bible that says mockers will come in the end times. How about that, you're in God's book that you don't believe. A paradox. God bless you and opens your eyes.

[@darrenkoglin3423]

The day of Jehovah is drawing close and closer when all those whom dont accept his messiah yeshua and his teachings will understand remember yeshua came to uphold the law not to start another he is doing the will of the one who sent him,if u believe in evolution u obviously do not believe in the Almighty YHWH

[@johnvanmanen3149]

Very well done. But how does that explain that we can see in the universe beyond 6000 years of light speed objects?

[@KrisMaertens]

Expect a magic trick performed by their favorite magician... With the included bible verse

[@johnvanmanen3149]

@@KrisMaertens Have you ever noticed knowing the future?

[@meest7er]

Anyone who use the bible as a theory of creation must be crazy. The math dont math.

[@VisshanVis]

If there had ever been any evidence that a god ( the Christian or any other god for that matter) created everything then it would not have been possible for Darwin or Wallace to have come up with the idea that life evolves and evolved.

[@BADDMIXX]

FINALLY!!! 3:22 AMEN!!! TREES Are Not Male Nor Female!!! It Is Written! KJV - Genesis 1 : 11 & Genesis 1 : 12 "WHOSE SEED WAS IN ITSELF" AMEN!!!! HALLELUJAH!

[@alexandergapour1253]

Explain flowers then their male and female flowers

[@throckmortensnivel2850]

From the video: "...in order for you to have an opinion, you have to come from the approved class, you have to be the scientist..." Nope. Anyone can have an opinion. Many people do have opinions. The question is, how much weight do you give their opinion? If you need heart surgery, do you allow your neighbour, who has an opinion about heart surgery, to perform it for you? Most likely you go to someone who has both the education and experience in heart surgery. Are you guaranteed they will not make a mistake, and send you to the morgue? Nope. That can happen, and has happened. It's just that it's a lot less likely than having your neighbour do the surgery. In any case, you don't even have to trust those who have studied the science of biology. The basis of science is that it is subject to further information, and subject to contrary evidence. Over the couple of centuries of science it has proved remarkably successful. Take a look around at your society and economy. Everywhere you look you see the results of science. From vaccines to satellites, the success of science is there for all to see. That's why people trust scientists. Because what they have learned, and put into practice, actually works.

[@Mario_Sky_521]

But the science you "trust" is science working on the present, not speculations about the past dressed up as science. It's amazing how blindly trusting people are of science when it has a reputation of changing. If it always changes, it could never be absolutely be true. Example: Universe was eternal, then at the turn of the century it was thought to have a beginning. Both arguments were used to discount God.

[@throckmortensnivel2850]

@@Mario_Sky_521 Need I point out that people have been executed based on the "science of the past". All forensic science is "science of the past", We can tell how old the earth is by looking at the rocks that exist today. Three are rocks in northern Canada that are near 4 billion years old. As far as disproving God, nothing can disprove God. Miracles and supernatural beings are not subject to proof. For instance, if I told you the universe, and everything in it was created five minutes ago, how would you disprove that claim? Science doesn't disprove God. It does show that some Christians beliefs about the age of the earth may be wrong.

[@williamgreenfield9991]

Or as someone said, "You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to your own set of facts".

[@throckmortensnivel2850]

@@Mario_Sky_521 All forensic science is "speculations about the past". People have been convicted of crimes, even executed, based on that evidence. As far as the beginning of the universe, we can look back because we can see the light from the early universe. How, or why, it began is an unknown. Saying God did it is just another way of saying, "I don't know".

[@Mario_Sky_521]

@@throckmortensnivel2850 The forensic science used by police it not the same as origins science. Police look at DNA to tie a person to the scene. Universe origins is more complicated and spins in many directions. Clearly, anyone who says they know exactly what happened billions of years ago is a liar. They can't even predict tomorrow's weather correctly! Since you reject God, you would reject his creation as well. There is no reason a singularity should explode as it did. It's gravity was eternally high, it couldn't do what it did. God is an excellent explanation. I point out the Bible predicted the universe had a start when astronomers and physicists said it was eternal at the start of the century. Bible was right, scientists were wrong. Why trust them? cheers!

[@EricBraun100]

You can count the nebulas? Ummm no, you can't.

[@williamcunningham4946]

You sound check out James Tour on the biogenesis debate. He's really hammering this home

[@maylingng4107]

James Tour has no expertise on abiogenesis; he is just a religious loon.

[@williamcunningham4946]

@maylingng4107 then take up his challenge. The truth is that science has NO explanation for how something as complex as a living cell appears out of non-living chemicals. And by the way James has years of work and peer reviewed material in chemical engineering. So if anyone would know he would

[@maylingng4107]

@@williamcunningham4946 James Tour has never done any research in evolution or abiogenesis. He has not published a single peer-reviewed paper on evolution or abiogenesis. He is a messianic Jew who claims that Jesus appeared in his bedroom and the two had conversations. ---- that makes him a complete loon. Challenge? Tour has no valid challenge. I can certainly explain what we know about how the first life has appeared on earth. But why not read Jack Szostak, a Nobel prize laureate, who has done that far more elegantly. By the way, Tour called Szostak a liar --- for which Tour had to and did apologize publicly. It is obvious to the vast majority of scientists (and I am one of them) that Tour is unhinged (which is a tragedy that such a good mind went to waste) and religion has turned his brain into mush.

[@maylingng4107]

@@williamcunningham4946 americanloons.blogspot.com/2020/06/2350-james-tour.html

[@stuartbroadhurst7523]

Has this guy had an education? Check out David Attenborough ‘life on Earth’ makes it understandable to the lay man.

[@matt8264]

Why do we reject evolution outright but believe what scientists say about the earth and the universe? These are the same people who don’t believe in God but we accept their religion of heliocentrism as fact. The earth is flat and they are lying about space as well.

[@VisshanVis]

So before you go out in the mornings, does whoever you live with have to check you first to see if you have your underwear on actually under your pants and that your pants or on the right way or that you have the right shoes on the right foot???.

[@matt8264]

@ You have nothing but ad homonim attacks

[@RaptureCatcher7]

no sound after 1.05

[@Loveyou-bb9bg]

I don't belief in science I belief in Jesus Christ!

[@ClebRuckus2]

Science isnt a belief its a way of confirming the cause and effect of a natural phenomena.

[@leonstoltz6088]

I believe that the God of this universe created science so that we can discover more about His wonderful creation. So yes, I believe in both. They do not contradict, they explain....

[@williamgreenfield9991]

Science is not a matter of belief. No one says "I believe in gravity".

[@markh1011]

_"I don't belief in science I"_ ...and yet you enjoy all the benefits that it brings.

[@ClebRuckus2]

@@williamgreenfield9991 there is no empirical science for gravity,so it is a belief .

[@USAJ31]

stereo field....you have the guy only speaking on the right channel

[@cliffordandersen3190]

Wow he lost me on 6000 years old earth sorry

[@mirandahotspring4019]

Wilful ignorance shuts down nothing! Evolution is a fact, get over it!

[@billsluyter4664]

It is egotistical and borderline heresy for one to think they know God's will, plan or timeline. I submit Genesis, the tower of Babel, as reference, dividing man by language. He is only following one branch of that tree. He is literally one of the blind men describing an elephant.

[@scottbailey9242]

Heresy is a deadly thing to mention. Look at your own beliefs and compare them to the scriptures, and get opinions from men of faith before you make such a deadly claim.

[@billsluyter4664]

@@scottbailey9242 Your reply is to put opinions of men before God? Where in the bible does it say one day for God is the same as one day for man? Even 2 Peter 3:8 is man trying to quantify a day of God. We can love God, we can worship God, we are to primitive to understand God and his eternal nature. I said borderline heresy, if you can't understand a man's writing in clear English, how can you think you can understand the nature or eternity of God?

[@scottbailey9242]

@@billsluyter4664 Use of the term heresy at all is divisive, unless it describes a clear violation of the teachings laid out in the Bible. There is no "boarder line" when it comes to heresy. This term is misused by so many people for hateful purposes. Heretics ultimately must be put out of the church if they do not repent. Do you think this stuff is unbiblical in some way? Does it involve beliefs that put someone's soul at risk? That is what heresy is.

[@billsluyter4664]

@@scottbailey9242 her·e·sy: belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (especially Christian) doctrine. By your words, Jesus was a heretic to the 'church'. The church is not the spirit or the word. The church is the false path for fools to follow.

[@jknga5869]

​@@scottbailey9242 Why do you need me of faith? Many of those are false teachers.

[@harold1733]

I believe in God the Creator. I also believe that God designed evolution as a mechanism for the perpetuation of life. God designed everything. Genesis is the word of God and is true. But it is our interpretation of Genesis that may be missing a crucial aspect. Do I defy God by believing in science? No. The study of science is a testament and glorification of God and His works. The Holy Bible was written over a long time by hundreds of authors inspired by God during a certain time period. The point of the Bible is to account for the reasoning for why God Himself came down from Heaven and took the form of a Man, Jesus Christ of Nazareth. It is with a humble heart full of fear and love of God, our Creator, that I humbly consider the Bible to be not used literally to explain the intricate details of creation. It does say it already: that God created reality. End of story regarding that. Does the Bible explain how DNA works? Does it explain gravity? No. The Bible has an intent. To tell a love story about God and His creation, us. Reality itself is also the Word of God. Science is just a human construct to explain it. As a scientist, all I do in science is to honor God.

[@wardraven8755]

Well if god is real and the bible is true then no1 that has lived the last 954 years are going to heaven. No1 that lives for the next 46 years will go to heaven. Why because we are all being deceived by satin. Also everything he is saying has been debunked many many times

[@TimesTicking666]

WE HAVE NOT ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE OF A GOD EXISTING EATHER !!!

[@ds29912]

Physics proves intelligence, power and will.

[@stephanfouche9208]

Do you believe in science? Science would have you believe that the vast majority of all matter in the universe is completely undetectable.

[@markjohnson4937]

Of course we do. Jesus Christ. Living proof right there.

[@v1e1r1g1e1]

Oh now, come on!! What evidence would you like to have that YOU would accept as indicative of the existence of a Divine Creator (Biblical) God?

[@philtofield4572]

G​@@ds29912 erm....no....it.....doesn't

[@stucody]

Hilarious. Evolution is fact and yes it’s been observed.

[@jaykiller4510]

Yall read the Bible wrong. Lol. Man was all ready created. It said El lahiem which means the gods created man in our likeness and our image. Which means they were all ready here maybe not as smart.

[@ChristKingShadow777]

All we require is Faith 🙏🏻 until HE returns.

[@jiml1086]

Lol ... Because one theory is hard to prove dosent make the other real We never observe a life form spawning from nothing...we also never saw a god create a life form... Sorry...bur even if there is a creator he still had to emerge from nothing... So in my mind ...existence ...life, reality..are pretty divine ..no need to put a sentient will on that...

[@johnstanp9692]

"We never observe a life form spawning from nothing...we also never saw a god create a life form..." Yet people come to the conclusion that "life" must have come from non-life. Your argument is self defeating. "Sorry...bur even if there is a creator he still had to emerge from nothing..." How could something emerge from nothing ? What is that "nothing" that has such a property that something could emerge from it?

[@scottbailey9242]

People choose not to believe because they love darkness because their deeds are evil. They don't want to be accountable for sin.

[@RobouteGuilliman-M41]

If you don't believe in the description of creation, then you're picking and choosing which parts of God's Word you choose to believe, and which parts you don't.

[@maylingng4107]

We do not pick and choose. We reject all of creation stories as fake and hoaxes.

[@stephanfouche9208]

The Bible says you should rip out your eye if it causes you to sin. How many Christians have you seen with 1 eye?

[@RobouteGuilliman-M41]

@@maylingng4107 then you're not Christian, and I can only wonder why you're here.

[@RobouteGuilliman-M41]

@@stephanfouche9208 maybe if you'd've joined the military, you would've seen them, yourself. By the way, Representative Dan Crenshaw is a Methodist, if that's Christian, to you.

[@stephanfouche9208]

@@RobouteGuilliman-M41 So Christians in the military rip their own eyes out? The Bible verse seems applicable to everyone thou, not just those in the military. Dan Crenshaw lost his eye in an explosion, he didn't rip it out himself.

[@bennielaars]

How ironic that the YEC hijack the Old Testament and read much more into it than the original owners who wrote it. And on top of that claim that those who only follow the Old Testament will not go to heaven because they have not accepted Jesus. Taking the Old Testament literally and using it as evidence is absurd.

[@jarridcarter5001]

How about you make an argument against each one of his talking points instead of a generalized “your just wrong”

[@thehowlingjoker]

@@jarridcarter5001 1. Abiogenesis is not a part of evolution. Abiogenesis is origin of life sciences, another field in biology. 2. We have witnessed the evolution of multicellularity from single-celled organisms in a lab. There is no need to have 2 or three celled organisms. Evolution can quite literally jump passed them, we've seen it go from 1 cell to 8 cell for example. No need for 2 or 3 cell intermediates. 3. ""Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Brooklyn, NY, pg. 44" - I believe this is the maths for proteins he is making mention of. It has been widely criticized and rejected. 4. Macroevolution and Microevolution are THE EXACT SAME THING. They use the same mechanisms. The ONLY DIFFERENCE is the timescale. So yes, they are just wrong.

[@georgevossen3846]

The devil wants you to believe your not important nothing special and it's a lie your made in the image of God almighty not a monkey God of everything put his hands on you a man and molded you alone with his hands we have love freedom choice and we can make others in our image not even angels in heaven have our abilities

[@williamgreenfield9991]

You are not special. You think of yourself as godlike, which is just an ego trip. You ARE just another part of nature. We did not evolve from monkeys. We evolved from a type of chimpanzee or ape, which are not monkeys. You can't handle the idea that you evolved from some form of chimp or ape, but you are perfectly OK with the idea you came from dirt. Got it.

[@neilpepper3575]

Bull crap

[@darylezell9158]

What nonsense, Lol

[@rhsuejdjehej]

Evolution is based on real, verifiable and observable evidence. The same cannot be said for any religion. Our understanding of evolution is constantly changing as more evidence comes to light. Unfortunately, there will always be some things that we don’t understand and that’s OK. That being said; there is nothing wrong with questioning the extraordinary claims made by religion. There is, however, something deeply wrong with having answers (the Bible, Quran, etc.) that cannot be questioned. I implore anyone currently stuck in the cage of religion start questioning these “answers”.

[@Allabertina]

I am a Christian who believed that God used evolution to create. The last few years however I have come across different views that are very convincing. Primary for me is evidence from cellular microbiology showing that it is not possible. And about the evidence for actual across species evolution: there is just none of it. And, dinosaur fossils are found with soft tissue...

[@grosenj]

@@Allabertina You sound like you've been reading creationist literature, would that be true? Creationists usually veil their "theories" in scientific parlance to trick people into believing their claims. Also, the presence of soft tissue in dino fossils is no longer considered controversial by the paleontology community, since the iron-rich blood of dinos preserve tissue in some cases. And, most importantly, neither does it disprove evolution nor the fact that dinos died millions of years ago. And it doesn't prove the bible to be true. I would suggest you should beware of content coming from creationists, because it is plain nonsense.

[@FaithTalks]

You can't observe the origin of mankind. You can only make guestimates in the case of evolution, or trust revelation from God in the case of Christianity. I think we should question what western state education has presented as "objectively true" when it is in fact, highly questionable. Scientists and non-scientists have legitimate religious and non-religious reasons to reject it. People have questioned religious claims for centuries. In fact, protestant Christians in the west fought for freedom of religion. And Christianity, unlike other religions is based on the real, historical life, death and resurection of Jesus Christ. What makes you a Christian is believing that historical event took place to pay the penalty for your sins and bring you back to the God that created you.

[@thehowlingjoker]

@@FaithTalks Over 99% of biologists accept evolution. It is objectively true, it meets the definition of both those words. We can observe the origin of mankind, that's what genetics and paleontology are doing. Something tells me you don't know what an "observation" is in a scientific context.

[@marcj3682]

"Evolution is based on real, verifiable and observable evidence." LOL.

[@thehowlingjoker]

The issue with these apologists is that they are soo confidently wrong.

[@FaithTalks]

How so?

[@thehowlingjoker]

@@FaithTalks They say evolution is based on 4 major ideas. Let's see how much they get wrong; 1. Origin of life from non-living matter ISN'T within the field of evolution. Evolutionary biology is not the explanation of how life arose, only how life diversifies. Instead, that is the realm of Origin of life sciences, abiogenesis inparticular. Abiogenesis doesn't use evolutionary mechanisms, it isn't evolution. So they got that wrong. It's true that we haven't observed the origin of life, but we have observed many of the incremental stages between basic chemicals and life. That is what abiogenesis studies and the data it has produced. 2. Multicellularity. Again, incorrect on that point as well. It is true we have no two-celled lifeforms, but that isn't an argument. We KNOW (as in have witnessed and can show) that life can go from singlecelled to multicelled. It doesn't need to go "1 cell, 2 cell, 3 cell" on and on. It can go from one cell to tens of cells skipping the intermediate numbers. Again, we have witnessed this in a lab. He is highlighting that they haven't looked into any of the scientific material on the evolution of multicellularity. We do have 4 cell lifeforms. There is overwhemling evidence released to peer-review showing our origins from singlecelled life. 3. Time and chance don't drive evolution, nor is it accidental. "Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random." The "maths" he gives is hard to critique without a citation to the actual works. But assuming he is talking about the assemply of a protein as described in "Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Brooklyn, NY, pg. 44." it has been debunked. I can find plenty of literature critiquing it online, including citations. Then again, quoting wishy-washy maths from nearly 40 years ago is at best outdated. 4. What we witness today IS evidence of macro evolution. Macro evolution uses the exact same mechanisms as micro evolution. They are the EXACT SAME THING. The only difference is the timeframe. That is evolution 101 taught in school. There are new genes. We have witnessed the evolution of de-novo genetic material producing beneficial changes. Like those in bacteria allowing the resistance to antimicrobials or to consume nylon. So when they clearly know nothing about evolution and get practicall everything they say blatantly wrong, why should I listen to the rest? They are at best ignorant or at worst willfully lying. Neither is a good look. I mean anyone with Google can fact check the nonsense they are saying.

[@alexdrake8079]

@@thehowlingjoker Buddy, there's no such thing as a 2-celled organism 🤦🤦

[@thehowlingjoker]

@@alexdrake8079 No, because there doesn't need to be. You can go from singlecelled to many cells without needing to go "1 cell, 2 cell, 3 cell" etc. You know we have seen this in a lab right. From single celled to multicellular? I literally explained that in my comment. Of course not, you're willfully ignorant.

[@stephanfouche9208]

If evolution isn't real, then why is human DNA 98% the same as monkey DNA? Was God like, "Oh I know, Im gonna play a joke on humanity and make their Dna look similar to monkeys, haha. That will really screw with them."

[@GazGuitarz]

Not being God it is difficult to answer concerning his design decisions, but suffice to say why would he want to reinvent the wheel? If arms and legs and eyes and ears worked when he designed and created monkeys why would he need to design a whole new set for human beings when he can simply use and slightly modify things he has already? I do believe in adaptive evolution ..ie: a birds beak can grow longer to more easily suit it's environment and be more useful in gathering food, but that's not the type of evolution that we are discussing today. It's simply more proof of God's genius in design.

[@stephanfouche9208]

@@GazGuitarz I agree with you. But why is there an aversion to calling that process 'evolution'? If we go back further in time and look at how God created the atoms essential for life. It was done using stars in a process called stellar nucleosynthesis. The fact that the process is understood and has a scientific name doesn't invalidate God in any way. So I'm curious why evolution is different.

[@GazGuitarz]

@@stephanfouche9208 Because evolutionary biology claims that life comes from nothing.

[@williamgreenfield9991]

@@stephanfouche9208 The religious aversion to admitting the FACTS of evolution comes from the narcissistic need to think we are somehow special and not just another part of nature. It bruises the human ego, and that is simply unacceptable for a lot of folks.

[@frankieRandle8779]

That’s not true. It’s more like 80 - 90%. It’s only true if you don’t count the gaps in the dna strand or the so-called junk dna. We share 50% dna with bananas and 84% with dogs so that doesn’t prove anything.

[@Obeytheroadrules]

Isn’t it funny how evolution only gets shut down on social media never anywhere else 😂

[@vishaldive3777]

It is so simple, because billions of people on earth don't want to accept the existence of God, the creator.

[@awaitingthetrumpetcall4529]

People with green hair, body piercings and tattoos only get shut down online...

[@rhsuejdjehej]

⁠@@vishaldive3777Sure I’ll accept “god the creator” with verifiable evidence. Please present your evidence. The Bible is NOT evidence.

[@SmallzTvGaming]

@@rhsuejdjehej the evidence is creation, creation is proof of a creator

[@Obeytheroadrules]

@@SmallzTvGaming if you had evidence for creation, then you would have a mechanism , please provide me the mechanism for God creating anything

[@thesmart1502]

Dinosaurs?

[@rustyshacklferd535]

Research dinosauria and the inventer.

[@marcj3682]

And? Dinosaurs were called dragons, and are not millions of years old.

[@FaithTalks]

What about them?

[@thehowlingjoker]

@@marcj3682 Dinosaurs were not called dragons and they are in fact many millions of years old. The earliest depictions of dragons in art look like reptiles. Either monitor lizards or crocodiles. We know they are millions of years old, the law of radioactive decay is a thing.

[@thesmart1502]

@@FaithTalks so are carbon dating is not real or dinosaurs don’t exist or existed with man? Btw I’m Christian

[@bryanprehoda]

This guy totally dismisses carbon dating lol

[@williamgreenfield9991]

Sorry, this pretend "professor" is a bit misinformed about the oldest living things on Earth. There is an Aspen tree colony in Utah that is about 80 thousand years old. There is a Sea Grass meadow in Spain that is about 100 thousand years old. When he mentions the oldest trees being 4,500 years old, he is probably referring to Bristlecone Pines in California, Nevada, and Utah. The oldest LIVING Bristlecone Pine is indeed around that age, but tree ring comparisons with their fallen (dead) companion trees go back beyond 9,000 years, making them older than what the Bible claims is the age of the whole universe. Our universe is about 13.5 BILLION years old. Science has proved it. The newest telescopes have proved it. Your silly little Bronze Age book is mostly fiction. Get over it.

[@trevorjames426]

Science proves nothing, it’s all theory not fact

[@markh1011]

@@trevorjames426 Scientific theories can be facts. Gravity is a fact.

[@trevorjames426]

@ Jesus walked the Earth is also fact, recorded in many cultures over the past 2000 years 🤷‍♂️

[@markh1011]

@@trevorjames426 Jesus most likely existed. That doesn't make the entire bible true. David Koresh existed. I don't believe the things he said about god.

[@williamgreenfield9991]

@@trevorjames426 There was probably a guy named Jesus that walked the Earth back in the day. That doesn't mean that he was the only son of "God", nor does it mean that he came back from the dead.

[@afterhours2099]

I grew up a Christian but I am finding it harder to believe in it. I have had many discussions with some of my athiest friends and also went looking for my own answers. Here is what it comes down to, many of these scientists have to go out of their way to prove why a God would exist, by talking about cells or life coming from non life. I think we just don't know. Another thing is why do we not see the supernatural in today's world? Miracles as those in the old testament, Moses parting the sea, a talking snake, a man being swallowed by a whale,etc. I guess we in today's age aren't worthy to experience all that?

[@charlottet7379]

My daughter was born with a genetic disease. Made her blind, deaf and completely paralyzed in the end. Was told “this is it. She’ll die soon”, probably before her 1 year birthday. As a born and raised Christian, I knew God COULD heal her but didn’t know if He had it in his plans. So I went to a prayer meeting and that same evening, from having eaten out of a tube for 4 months, she began to slowly eat baby mash. A few days later, we saw her eyes, that before had that glassy texture to them as blind people have, that it was gone and she began to react to our voices too and follow us with her eyes and “talk” (baby baubles) again. The hospital that I had been living in for the past 4 months before going home to be home around family to take care of her when her end came, they didn’t (for good reason) believe us when we called to ask “she can eat and drink now, what can we feed her”. They though we were delusional because we didn’t want to believe our baby girl was dying. When we were adamant about it, they slowly gave advice and asked us to come by the next day for a “early check up” (we went to checkup every 14. day till she would pass) and when they heard we arrived, it was like a flock of rampant rhinos coming from the office. Half of them openly cried when they saw her eat by herself, looking around and baby-talk while the other half of the nurses was simply stunned or in disbelief. When all that is said, I have to say, she did die later on, of a simple influenza (probably because her body were very weak) but I got to see my little girl not suffer the last few months and look into her eyes and sing lullabies to her at night. It’s something that is still with me (and probably the nurses too) till this day. So yes, it isn’t often we see miracles and it’s not always we know why God won’t just heal whatever our sickness is, but I choose to trust in Him, even with a wheelchair and daily pain, because I might not see the reason now, but I know God will heal me IF it is His plan (so far through I have met many people, young and older, that have been positively affected to see how happy I am in my life DESPITE all my adversity and I’ll happily be an example for others if that is His plan, either way, I KNOW miracles can happen and I hope this can encourage you a little bit to know that God IS out there, even if we don’t necessarily understand what is going on in our lives). All my kindest thoughts and well-wishes

[@Mario_Sky_521]

Because life cannot self create it's a powerful argument towards a creator. It doesn't prove God directly, but proves it cannot self start. We know that for a fact today. When you read about miracles in the OT, you might think they were a dime a dozen, but not so. The time interval between them if averaged out is rather great, something like 50 or 100 years, I can't remember. Miracles were necessary to prove God to the people, but it didn't last long. What Moses did was forgotten or disbelieved by the kids who didn't see it first hand. God is a God that wants trust from us. He did a lot in the past and wants us to remember. If you want to lose God, then keep talking to your atheist friends, they'll be more than happy to pull you away. Try talking to Christians. You were pointed in the wrong direction. cheers!

[@MastaE2288]

The purpose of miracles was to verify the message and the messenger (Acts 2:22). The message is complete and we have the verified message (Hebrews 1:2, 2 Peter 1:3).

[@MastaE2288]

@@afterhours2099 In the past, I used to have my child play and laugh to their heart's content. As they aged, I gave them responsibilities that they did not previously have. Would they be justified in telling me to stop cherry picking? This example is precisely that. There was a point in which the message needed to be verified that it was of God in order for folks to believe it. Now that we are past that infancy stage, we no longer require miracles to understand the responsibilities given to us. I know you can't accept this and the only reason I'm telling you is because I'm curious which way you will twist it to your own destruction. Entertain me.

[@afterhours2099]

I'll make it simple, do you believe a Seven Headed beasts will arise from the ocean? Yes or no?

[@markmerry1471]

Well he's just one big joke.

[@alexdrake8079]

Buddy, he's speaking all facts here. I'm sorry but you've been lied too

[@thehowlingjoker]

@@alexdrake8079 No he isn't. Even children just starting evolution in biology lessons know that practically everything he said is nonsense. Except for the proteins thing, that requires a little more knowledge than children would have. But even that is nonsense. There is a reason he doesn't cite the paper with the maths it is from. It's from nearly 40 years ago, from a Christian journal and has been heavily peer-reviewed and criticised for getting much of the calculation wrong by misunderstanding the proteins from the outset.

[@alexdrake8079]

@thehowlingjoker Yeah cause evolution is complete lie buddy

[@alexdrake8079]

@thehowlingjoker Dude, peer reviews doesn't mean something is a fact, it is all opinions from people with the same views without any other interpretation from other with different views. I wouldn't rely on peer reviews to say something is a fact Lol 😆😆

[@thehowlingjoker]

@@alexdrake8079 If you disregard peer-review you disregard all science. If you're going to use that as an argument then you can never, ever make a claim and then use science to back it up. You've just discounted it. So, if you're going to make scientific claims and then disregard science. You're just being willfully dishonest to dodge any criticism. Also, immediately stop using all medicine. That's due to peer-review.

[@Tdizzle7775]

Great video Check out DR James Tour he is a published synthetic chemist and a Jewish believer in Jesus. He has some good videos dismantling abiogenesis from a chemist’s perspective

[@maylingng4107]

That is a shameless lie. James Tour has never done any research in evolution or abiogenesis. He has not published a single peer-reviewed article on evolution or abiogenesis. He is the loon who claims that Jesus appeared in the flesh in his bedroom and the two had conversations. Tour has been totally discredited by all science organizations on his nonsense on evolution or abiogenesis.

[@waynohh]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Sands_fossil_footprints

[@FaithTalks]

Thanks for watching. What are you pointing towards?

[@MathiasVIKING0403]

There are actually several sets of human footprints mixed with dinosaurs. One has to go see these for themselves,for they are not advertised by secular scientists. One site has 3 humans sets of prints obviously tracking the dinosaur like they were hunting it. Diamonds area creationist best friends. Carbon+14 still present in amounts that are impossible for evolutionary timescales to be possible. Shut down. Simple.

[@MathiasVIKING0403]

@@FaithTalks I referenced the multiple sets of human and dinosaur prints found together. One particular set has 3 humans, obviously tracking a dinosaur. As if they were hunting it for sure. But,the tube has a nasty habit of removing comments no matter the content.

[@MathiasVIKING0403]

@@FaithTalks one can only assume that they are either trying to say that this guy is wrong in the video,or maybe an attempt to disagree without conversation. 🤷??

[@thehowlingjoker]

@@MathiasVIKING0403 There are no prints. The only one I can think of are the Paluxy river tracks, and they were a fraud based on misrepresenting theropod prints.