That Bigfoot using the outhouse was hilarious 🤣

@calvinsmith7575

7 ай бұрын

Thanks! We try to switch stuff up as much as we can to make the delivery of information (which is critical) more fun and interesting as possible. It takes time and effort for our small team, but we trust people will appreciate it. So thanks for your encouragement : )

@alycewich4472

7 ай бұрын

Especially with the trailing TP 😂🤣😂

@cnault3244

6 ай бұрын

If you want hilarious, watch the films "The Life of Brian" or "Dogma".

@raygsbrelcik5578

6 ай бұрын

​@@cnault3244 Monty Python was definitely created for Idiots!

The background going on is great and hilarious!

Loved the Big Foot cameo. I find it interesting that Gould used the word “rarity” when discussing transitional fossils in the Fossil Record in spite of the fact they’ve found none 😊

@SavedbyGraceAlone1962

7 ай бұрын

@@mountkeen8701 I find interesting you claim they found some, when that's not true.

@SavedbyGraceAlone1962

7 ай бұрын

@@mountkeen8701 I find it interesting that you chose to repeat a falsehood. What's your motive for doing so when the existence of transitional fossils is obviously nothing more than atheists' attempts at claiming something exists in order to prove their atheistic world view? Ignorance or dishonesty?

@rollingstone3017

7 ай бұрын

@@mountkeen8701 There are NO transitional fossils. Period. Every single one purported to be so has been demonstrably proven fake. You are the one repeating falsehoods.

@HH-ru4bj

6 ай бұрын

​@@SavedbyGraceAlone1962what is a transitional fossil/form?

@SavedbyGraceAlone1962

6 ай бұрын

@@HH-ru4bj It's an atheist/evolutionist fantasy.

No matter how hard they try, no secular scientist can deny that there was some sort of massive water episode that changed the world at one time. However, they will refuse to acknowledge that the Bible has already perfectly explained it, and proven it. They can’t have that, can they? 😉

@settledown444

7 ай бұрын

Of course we can deny it because there's no physical evidence for such an event and *tons* of evidence such an event never occurred. Creationists like to point to the evidence for *local* flooding (which has happened hundreds of thousands of times over the last 500 million years) and claim with no basis it's from a *global* flood.

@shadowaccount8620

7 ай бұрын

No, we found mirco fossils dating back 3 billion years ago. Even if you dismissed that we found precambrian animals, some already were extinct by the "explosion," and we may have found the ancestors to the trilobite. So the only ones who deny reality is you guys.

@gregoswald7723

7 ай бұрын

No secular scientist can deny that there was some sort of massive water episode, because there was. In fact there were several massive water episodes. Any area of land, now above ground, with limestone, was once at the bottom of a sea or other body of water. This often happened multiple times, in the same area. Limestone (wet), with wind blown (dry) sandstone on top covered by limestone (wet) covered by basalt lava flow (hot-dry) covered by river bed conglomerates. Erosion, often by water,(rivers and rain) or glacier, flattened out the land only to be covered by more seas creating limestone of alluvial deposits, evidence of the existence of deep water at that location, multiple times.

@daviddavenport9350

7 ай бұрын

In ca 2900 BC there was an inordinately severy flooding of the Tigris/Euphrates valley, there is geologic proof of this flood.....at least 5 of the 'Flood' myths came into being shortly this event..from Ur to the other Chaldean city states in the area.....it would have seemed to inhabitants of that region that "the whole world was flooded"... therein lies the flood story of Noah...one of the last of the flood myths....

@daviddavenport9350

7 ай бұрын

@@gregoswald7723 but not all at once greg....

The lack of fossil evidence is indeed a huge and crushing fact against evolution, but it is not nearly the most serious. There is much more evidence disproving evolution now than when Darwin made that simple minded statement.

@lizd2943

7 ай бұрын

But the fossil evidence is not lacking, and there is no evidence disproving evolution.

@Rapturo_to_YESHUA

7 ай бұрын

@@lizd2943 Watch the video at 9:15 ? You clearly did not watch the video. Evodelusionists even admit it, when they're honest.

@lizd2943

7 ай бұрын

The video is wrong. National geographic is not a scientific publication, and it doesn't matter that most organisms never fossilize. We only need enough to see the pattern. Which we have. @@Rapturo_to_YESHUA

@jonathan4189

7 ай бұрын

I’m curious. Why do you think every accredited university on the planet from Texas to Tehran to Tanzania all use evolution as the foundation for all life sciences? Why does every geologists employed by a petrochemical company to locate oil deposits know the earth is billions of years old? What do you make of the myriad facts of that type?

@HuFlungDung2

7 ай бұрын

​@@jonathan4189They live under the same set of assumptions is all. The blind leading the blind. The conflict is between the theories of catastrophism and uniformatarianism. Some people cannot fathom a catastrophe occurring because then they would have to admit that a catastrophe could happen HERE, today. And they can't cope with that, so they bury the thought and make up what suits their personal whim. Then, they worship that idea, setting it up as a god before the one true God. There is no explanation of where all the organic matter that became coal, oil and natural gas came from. The rational explanation is that an abundant planet covered with massive forests was swept under the rug, and became our fossil fuel resources. This burial process only works when it is sudden and comprehensive enough to leave a detectable deposit, away from air and natural erosion. Nothing about oil exploration is answered by incorporating long intervals of time into it.

🙏 god bless you keep up your magnificent work

@rf7477

7 ай бұрын

god has never blessed anyone, ever. It is unlikely that he would bless this dreadful phony.

That bigfoot is hillarious

@blueeyedsoulman

7 ай бұрын

I wonder how many people caught that.

Crest more content like this! Loved the Sasquatch in the background! Both entertaining and informative. One of the most talked about reasons to find Bigfoot is to prove a missing link when in reality it is a gateway into the occult.

Great Video! I have tended to think evolution's biggest problem was the leap from mitosis to meiosis. It would be interesting to hear your top ten.

@madwhitehare3635

7 ай бұрын

Ooh! That caused a distant squeak in my brain from my schooldays! Had to look it up and sure enough I remembered! I'm SO pleased there's still some edjumication floating happily around my ancient skull!

@globalcoupledances

7 ай бұрын

Just one or more new genes. Multicellular organisms without meiosis went extinct. See Nye-Ham debate

@Seratan144

7 ай бұрын

The biggest problem of evolution is they can't provide any clear demonstrations of their claims.

@vladtheemailer3223

7 ай бұрын

​@@Seratan144The biggest problem is a refusal to accept that it is true.

@Seratan144

7 ай бұрын

@@vladtheemailer3223The truth is that anyone can be wrong. Without clear observation of an event, all one is left with is historical record, or evidence. Evidence can be misinterpreted or manufactured. Evidence can't always be trusted. This is the reason that lawyers, and not scientists, run the world. All you have is an opinion. The truth is that there is no clear demonstration that proves evolution. That evolution is just a theory and as such it has no practical value. Speciation has never been observed. Speciation can not be demonstrated. People that culture bacteria and viruses for medical purposes only see that bacteria stay bacteria and viruses stay viruses.

Great video

I also pray that you will understand the incredible greatness of God's power for us who believe him. This is the same mighty power that raised Christ from the dead and seated him in the place of honor at God's right hand in the heavenly realms. Now he is far above any ruler or authority or power or leader or anything else--not only in this world but also in the world to come. Ephesians 1:19-21

@daviddavenport9350

7 ай бұрын

And Christs resurrection has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of the species karen.....

@Seratan144

7 ай бұрын

@@daviddavenport9350 You are wrong. One can not get into a debate with an evolutionist without the conversation getting to religion. Evolution is worthless for any practical purposes. Evolution amounts to a hobby and it is used as atheist propaganda. Reject evolution and it will in no way hurt the quality of your life. Because it isn't important.

@Seratan144

7 ай бұрын

God gave me everything I have! It has worked in my life and I have seen it work in the lives of others. Praise God! Love!

@fenton993

7 ай бұрын

@@daviddavenport9350 Spreading the gospel wherever and however you can should not be a last resort, or forbidden simply based on video content.

@louisevannorden2001

7 ай бұрын

It’s useless to throw our pearls before swine.

People who write about changes in animal due to changes in enviornment still are stating that what results are still birds ,snakes and trilobites. that haven't changed to something else.

@stevepierce6467

6 ай бұрын

Changes in environment do not change genes. What happens is, as the environment changes, it will be met by beings with all sorts of natural genetic variations. The variations that produce traits better suited to the new conditions will be the ones more likely to get passed on to the next generation. And after millions of years and generations of these subtle changes, birds, snakes and trilobites do become other things.

Back in the 70's, my Dad would tell us stories about wrestling with Bigfoot........I was devastated to find out he had merely shared a KFC picnic dinner with Bigfoot's family...

@williamwalls9768

7 ай бұрын

Ya boy bangs was there

@oldnurse

7 ай бұрын

Bahahahahahah. Everyone knows they love the extra crispy.

Love it. Always good stuff coming from you people. Thanks

Calvin smith is Great

@Jewonastick

7 ай бұрын

At spewing nonsense

@BuckJackson-kc8pb

7 ай бұрын

@@Jewonastick Only in your deluded mind. Evolution is a farce that atheists use science to deceitfully use to prop it up. Trying to imply that life arbitrarily came to exist and then spent millions of years developing itself is ludicrous. Life did not create itself. Statistics/probability mathematics prove that no amount of time and random chance will work for pile of inert matter to become a living organism. Not even a single celled organism much less a mammal or human being. Takes more faith to believe that than to believe a Omnipotent Creator God made living beings.

@sciencerules8525

7 ай бұрын

@@BuckJackson-kc8pb That's the fourth time you made you grandiose claim to have mathematically disproven evolution. *Show us the math* or hit the road.

@BuckJackson-kc8pb

7 ай бұрын

@@sciencerules8525 LOL! Grandiose. Forgot to mention that silly comment. Dude, do you know anything about cellular biology and biomechanisms/processes? Your cheese has slid off your cracker if you think inert matter decided to combine into complex proteins, DNA structures, etc. and develop cellular operations. ;D

9:55 buried together suddenly, almost like there was a worldwide catastrophe involving, I dunno, water maybe?

@Bomtombadi1

7 ай бұрын

I’m curious as to why you need to qualify a catastrophe with a worldwide one

@Bill_Garthright

7 ай бұрын

Yeah, floods happen. So what? You don't need to believe in magic to understand that floods happen, sometimes. Indeed, they're quite common.

@anarchorepublican5954

7 ай бұрын

@@Bill_Garthright ...@Bill_Gaslight 🌊🏔...floods over the top of Mt. Everest, are common...Whales in the Deserts of N. Africa and Chile are common...T-Rex and fish buried together are common....nearly the entire States of Montana/Wyoming /Colorado are a single flooded fossil plane (Green River Formation)...etc..etc..∞

@anarchorepublican5954

7 ай бұрын

@@Bill_Garthright ..but Bill_Gaslight, Evolution is 🎓Magic🔮🪄 magic "lucky monsters"....🐟⇢✨🐸⇢✨🦎⇢✨🦖→✨🦆...er..I mean "punctuated equilibrium "...which means things just stay the same...until they suddenly change...🤔And you find that compelling??...

@kellyanne7225

7 ай бұрын

Scientists agree that a huge, worldwide flood was possible and an explanation. But that’s as far as they will go. I think we should be intelligent enough to not argue that a small flood is not what is being referred to here. I’m speaking to the other responders, not the OP. 😊

01:49; 04:07; 07:10; 09:13 Great quotes!

@joshuakohlmann9731

7 ай бұрын

Yes; and all of them deliberately taken out of context.

@BlaineHeggie

7 ай бұрын

@@joshuakohlmann9731 Since you so claim, would you mind explaining the context?

@joshuakohlmann9731

7 ай бұрын

@@BlaineHeggie I'm going to be lazy and refer you to the comment by Hans De Mos below. It says everything I was planning to, much more concisely.

@BlaineHeggie

7 ай бұрын

@@joshuakohlmann9731 I've already read his comments. The additional context he showed does not affect the meanings of the selected quotes much and certainly does not indicate that the author of this video has taken them out of context nor twisted their meaning. In fact, the extra context strengthens the author's intended meaning.

@settledown444

7 ай бұрын

@@BlaineHeggie All of this video's quotes are classic examples of creationist quote-mining to paint a false picture of the author's actual views. Most people view such out-of-context quote mining as lying.

Well done

"This person doesn't agree with me on evolution, therefore he just doesn't UNDERSTAND it like I do"

Omg. Loved how the narrator is seriously discussing evolution and there's a bigfoot in the background! Thanks for all the effort you put into this, you guys. God bless you!!

@calvinsmith7575

6 ай бұрын

Honestly, it was tough to keep a straight face. And my crew was no help as they were laughing all the time at what was going on behind me! : )

@christabellelysander4392

6 ай бұрын

@@calvinsmith7575 Haha 😅 Thanks for the response 😊

This educational and hilarious. Would be a great homeschooling video. Or Sunday school.

📚💀🧐..nothing in Nature "adapts" quicker, than an Evolutionist...to contrary evidence..

@Bomtombadi1

7 ай бұрын

Right, because adapting to an ever-growing body of evidence is a bad thing. Nothing like a group of people who flail at the thought of change - the creationist moron.

@tims5268

7 ай бұрын

Why would you think adapting when faced with new evidence is bad? Why do you support channels like this lying about evidence in order to keep believing the same ridiculous nonsense?

@markb3786

7 ай бұрын

@@mountkeen8701 thank you

@anarchorepublican5954

6 ай бұрын

@@tims5268...📚💀🧐..Truth is Timmy...no one has a problem with the actual evidence ( my specialty is ancient horses and hominids- what's yours?..Soft Dino tissue denial?)... the problem is with "the Evolving Story's" ever more incredible absurdities...merely a modern creation myth...where any novel, idiotic idea, is as good as last one, that has now has been dismissed and discredited ... because much like the Existence of God...deepset Darwin devotion cannot be denied or falsified..it only morphs, speculates, continues to stubbornly assume "a priorti", and then merely adapts to another materialistic absurdity...I'm olde enough to have watched this Evolution happen time and time again ..Like so many fallen prophets....yet The Cult continues on ...

@anarchorepublican5954

6 ай бұрын

@@markb3786 ..you are welcome

Awesome ending!!

Stephen J. Gould's quote that is presented is a quote he made in 1977. The fossil map has grown since then. It takes very specific circumstances for a fossil to form, is why the earth isn't covered with fossils. But transitional forms have been found and have explained evolution in many ways. I mean.....You know the rest of us has access to the internet as well, right?

@calvinsmith7575

3 ай бұрын

Yes seeing as how you are using the internet . : ). However, there actually are fossils all over the earth- billions of them in fact- a testament to the global flood recorded in Genesis 6-9. And there only a handful of highly disputed (even among the evolutionary community) so-called transitional fossils as more and more of them keep falling off the evolutionary conveyor belt of evidences. Archaeopteryx- the supposed first bird and transition from dino to bird- gone. The fossil horse series- gone. Lucy- gone. Tiktallik- gone. Pakicetus- absolutely laughable!

One of the most glaring issues of religions is the inability ( so far) to present any evidence for any miracle claimed in the religion and the inability (so far) to present any evidence for any deity.

@lloydandbethbeiler8127

6 ай бұрын

Jesus walked this earth two thousand years ago performing miracles which when people saw, many did still not believe. The Bible says that without faith it is impossible to please God. Our holy God has no interest in revealing Himself to people who will not believe unless faith is exercised, so in your current state you will never find Him.

@cnault3244

6 ай бұрын

@@lloydandbethbeiler8127 "Jesus walked this earth two thousand years ago performing miracles which when people saw, many did still not believe. " That's what the stories claim. Now present the evidence for the stories. "The Bible says that without faith it is impossible to please God." You haven't posted anything to show why we should take anything the bible says seriously. "Our holy God has no interest in revealing Himself to people who will not believe unless faith is exercised, so in your current state you will never find Him." So this god of yours wants everyone to know it and worship it but it won't show itself unless we believe it exists? Your ridiculous statement works just as well with a minor substitution: Zeus has no interest in revealing Himself to people who will not believe unless faith is exercised, so in your current state you will never find Him. Odin has no interest in revealing Himself to people who will not believe unless faith is exercised, so in your current state you will never find Him. Brahma has no interest in revealing Himself to people who will not believe unless faith is exercised, so in your current state you will never find Him. Ptah has no interest in revealing Himself to people who will not believe unless faith is exercised, so in your current state you will never find Him.

@sliglusamelius8578

6 ай бұрын

There are many miracles, your side dismisses them out of hand.

@cnault3244

6 ай бұрын

@@sliglusamelius8578 "There are many miracles" Present the best one along with the supporting evidence.

@sliglusamelius8578

6 ай бұрын

@@cnault3244 Did my citations get deleted or did they get posted? This stupid site deletes citations, even of their own YT videos.

Was there a Smallfoot before the Bigfoot?

@gregoryholden3255

6 ай бұрын

@edjohnson2192. Damnit, that's funny! I laughed out loud. But to answer your question,hell yeah! 😅 We know that there was neither ___but they (atheists) don't!

You guys are really rocking !!

@calvinsmith7575

5 ай бұрын

Thanks!

Not going to lie, I lost focus when bigfoot was leaving the outhouse....had to back it up and try again! Great video by the way!

@calvinsmith7575

3 ай бұрын

Thanks! We had fun with that one : )

Cute! Great information.

I was half expecting "Bigfoot" to sit down, take off his mask, and be revealed as a creation museum expert. :)

This is so funny! Like the bigfoot in the background!

Alléluia 🔥💜🔥

Cute and informative 😂

This is my favorite Gould quote: "It is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists-whether through design or stupidity, I do not know-as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level but are abundant between larger groups." - S.J. Gould, _Evolution as Fact and Theory,_ " Discover, May 1981. Which is it with this guy's anti-science nonsense - by design or stupidity?

@joshuakohlmann9731

7 ай бұрын

Design. No question.

@settledown444

7 ай бұрын

@@joshuakohlmann9731 To be fair the two categories aren't mutually exclusive. 🙂

@anarchorepublican5954

7 ай бұрын

📚💀🧐...except... so-called transitional forms between "Larger groups" aren't Evolution...that's fence sitting Taxonomy...in fact most of the postmodern so-called evidence for Evolution, isn't evidence at all, and just based in merely blurrying of clear and set taxonomical boundaries, combined with bold absurdist declarations, and narrative- but, without evidence ("birds are dinosaurs", or ..."humans are Apes". .."people are fish" etc.). ..Blind Materialistic Darwinism doesn't take place in "larger groups", it supposedly only happens in that smaller species level, even on an individual level...but, merely pointing out a distinction of 1 and extinct 3 toed horses, is not proof of anything...except obvious "a priorti" assumptions and speculations..

@hansdemos6510

7 ай бұрын

@@settledown444 That would have to be "UD" then; "Unintelligent Design"...

@calvinsmith7575

7 ай бұрын

HAHA Gould got so much flak from his community he had to attack creationists, but his quotes still stand. He admitted there was a handfull of supposed transitional forms but they have all been challenged within the evolutionary community itself...

BIGFOOT BEHIND U!!!!

I loved Bigfoot in the background! 😂😂😂

It was difficult to concentrate on your words sometimes, I have to admit! Sooo funny❤👍

Really? I didn't think you guys had it in you for such a comical ending there. Lol

@calvinsmith7575

7 ай бұрын

What? C'mon. Canadians can have a sense of humour : )

@JiraiyaSama86

7 ай бұрын

@@calvinsmith7575 I don't doubt that. It's just not something I expect to find on a channel like this.

@calvinsmith7575

7 ай бұрын

@@JiraiyaSama86 Honestly the toughest thing was keeping my face straight when I knew what was going on behind me : )

No doubt I'm slow at this---but can somebody explain to me why Bigfoot is in this video? (What does the Bigfoot legend have to do with any of this? Bigfoot and Bigfoot fossils are not mentioned in any evolutionary biology textbook I've ever read.)

@settledown444

7 ай бұрын

AIG knows its target audience is scientifically illiterate and only gets its "science" from pseudoscience sources pushing things like Ica stones and bigfoot. They pander to that ignorance to try and score their cheap talking points.

@kellyanne7225

7 ай бұрын

I kinda wondered the same. And I come from a Creationist view! 😁

@calvinsmith7575

7 ай бұрын

Its called comedy- hopeful monster- get it? No? Oh well...

@RealHooksy

6 ай бұрын

They like to believe that mythical creatures are real I guess. If you can believe in Bigfoot you can believe anything? Just an assumption.

A-mazing.

"One of the most glaring issues of evolution since its inception is transitional fossils" Only if you think that "transitional" mean something like a half-fish, half-cat chimaera. In reality, ALL fossils are transitional, just as all living things are transitional. In actuality this "problem" exists only in th eminds of creationists who do not understand what transitional even means. lol.

@markb3786

7 ай бұрын

like "micro" and "macro" evolution

@jmontgomery1178

7 ай бұрын

Good use of a red herring. He never said that transitional means half-fish. By characterizing the argument this way, then claiming your opponent is ignorant you have proven nothing. If you want to show your understanding, then define transitional very very carefully. Today we see clear distinctions between kinds of animals--that's how animal classification works. So, what exactly is transitional and how are all living things examples?

@settledown444

7 ай бұрын

@@jmontgomery1178 A transitional fossil is defined as any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group. It doesn't have to be on a direct lineage. There is no scientific taxonomic classification as "kind".

@richardgregory3684

7 ай бұрын

@@jmontgomery1178 A half-cat half-fish is invariably what creationists demand as a "transitional".Halfway between one distinct species and another. All living things are transitional because they are the form between their ancestor and the descendent. You are the transitional form between your parents and your children. Youare not a 50-50 clone copy of your parents, you are genetically unique - like wise your children. You are therefore the form betwene the two generations. Over many generatins, cumulative difference produce radical change, including speciatin.

@jmontgomery1178

7 ай бұрын

@@richardgregory3684 I agree with you that we are different than our parents and parent's parents. Yet there are no transitional trans-species life forms today. Not one. If all life forms are all in transition, where are the millions of almost, but not quite dogs? Or any of the millions of other animals. All animals are distinct species, with variation within that species. There are no infinite varieties, which is what your theory demands.

Even if you could prove evolution false it would not mean that biblical creationism is real true.

@kellyanne7225

7 ай бұрын

Really? Then what would be left?

@ripvanwinkle2002

7 ай бұрын

@@kellyanne7225 " i dont know the answer therefor god" IS NEVER THE ANSWER

@settledown444

7 ай бұрын

@@kellyanne7225 _Then what would be left?_ Natural processes we haven't discovered yet would be left. POOF! MAGIC! isn't the default option.

@kellyanne7225

7 ай бұрын

@@settledown444 You’re right. Poof, magic is totally impossible, yet that’s what evolution believes. Evolution itself breaks proven scientific laws. The first law scientific law of biogenesis: Living matter cannot come from non living matter. Yet according to evolution, nothing exploding into everything, that’s your Big Bang Theory that can’t possibly be trueHow convenient that it’s ignored and stated as non negotiable facts when it isn’t even close. You can’t have it both ways. Also, since when do the contents of explosions land into perfect order? This is another scientific law that evolution ignores. I’m spacing on the name at the moment, so I paraphrased. Either way, it’s proven impossible. Mathematically and scientifically. Yet here we are, third planet from the sun, positioned perfectly with our only moon with its perfect magnetism and rotation around us for our months, which coincides perfectly with our axis and rotation around the sun for our seasons, and it were were so much as an inch closer to the sun we would incinerate. If we were an inch further, we would freeze. Just as the Creation account describes. Jupiter and Saturn-especially Jupiter, has millions of craters on it from asteroids that are larger than the earth. Those two planets protect ours. We wouldn’t exist if a larger than Earth asteroid hit us! This can’t not be by design, any of this. This isn’t a micro sized of amount of information about how perfectly placed our solar system is. You can’t even tell me what that “third option” would be, the only answer you can give is why evolution couldn’t exist! 😂 You really need to do better research before you comment, and it’s clear you’ve done zero. Sarcasm doesn’t prove anything except that you’re triggered.

@kellyanne7225

7 ай бұрын

@@ripvanwinkle2002 That is really, really unintelligent answer.

Hi

Love the big foot in back lol

In the past the population density was so thin very few areas had any people at all, and in death, they may well have rotted completely away.

@jockyoung4491

7 ай бұрын

Most did, of course, but we still have fossils of over 20 species of hominids over the past 6 million years. Fossilization is very rare but it does happen.

I see you like quotes. Here's another one: "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms." - Stephen J. Gould

@atyt11

7 ай бұрын

@keesdevries9484 Sentences are nice, proof would be better. Believing a theory as fact just because the alternative is not to your liking sounds like your religious as apposed to scientific. 1. 99.99% percent of the fossils missing means MACRO evolution theory (MET) is dead. Gould new this and was at least somewhat honest about it. 2. Dr. James Tour prooves the impossibility of the first life let alone millions of different first life body forms AND..... the spouse to mate and reproduce with. Therefore MET is dead. 3. There has never been a single living thing that has more genetic information than its parent. Therefore MET is dead. 4. DNA is required to make DNA therefore MET is dead. I could go on, but you get my point.

@lizd2943

7 ай бұрын

Theories explain facts. 1. Macroevolution is observed. Fossilization is a rare process but we have more than enough to show the pattern predicted by evolutionary theory. 2. Tour proved no such thing. We simply don't know the full process yet, which is irrelevant to our understanding of evolution anyway. 3. Every living organism has mutations its parents didn't, so yeah, it would be impossible for you to be more wrong. 4. No, RNA makes DNA. RNA can form spontaneously under the right conditions. You could go on, and get lots more things wrong if you want.@@atyt11

@calvinsmith7575

7 ай бұрын

HAHA Gould got so much flak from his community he had to attack creationists, but his quotes still stand. He admitted there was a handfull of supposed transitional forms but they have all been challenged within the evolutionary community itself...

@lizd2943

7 ай бұрын

No, they've been challenged by creationists because creationists are ideologically bound not to accept them. And yes, he was talking about species to species transitions and a lot more have been found since his day. Why do you guys always lie? Oh right, ideologically bound.@@calvinsmith7575

@Rapturo_to_YESHUA

7 ай бұрын

Evodelusion is simply a fantasy, and 100% not "science". 🙂

When he said the data was "so rare" what he should have said it does not exist.

10:51

It’s almost like AiG has run out of ideas. Just have to stick to the same ole lies huh?

@settledown444

7 ай бұрын

Creationists haven't come up with anything new in decades. They can't. All they can do is wait for new scientific research to come out so they can spin and misrepresent it.

When you remove God the Creator from the equation. Stupidity is all that is left.

@Jewonastick

7 ай бұрын

That's the problem of creationism. There is no equation with god in it. 2+3=5, that's an equation..... Creationist make "equations" like this: 5=god

@user-tw6pu3wb9p

7 ай бұрын

@@Jewonastick You think this, because the evil principalities run a constant interference.

@Jewonastick

7 ай бұрын

@@user-tw6pu3wb9p No, I know this because there is no method to detect or investigate the god claim. You can't investigate how god does something or whether he is doing anything at all to begin with, therefore he can NEVER be part of any equation.

@user-tw6pu3wb9p

7 ай бұрын

@@Jewonastick God's life manual is the Bible, you should try reading it before mocking God. God will not be mocked.

@settledown444

7 ай бұрын

@@user-tw6pu3wb9p No one is mocking God, just some of His stupid followers who think they can use science as evidence for their belief in the supernatural.

Why did they they chisel out All Human foot prints under or beside Dinosaur prints ?

I think it would be better to film the presenter from just one camera facing angle and and show more clips of what he's talking about as he talks (for varieties sake!)

@lizd2943

7 ай бұрын

And also not lie about everything.

At the end of the clip, Mr. Smith says that if 999 frames out of a thousand were missing from a movie, you wouldn't get much of a show. A 90 minute movie has about 130,000 frames. If we have only 130 left, would we be able to follow the story? I dare say we would. Most comics have about 5 panels per page and tell their story in around 24-32 pages, giving 120-160 individual drawings per story; so 130 is nicely within the ballpark. And of course that is exactly what we see in the fossil evidence. Sure, we miss most of it, but what we do have fits with the modern scientific theory of evolution, while it contradicts Mr. Smith's young-eartherism. And although there is so much unclear that all hypotheses within the framework of evolution are up for vigorous debate, each new find confirms the broad outline of the theory.

@appaloosa42

7 ай бұрын

Problem for evolutionists is they are narrating a film with NO frames.

@appaloosa42

7 ай бұрын

And why cant the EARTH/cosmos be old and human history young?

@Jewonastick

7 ай бұрын

​@@appaloosa42yes, the "frames" are provided by genetics, paleontology, geology, biology and so on..

@settledown444

7 ай бұрын

@@appaloosa42 Because of all the physical evidence humans have been around for at least 200,000 years and their ancestors for million of years before that.

@jockyoung4491

7 ай бұрын

@@appaloosa42 There are over 250,000 species of fossils. That's a lot of frames.

Or... you could just read the next line Darwin wrote... _"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. _*_The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.”_* In the quote shown from Stephen J. Gould, the part that is replaced by the ellipsis (...) is actually quite long and touches on the very same matter as the part from the Darwin quote Mr. Smith so cleverly, or deviously, omitted: [start quote] *_"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology._*_ The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:_ _The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory._ _Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks._ _Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet _*_to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study._* _For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning [1]. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."_ [end quote] As you can see, Mr. Smith's attempts at quotemining do not do him any favors. They expose his argument as specious and devoid of any rational value, and demonstrate that his faith-based views cannot compete with the evidence-based views exemplified by Darwin and Gould. If the available evidence points to or allows "gradualism", then that is a rational explanation, but if subsequently discovered evidence points to "punctuated equilibrium", or an even more sophisticated view integrating the newer evidence from the field of genetics, then we should abandon our previously held view and switch to the better one. I understand this may be difficult to grasp for faith-based religious believers, because they like to pride themselves on the supposedly "eternal" qualities of their immutable dogmas, but the intellectual honesty and humility to abandon one's view if and when the evidence or advancing insight demands it is one of the cornerstones of the modern scientific and scholarly method. Apparently this is one of the elements of the modern scientific and scholarly method Mr. Smith does not support if it means that he should give up his religious dogma, and that is why he will never be able to properly follow the modern scientific and scholarly method.

@jonathanb9889

7 ай бұрын

Garbage comment from a soapbox, can insert "evolutionists" into your comment in place of Smith and still sound soapbox. He did mention the lack in his video with the 99.9% problem evolutionists have, they believe in the .1% as proof of evolution... Keep soapboxing in the comments section.

@Bomtombadi1

7 ай бұрын

@@jonathanb9889yeah, it’s only the fossil evidence people cling to as evidence for evolution. You people are absolutely pathetic.

@hansdemos6510

7 ай бұрын

@@jonathanb9889 You said: _"Garbage comment from a soapbox, ..."_ Thank you for that thoughtful contribution. You said: _"He did mention the lack in his video with the 99.9% problem evolutionists have, they believe in the .1% as proof of evolution... "_ If you have 999 white swans, only one black swan will disprove the claim that all swans are white. You misunderstand how evidence works on a very fundamental level.

@hansdemos6510

7 ай бұрын

@@Bomtombadi1 You said: _"yeah, it’s only the fossil evidence people cling to as evidence for evolution."_ I am guessing this is meant ironically?

@hansdemos6510

7 ай бұрын

​@@mountkeen8701 You said: _"Well put."_ Thanks. You said: _"The one consistent thing about Smith is his dishonesty."_ I am a bit on the fence about that. I tend to think he really believes the religious things he says, but as he has been corrected so many times on his errors and misrepresentations, it becomes harder and harder for me to give him the benefit of the doubt. After all, if he really is a Christian, his beliefs should prevent him from deliberately spreading falsehoods, and the errors and misrepresentations he makes therefore must be things he genuinely believes; mistakenly, but genuinely. In that case we should patiently explain again and again where he is mistaken, much like we would to a slow student in a class we are teaching. However, many of these things have been explained to him so often by so many different people in so many different ways that it is highly unlikely that he can still be genuinely mistaken about them. That would open up three different sets of possibilities. On the one hand, it is possible that he is a true believer who simply is emotionally incapable of accepting that his beliefs could be untrue and who therefore genuinely dismisses material evidence if it contradicts his beliefs, even though he knows the evidence is valid. Or, he is a true believer who is convinced that taking a bit of liberty with the truth is allowed in the battle to save souls. In these cases, it probably wouldn't matter how much we explained. On the other hand, it is possible that he is not or not anymore a true believer, but that he has gotten stuck in this job, with a mortgage and a nice car and a good health insurance and pension, and that he now is just cynically in it for the money (gratuitous Zappa reference of the day). I would not like to think this was the case, but having more vests than Imelda Marcos had shoes is not a good sign...

Way is Uncle Bob in your Video? Hey Uncle Bob! 😊

Their faces on that day. Please Lord hurry.

9:55 is a straight up lie. For example, consider trilobites. The earliest simple examples are found in the Cambrian around 521 MYA. In the subsequent almost 270 million years they evolved greater complexity and diversified into over 20,000 known species in over 5000 genera and 10 orders. Trilobites finally went extinct 252 MYA during the Permian mass extinction.

@jonathanb9889

7 ай бұрын

A lie is knowingly saying something that one knows to be false. He does not know his statements to be false. In contrast, what you regurgitated like a broken record is unprovable, you were not around for 300 million years to observe, instead you believe for the most part that someone else's theory is a "fact" when in reality it is not. The evidence(fossils, bones, etc..) are facts but the theories are not. The theory of evolution has no gauge for how to measure whether it is wrong or not, instead the arguments it uses are "add more time" or "we just don't know yet". More and more scientists are realizing that adding more time is the opposite of the solution they need and the "we just don't know yet" is the end of the theory.

@settledown444

7 ай бұрын

@@jonathanb9889 Sorry but creationist have been corrected on this lie thousands of time over the years. They know darn well it is a lie yet they keep pushing it anyway. When you come up with a better explanation than evolution for the temporal and morphological patters observed in the fossil record let us know.

@tripplenipple

7 ай бұрын

How old do you think the world is exactly?

@settledown444

7 ай бұрын

@@tripplenipple 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years

@tripplenipple

7 ай бұрын

@@settledown444 My next question, if you don’t mind answering, is do you believe in Jesus Christ?

AIG continues to "quote mine" to assert their holy book, which can be shown to be mythology, and pure fiction

@BuckJackson-kc8pb

7 ай бұрын

Secular history has proven and is still proving that the Holy bible is historically accurate and is not a book of "myths". Obviously you do not study much to validate your statement.

@user-xs2ln9fv7l

7 ай бұрын

@@BuckJackson-kc8pb name one instance where Science has validated anything in the bible. I am waiting........

@BuckJackson-kc8pb

7 ай бұрын

Geology for the archeological sites of the numerous locations recorded in the Holy Bible. Have a nice day, smart guy.......😆

@settledown444

7 ай бұрын

@@BuckJackson-kc8pb Oh dear. Another goober who thinks if *some* places mentioned in the Bible are real that is evidence the *entire thing* is literal and real. 🙄 I suppose Godzilla was a real monster since Tokyo is a real place.

@KyleAxington

7 ай бұрын

​@@BuckJackson-kc8pbSo, does an archeologist finding the remains of the city of Troy prove that the walls were built by Poseidon and that the stories in the Illyad are true?

Nice use of humor to keep interesting

Didn't love big foot. Your videos are entertaining and informative enough without adding fictitious creatures as props.

@calvinsmith7575

5 ай бұрын

Some people have a sense of humour, some don't. Some people have one different than others. We try to mix it up : ) See @stevenswaim4240's and @ryanhannapel1830's comment a couple of posts down...

Also loved the end. So funny 😆

Fossils are always an exception, not the normal. Imagine all the dead animals and plants not decaying! It takes special conditions for biological remains to be preserved and fossilized. So it is not astonishing that there are "missing links" in the record. "A lot of people think there’s an intrinsic conflict between Christianity and evolution, but there isn’t. Religion is about ethics and values, and science is about facts. You need both of them, but they don’t interact very much." (Stephen Jay Gould)

@kellyanne7225

7 ай бұрын

Oh yes there is a HUGE difference between the two beliefs! You don’t understand Christianity, clearly. There are fossils that died while feeding. This didn’t happen over time, this was a quick death.

@ripvanwinkle2002

7 ай бұрын

unless you point out every single religion is based on provable falsehoods and not facts. then SUDDENLY there is a conflict.. it is funny how if you ignore someones delusional state you wont argue about their delusions very often..

@settledown444

7 ай бұрын

@@kellyanne7225 Please explain the logic that took you from "some deaths in the fossil record happened quickly" to "all deaths in the fossil record happened quickly and at the same time." This should be good. 🍿

@kellyanne7225

7 ай бұрын

@@ripvanwinkle2002 That makes no sense. Religion and scientific facts? Christianity isn’t a “religion”. You do believe in a religion, a religion of atheism. It’s what drives your entire existence. So be careful about thinking that you’re throwing stones and claiming “gotchas”. Christianity has no secrets. It invites questions and doubt. All of the scientific questions are answered in it. There are no holes. Again, you wouldn’t know this, would you? It’s smart to have knowledge of both sides of an argument before making YOUR biased, ignorant conclusions. Just saying.

@EternalEmperorofZakuul

7 ай бұрын

​@@kellyanne7225Christianity is just Judaism 2.0 with pagan elements

Gould had a lot of problems with his approach to science, and is considered an idealogue by many, and a crack pot by others. He's far more of a philosopher and lyricist than a scientist is a criticism I've heard thrown around. Punctuated equilibrium wasn't ever a serious contender, it was treated as more of a suggestion.

@HH-ru4bj

6 ай бұрын

@@mountkeen8701 i was merely trying to express that he was much more human than how the video portrays his quote mines, with a somewhat complicated relationship between his communications and work resulting in controversy more than once. As far as punctuated equilibrium goes in the video, as I said it was never a serious contender in the way that would replace gradualism. Suggestion definitely wasn't the right word to use, but ya know brain fart.

@sliglusamelius8578

6 ай бұрын

@@HH-ru4bj Gould was a leading light in Evolutionary Theory. If your side wants to back away from him at this point, it merely shows how the narrative always changes, but the certitude never does. Typical fake science bait and switch crap. Often wrong, but never in doubt.

@calvinsmith7575

5 ай бұрын

@@sliglusamelius8578 Spot on...

Never mind those transitional fossils. They would have been alive once, so why don't we see transitional forms alive and well today?

@tims5268

6 ай бұрын

We do, everything is a transitional form, evolution hasn't stopped. Why would God make penguins? Birds with wings that no longer work? There are fish that crawl across land using their fins like feet, what will they become? Whales are mammals that returned to the sea but still have pelvis bones that serve no purpose. Flying squirrels have slowly turned the skin between their legs to wing like structures, I wonder what they will look like in tens of thousands of years. I'm sure that one day in the distant future our descendants will look at us as a transitional form.

It’s more complicated than what is presented here. And here’s a direct quote of Gould’s about creationists; “ Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

@jockyoung4491

7 ай бұрын

Thanks. I was looking for a quote like that. And yes, I am sure creationists misrepresent it intentionally.

@statutesofthelord

7 ай бұрын

Yet no one can show those supposed transitional forms.

@jockyoung4491

7 ай бұрын

@@statutesofthelord The fossil record is full of transitional forms. Your complete ignorance of this is YOUR problem, not ours.

@settledown444

7 ай бұрын

@@statutesofthelord _Onychonycteris finneyi_ is a transitional bat species which lived approx. 52 MYA. It has wings about half the size of extant bats and could fly but not very well. It meets every scientific definition of a transitional form.

@statutesofthelord

7 ай бұрын

@@jockyoung4491jocky, as this video rightly noted, several supposed examples of transitional forms have been found, and then later rejected. There is not even one fossil that anyone knows for certainty is a transitional form. And all that is without going into the obvious problem Evolutionists have of classifying creatures, and then turning around and saying they are all "transitional" at the same time.

I met stephen Gould. My brother worked in his lab. You have no idea how annoyed he would get when dishonest creationists took his quote out of context (he called them "munchkins"). If you have to be dishonest to make an argument, maybe you have no argument to make?

@Jraethyme

7 ай бұрын

What is the proper context then

@jockyoung4491

7 ай бұрын

@@Jraethyme He was referring to the speciation events between closely related species. Species tend to stay fairly stable for a long time in the fossil record, especially if their are no changes in environment. Speciation generally occurs in small peripheral populations, so it is unlikely that it will be represented in the fossil record. Speciation tends to involve more rapid evolution, but still no organism ever gives birth to a different species. That would be impossible and nobody has ever suggested it.

@Jraethyme

7 ай бұрын

@@jockyoung4491 so what is evolution If no animal gives birth to a slightly evolved species which then eventually gives birth to a fully evolved different species? Where did life come from

@Jraethyme

7 ай бұрын

@@jockyoung4491 there wouldn't be any evolution if species couldn't be birthed with (gradual) radically different traits than it's original species which eventually becomes a different animal

@statutesofthelord

7 ай бұрын

The quote is taken in context. jocky, you have been shown before that it is impossible, by defintion, for anyone to truly be an Atheist. Have you repented of trying to live that hypocritical life, turned square around, and accepted eternal life in Jesus?

Even if one accepts the idea of a tree of life (as I do), this says nothing about the process by which it was formed. In other words, long change may be allowed (I'm not young Earth) but still there is no evidence for the mechanism of change being natural selection, or natural selection alone.

um, no...

Am I the only one seeing the ape in the background?

@timothytakang5407

7 ай бұрын

Nope😅😅... It's there for satire.

Even if the evidence for evolution didn't exist, it wouldn't mean Genesis was true, since it has even less evidence.

@goldensonggirl70

7 ай бұрын

No. It has all the same evidence.

@Jewonastick

7 ай бұрын

​@@goldensonggirl70really? There is peer reviewed scientific research that confirms Genesis?

@kevinburke1325

7 ай бұрын

Genesis IS true. SMH, if it wasn't, gay people would be able to procreate.

@shadowaccount8620

7 ай бұрын

​@@goldensonggirl70tell me the paper so I can read.

@saintmalaclypse3217

6 ай бұрын

@@goldensonggirl70 Even the Bible doesn't agree with the Bible! Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 give two different creation myths.

I like your style of clothes

Lol love the vid.... bigfoot is sneaking up to u 🤭🤭

Yes, most fossil species are preceded by a long line of transitional stages. I don't know why creationists insist on lying about this over and over again. Some transitions like the origin of mammals have an exquiste series of transitional stages where the migration of specific bones can be traced over time. That series alone makes evolution obvious, but there are many, many others. Why are you so afraid to even look at the evidence?

@jonidapra4379

7 ай бұрын

No transitions from one species to another. No one argues adaptations within a species. Tell the truth.

@jockyoung4491

7 ай бұрын

@@jonidapra4379 You are correct that no organism has ever given birth to a different species, and nobody has claimed they did. And yet the fossil record is full of obvious transitional stages.

@litigioussociety4249

7 ай бұрын

That's only if you apply chronology after the fact. For example, many birds are found at or below the dinosaurs often cited as being their ancestors. Of course, one can line up any set of animals and organisms in an array that goes from less to more complex, but that's not evidence of evolution. For example, if you use the animals that exist today as a set, then that would be zero evidence for evolution, because they all occur simultaneously. The explanation for this is that simple organisms that are well-adapted for all the changes of Earth's history are able to persist while their complex descendants come into being. The creationist explanation is that more complex species aren't fossilized in lower layers due to density, the nature of fossilization, and a global flood. This explains why creatures that still exist, and are supposed to be most primitive are rarely found in the layers where the less primitive creatures, because the process had nothing to do with when they ruled the earth, but how the various creatures ended up in different layers. Again, the secularists have an explanation, but it based it on the creatures being the only ones for longer rather than being in more abundance, but the abundance thing is also true. To me, dinosaurs going extinct, and nothing else is one of the biggest proofs of creationism. Man causing their extinction along with the other megafauna that are taught as being removed by humans makes sense. While dinosaurs going extinct while all the other reptiles, birds, and such survived a catastrophe requires all sorts of assumptions to be made about the environment and physiology that are unproven.

@jockyoung4491

7 ай бұрын

@@litigioussociety4249 Yes, a series of fossils over time showing progressive changes is definitely evidence for evolution. Dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago, so I doubt humans had anything to do with it. Birds evolved from therapod dinosaurs in the Jurassic, and then diversified alongside dinosaurs for 100 million years.

@litigioussociety4249

7 ай бұрын

@@jockyoung4491 Everything you said is nothing but secular consensus and propaganda. It's not a fact that dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago, that's just the consensus the scientific community agreed upon after the Yucatan asteroid argument was pushed. The same is true for the dinosaurs to birds thing, which is primarily pushed, because is the helpful propaganda from Hollywood. Before the last fifty years, it was fairly agreed upon that dinosaurs died out from global temperatures cooling down during the ice ages, and died out around three million years ago. It's the same type of reasoning that leads to the catastrophic climate change rhetoric that changes every five years whenever satellites and weather events fail to support their predictions. There are still an obscene number of professors and teachers that continue to teach the Neanderthal myth. Neanderthals have long since been debunked as being different from modern humans.

What difference does it make what Darwin said? Darwin is of historical interest only. Science is on ongoing process, not one guy's opinion. It is hilariouis that creationists think anything Darwin said is what "evolutionists believe". Most biologists haven't even read Darwin.

@Soloong_Gaybowzer

7 ай бұрын

Atheism isn't the "lack of belief" in a god, but the firm "belief" that there is not. Atheism is a belief system taken on faith. It's faith because to say "there is no god" either pridefully describes that the person making the statement has all knowledge of the universe, and has confirmed that there is not, which would be scientific. Since the previous statement is obviously ridiculous, that leaves only Faith. That faith is supported by holy scriptures, Darwin's theory. And those scriptures are preached by prophets in positions of authority, tenured scientists and peer approved professors. And this takes place in institutions that hold sway over the masses very much like the old Catholic church once did. And like the old Catholic church, heretics who question doctrine are excommunicated. The hilarity, my good sir, is found in an Atheists own hubris and hypocrisy.

@kevinburke1325

7 ай бұрын

Darwin is literally evolution in a nutshell. He was wrong so evolutionists are wrong.

@JCLunda

7 ай бұрын

It has turned many away from God. His creation. People will believe anything in order to not believe we are created by God in his image. It is a tool of Satan to deceive mankind.

@jockyoung4491

7 ай бұрын

@@kevinburke1325 LOL. That may be what some creationists actually believe, but is complete nonsense. Darwin had an idea. That was a long time ago. He would not even understand most of evolutionary theory today.

@kevinburke1325

7 ай бұрын

@jockyoung4491 meanwhile, the only thing you have proven is that you comment on every Christian video so your opinion doesn't matter.

Bigfoot is the Nephilim

I wish Answers in Genesis would say more about Bigfoot -- which I've seen many times. I know, they don't need more ridicule, but still -- I've seen him.

In a massive genetic study of 100,000 species using DNA bar coding, senior research associate at the Program for the Human Environment at Rockefeller University Mark Stoeckle and University of Basel geneticist David Thaler discovered that virtually 90 percent of all animals on Earth appeared at right around the same time. More specifically, they found out that 9 out of 10 animal species on the planet came to being at the same time as humans did some 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. "This conclusion is very surprising," says Thaler, "and I fought against it as hard as I could."

@LordMathious

6 ай бұрын

Please provide the name of this study.

@hylaherping9180

6 ай бұрын

Unsurprisingly, modern species evolved at similar times.

@alantasman8273

6 ай бұрын

@@LordMathious it is a 2018 study...the names and the university have been given...just do a search.

@LordMathious

6 ай бұрын

@@alantasman8273 Give me the name of the study.

@alantasman8273

6 ай бұрын

@@hylaherping9180 ...or as the Bible states they were created at the same time.

Darwin may have been wrong, but within his knowledge it did make perfectly good sense. And we do know animals adapt in the way he described. Such as in I think Australia where a cave-in trapped numerous crocodiles in a cave. Almost a thousand years later they are now blind dwarf crocodiles with acidic-resistant skin. But, they didn’t turn into fish and the adaptation happened far more rapidly than Darwin’s idea of many millions of years. Evolution exists but more as a fine-tuning to environment and conditions. What Darwin and the mainstream calls evolution is really more like a very long metamorphosis or transformation. Of which, there is literally no evidence. Rather, it seems more like life was created, wiped out, created with significant differences, wiped out, etc. If God’s creation in Genesis is true and we ignore that it’s simply a heavily edited version of the Sumerian creation story, that doesn’t mean it was the first time God created here. It even says the Holy Spirit hovered over “the waters”, so that at least already existed.

People wont believe that we came from one man Adam , but believes that 65 million years ago the dinosaurs were wiped out and the only thing that survived was a rodent like creature . Does that mean we all evolved from rats? How is that possible

@LordMathious

6 ай бұрын

You should have listened harder in biology class.

@hylaherping9180

6 ай бұрын

Mammals weren't terribly diverse during the late Cretaceous, but most looked like a basal mammal which could be confused for a rodent until one looks at dental formula. All modern lineages including the monotremes and marsupials evolved after non avian dinosaurs went extinct.

Don’t you know that lying is a sin?

@calvinsmith7575

5 ай бұрын

Yes, yes I do... And?

Genius!! 🤣🤣😭🙏🙏👍🎉

@jimhughes1070

7 ай бұрын

@@mountkeen8701 Where is the "lie" 🤣

@davidandthatotherguy1369

6 ай бұрын

@@mountkeen8701how did Calvin quote mine?

Some nice points; great approach to an evolutionist: start with Darwin's dilemma, and how it remains with fossil's only role for evolution in decorating cartoons of the evolutionary fairy story. That said: who are you talking to when you turn side on to camera? It sure aint' me, the viewer. Now the great paradox here is that your work is about persons: the person of the creator and the persons of we his creatures; yet you deny our personhood when you look away from camera, as though we are non-persons.

I wonder why a benevolent omnipotent loving God would create say pathogens. Not so benevolent.

Just look at every country in the World , people are different , Animals, Birds ,reptiles , Insects , probably even Bacteria ? Seeded !

@stuartfoster9693

6 ай бұрын

@@mountkeen8701 wake-up

Evolution does not have a problem science adapts to new information unlike your bronze age book that can not change.

Good information but really distracting with the Sasquatch bit.

@saintmalaclypse3217

6 ай бұрын

I'll have to re-watch it, then. I didn't find any good information, just cherry-picked misleading quotes, logical fallacies, and false science. But I'll look again.

@calvinsmith7575

5 ай бұрын

Well, looking through the comments, the majority thought it was great and some like yourself didn't. Different strokes for different folks I guess... ": )

Show me the man and I’ll find the crime. Just like - Find me the fossil and I’ll figure out how it supports evolution.

If you don't understand evolution I would recommend finding a knowledgeable person on the issue. I do enjoy this video but it has altered motivation.

One of the biggest problems with the theory of evolution is that it largely depends on human logic which is flawed. To wit: the history of the world is war, death, sin and wickedness.

@philhart4849

3 ай бұрын

By the same token, flawed human logic also claims the existence of the God of the Bible. Enough said. 😀

@g.alistar7798

3 ай бұрын

@@philhart4849 that’s why it’s called faith.

@user-on3wh6wu9n

3 ай бұрын

@@g.alistar7798 "that’s why it’s called faith." Faith is a position that is held with zero supporting evidence, an absurdity. 😀

@g.alistar7798

3 ай бұрын

@@user-on3wh6wu9n Phil, you’re about 2000 years late in this comment. “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” The Apostle Paul to the early church in Corinth. See, First Corinthians 1:18, Holy Bible.

@user-on3wh6wu9n

3 ай бұрын

@@g.alistar7798 "See, First Corinthians 1:18, Holy Bible." Why should I give any credence to any of the claims in the Bible?

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record.” Poor guy was still clinging to straws. He said “extreme rarity” when the truth is “not even one”.

@richardgregory3684

5 ай бұрын

Define what you mean by "transitional form"

Evolution biggest issue is the start of life and how low life survived without careful managing. The fossil evolution doesn't disprove creation since it follows the pattern written down in the first chapter of Genesis. The disagreement is the timescale and that Genesis reveals the creation of multiple lifeforms. The Genesis account is more reasonable that the Darwin proposal of one initial lifeform. Missing fossils is not considered an issue because fossils only form under specific situations. I stile find this a dispute over genealogies.

The holy book of Kuran also talks about the great flood

@stevepierce6467

6 ай бұрын

Every primitive society has experienced great natural catastrophes and immortalized them in their folklore/religion/mythology.

Which of the eight family members on board the Ark were black?

I like the video, but I found the Bigfoot humor only to be distracting.

@calvinsmith7575

5 ай бұрын

Can't please everyone. See @stevenswaim4240's and @ryanhannapel1830's comment a couple of posts down... and the 2 posts below : )

A very informant video. Ending was bizarre, and the humor throughout the video with the fake Bigfoot just doesn't work.

Please explain why there are any fossils if God created the world 6,000 years ago? If evolution doesn't happen then why are modern animals not in the fossil record and why are most fossilized animals not around now?

@lizd2943

7 ай бұрын

Something something flood something assumptions something.

@markb3786

7 ай бұрын

@@lizd2943 you nailed it

@calvinsmith7575

7 ай бұрын

Flood. Adaptation through natural selection (which is not evolution). Extinction.

@lizd2943

7 ай бұрын

A single flood event would not lay fossils down in order of faunal succession. Adaptation is just the word creationists use for the amount of evolution they feel forced to accept.@@calvinsmith7575

Intermediate fossils are not found because fossils only form very rarely when conditions are perfect -- so only the most abundant species are found as fossils.

@davejoseph5615

6 ай бұрын

@@mountkeen8701 Yes, but evolution-deniers like to claim that all intermediates should be available in the fossil record, which ignores the rarity of fossilization.

@stevepierce6467

6 ай бұрын

Every fossil found is an intermediate fossil. We ourselves are intermediate species descending from ancient ancestors and with far-future descendants who will be much different.

@davejoseph5615

6 ай бұрын

@@stevepierce6467 Yes and no. A frequent criticism of fossils is that species tend to appear abruptly and then remain unchanged for long periods of time. What this actually demonstrates is that super-abundant species are the ones most often fossilized and since they are super abundant and super successful there is very little evolutionary pressure acting on them. It is the small populations of struggling species that are going to be forced to evolve quickly or go extinct.

@calvinsmith7575

5 ай бұрын

Perhaps inform the countless evolutionists on here commenting on how many indisputable intermediate fossils have been found. Thank you for fortifying our points : )

@stevepierce6467

5 ай бұрын

@@calvinsmith7575 Enough fossils have been found to make evolution the clear winner in the field of those trying to explain how this wonderful variety of plants and animals came about.

Gradual evolution in progress is observable in our hospitals as organisms under the stress of antibiotic attack become incrementally immune to more drugs over the course of many generations. It is reasonable to conclude that other organisms undergo the same process when subjected to stresses over a similar number of generations.

@jmontgomery1178

7 ай бұрын

This is true, but isn't the argument. You need a severe level of transformation so that the result is a new animal altogether, not a bacteria that is resistant to medicine. You need a single celled organism to suddenly develop a nucleus. It just doesn't happen.

@thehumblepotatoreborn9313

7 ай бұрын

But do these end up changing into something fundamentally different, or just a slight variation of the same organism

@thomashoermann

7 ай бұрын

After thousands of slight variations, you end up with something different.

@jmontgomery1178

7 ай бұрын

@@thomashoermann That isn't science. It has never been observed and can't be repeated. Thousands of variations don't lead to anything new. The variation you see fits within the DNA's capacity to produce variety. That code limits what can be produced. To think otherwise is to believe in superstition and magic.

@thehumblepotatoreborn9313

7 ай бұрын

@@thomashoermann KZread has had thousands of updates over the years - still fundamentally the same site it's always been

What was the point of the guy in the costume? He should have approached at the end and taken off his mask and they should have laughed together to show the lunacy of it. Teens watching this would have been able to relate in a better way instead of thinking it is still a possibility. Very good information but missed it on the presentation if watched by young adults and teens.

@calvinsmith7575

5 ай бұрын

Please post your channel so we can see how to do it better...

Old guy comment for your YT points

@calvinsmith7575

7 ай бұрын

Always appreciated : )