If Darwin was alive now, he would admit he was wrong. He predicted he might be wrong.

@sciencerules2825

24 күн бұрын

If Jesus was alive now he'd be horrified at how many creationists tell blatant lies in His name.

@luish1498

24 күн бұрын

science move away from 150 years ago.

@Bomtombadi1

23 күн бұрын

Wrong about aspects of his conclusions, yes. Wrong about evolution as a whole, no.

@bigsammcbam6123

8 күн бұрын

@@Bomtombadi1 Any evidence forthcoming from you for evolution anytime soon?

@Bomtombadi1

7 күн бұрын

@@bigsammcbam6123 funny that when you’re given evidence, you disappear and cry, “DATS NOT EVOLUTION!”

"Here we have a crab in the early stages of evolving into a Japanese samurai...You can tell the resemblance can't you?"

@jockyoung4491

25 күн бұрын

But of course biologists do not make conclusions of relationships based on general "resemblance"

@joeysplats3209

24 күн бұрын

@@jockyoung4491 ...he said sarcastically.

@jockyoung4491

24 күн бұрын

@@joeysplats3209 What I said was exactly true. Who are you talking to? I agree falconpuncher was being sarcastic. To prove a relationship scientist have to have enough evidence to make the releationsip obvious. They don't use general similarity. That would be stupid. Scientists aren't stupid. But if you can find a thousand random details shared between two species that have nothing to do with their adaptations, then there is no way that could happen by chance and they MUST have a common ancestor.

@anaquaduck5252

24 күн бұрын

@@jockyoung4491 And they (scientists) MUST throw away the alleged proofs that are not so, just like the fishermen throw away the crabs. And we also NEED to consider common design by a wise Creator who made all things BECAUSE your story doesn't fit other scientific discoveries.

@tobias4411

23 күн бұрын

@@anaquaduck5252 Baloney. We don't need to consider such thing. The design in our living world is an illusion. There are no deliberate designs in nature. When an organism’s circumstances change and demand a completely different body, evolution cannot go back to the drawing board. Instead, it works with what it has.

My attitude towards evidence supporting evolution is "Is that all you've got?" As I study this more and more I see the same culprits turning up again and again and I realize it's really all they have. Pitiful and very unconvincing.

@jockyoung4491

25 күн бұрын

It is pitiful that you come to that conclusion without even trying to find out the truth. The evidence for evolution can easily be found all over the internet. If you are not aware of it, who's fault is that?

@annieoaktree6774

25 күн бұрын

Another home schooled creationist genius. 🙄

@bigbabatunde1218

24 күн бұрын

Lactose digestion is seemingly their best evidence for a 'beneficial mutation'. Lost count of the exact same mistakes and belligerence of those that use that an example. Anyone who knows anything about the subject knows that lactose intolerance is brought about by the loss of lactase production. It's loss and impairment. I suppose they think becoming a diabetic is 'evolution' too. 🤷

@eriong.7446

24 күн бұрын

As you study it? You mean you now have a degree in biology?

@MathiasVIKING0403

24 күн бұрын

The same names are always commenting on the same topic all across the tube. 😂 The obvious reeling for support is a projection of your own doubts 😉.

If it can be destroyed by the truth it deserves to be destroyed by the truth!

@StudentDad-mc3pu

25 күн бұрын

No truth here, though.

@therick363

25 күн бұрын

And if creationists had any actual truth..z

@nathancook2852

25 күн бұрын

Nothing but Calvin's reputation get's destroyed on this channel.

@razark9

24 күн бұрын

And that's why creationists resort to quotemining, demonizing science and downright propagandizing?

@razark9

24 күн бұрын

Couldn't have said it better myself. Problem for creationists of course being that we don't need magic to explain anything anymore, and every time we actually look into natural phenomenon previously explained by god magic the truth is shown to be much more complex and fascinating than just attributing it all to magic spells and calling it a day. If your religious beliefs are destroyed by us learning about the natural world, which it seems to be then it deserves to be dismantled like it is.

May God bless your ministry and open the spiritual eyes and ears of those who dont know Him yet🙏🙏🙏

The atheist's position is just weird: "The more I learn how cars work, the more proof that Henry Ford doesn't exist"

@jockyoung4491

25 күн бұрын

Cars don't reproduce, so they cannot evolve. Living species reproduce, so they MUST evolve. That is the difference.

@tims5268

25 күн бұрын

That isn’t even close to a good analogy for atheism. You guys believe in God, that’s fine, but we don’t buy your claims. The more we learn about nature on the other hand, the less we need a creator to explain it.

@jockyoung4491

25 күн бұрын

Cars don't reproduce, so they cannot evolve. Living species reproduce, so they MUST evolve. That is the difference.

@iriemon1796

25 күн бұрын

["The atheist's position is just weird: "The more I learn how cars work, the more proof that Henry Ford doesn't exist"] Can you identify any athiest that stated that? Or are you just about creating false strawman, as so many anti-scientists are wont to do?

@jockyoung4491

25 күн бұрын

Cars do not reproduce, so they cannot evolve. That is the difference.

Thank you for your ministry. As I read the comments, often Ephesians 6:10-18 KJV comes to mind. "To stand" .... Thank you for standing. God Bless.

@AMC2283

25 күн бұрын

if this video makes you think of the bible, what could you possibly need this video for?

@oldtimerlee8820

24 күн бұрын

@@AMC2283 If you learn to read in the 3rd grade, "what could you possibly need" to take college level English literature courses "for"?

@AMC2283

24 күн бұрын

@@oldtimerlee8820 no, really, why do you need it when you have your religious dogma?

@oldtimerlee8820

24 күн бұрын

@@AMC2283 Only a fool quits trying to learn more, regardless of the subject of his/her interest that's being discussed. Would you go to a medical 50 year old doctor who never learned anything more after leaving medical school? Are you saying that secular scientists, regardless of their field shouldn't study to learn more? Whether it's history of research in their field or new theories offered (Biblical prophesy equivalent) on upcoming events. Example: Does the prediction that Haley's comet will be smaller, when it returns, actually happen? Why would it be smaller? Can size change cause a course change? etc. & etc. Or, are you saying you already know everything there is to know about every that affects your life? That you have no further need to gain better understandings in whatever interests you may have or realities you must face. If so, what are you doing here? 🙂

@chestradamusteutonic4336

24 күн бұрын

@@AMC2283 They serve a wicked God. And their God works by creating doubt in their own mind, because ultimately they know they serve a wicked God. Think about it; It is like they claim they are wicked people. And God is just. And in their story, the wicked people choose mercy for their enemies. And their righteous God chooses Hell. And No. I don’t need to proof that God does not exist. Only a fool would try to prove their belief. This entire channel is engaging in this kind of argument. And no, I also don’t believe in Macroevolution. Turning God into a liar? “If we say we have not sinned, we make God a liar” So, does that mean that we have the power to turn God into a liar? Of course not; Everybody would understand this to be an idiom. In the same way, some apologetics will argue that God did not harden Pharao’s heart, but that it was an idiom and the actual meaning would be; God allowed pharaoh to harden his heart himself. And it could be argued that the apologist does make sense here, for we read in Samuel 6:6 “Wherefore, then do you harden your hearts as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts?” Of course, this argumentation only works if we impose univocality upon the Bible, but it seems impossible to argue with any Christian without first taking this blow and absorbing it. Ok then; Univocality wins. But this leaves us with a much bigger problem; Inherent Morality VS Scriptural Morality Based on Samuel 6:6, it would not be hard to argue that God did let Pharao harden his own heart, if we accept univocality that is, but this than leads us to a question of morality; If we accept that our translations and the interpretation of scripture can be faulty at times, than how can we condemn someone to hell for not believing in a faulty version of a perfect God in the Bible? Imagine a preacher goes into a primitive village, with a bible and a machine gun in his hands, and he starts his false and faulty preaching; “Fall on your knees, and worship Jesus Christ, the ancient serpent, because if you don’t, He will come and take you and he will punish you, because Jesus Christ is the most vicious snake in existence and his poison will leave you unable to move and you will be in excruciating pain forever and ever because you will also not be able to die, but you will just lay there and suffer!” The Chief stands up and says; “Never will I surrender to an animal, but we will fight it!” The preacher than pulls out his machine gun and shoots the Chief. Where does the Chief go? Heaven or Hell? Now when I was a Christian, the thing that bothered me the most about Christianity was all the people who would have died without ever even hearing of Jesus Christ! That is because deep down, we all know right from wrong, and that it would be wrong to throw someone in hell simply because he never had the chance to hear of Jesus Christ; That is why it is so hard for us to condemn these people and to believe that John 14:6 tells us that the only way to be saved from hell is by accepting Jesus Christ in our lifetime; We know that it would not be fair that a girl who got taken from her parents before she could speak, than raped for the next decade to end up dead in a dumpster to than go to hell forever. And I myself have spun wild theories as well as having many apologists hear spinning wild theories how she actually still may have gotten saved, maybe Jesus appeared to her and so on. Does the girl deserve to go to hell? If we let our heart speak, we can certainly conclude that she has just been through hell and if anything, she deserves a break. And Christians fail to finish this thought, they usually will conclude with something like; We don’t know what happens to her, but I trust that God is just! (The result of finishing this thought is that either the idea that you have to accept Jesus Christ in your lifetime to avoid hell is a false doctrine, or that you do not agree with the teachings of the Bible on what actually justice is…) Now imagine, God would let Christianity vote, and the choice is; Give her another life in the next earth where she has another chance to accept Christ before she dies (a real one at that), or to throw her in hell! I suppose that the vast majority would opt to give her another chance and not for her to end up in hell for eternity, as I believe that Christians are not evil people that make it a priority to sodomize and torture people for all eternity. Now if we where to hold another vote for the Chief who was told lies about Jesus and did not accept a Jesus that was based on what Christianity would perceive as lies, I believe the Vote would also be to give this man another chance. Now I recently read about a man who stopped believing in God at the age of 13, when he read that God punished pharaoh after he had caused him to harden his heart. He grew up in a Christian home, he knew Jesus, how Jesus had suffered for our sins and so on; He was fairly familiar with scripture and unlike the raped teenager and the Chief, he made a decision that could be labelled informed. Except that in case the apologists who argue that God did not harden Pharos heart are indeed right; Than that would render the 13 year old boy just - more just than anyone who believes it was God who hardened Pharaos heart and still follows this God anyways - in not accepting a God who acted unjust! It saddens me though that we have to wait for judgement to find out wether it was just to harden pharos heart and than punish him, or wether it was just to let him harden his own heart rather than to look for the supposed knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong which we are supposed to have as the underying principle of the holy books introduction story. However, once we accept that it could not be just to punish Pharao after hardening his heart, but that it was an idiom for Pharao hardening his own heart, where do we send this 13 year old boy? What would the vote be like? Would Christians vote to send him to hell eternally? I believe that again, they wouldn’t. But than where do we draw the line? Christians are quick to state; “We all deserve to go to hell”, and yet if we where to dissect almost anyone’s life like that of the chief, the girl and the boy, I am sure they would all get a second chance; That is because it is natural for us, that once we get to know another persons side of the story, we feel empathy! Does this mean we feel more empathy than God? Like who would want to be the guy making the decision for another human being; “You deserve to go to hell for all eternity!?” Could you? Or would you be worried that you could not live with yourself in peace, knowing that it was you who decided that this person goes to hell for all eternity? Would you be able to vote “hell” instead of “second chance” for any of the three cases I presented? If no, than again, where do you draw the line? And more importantly, if you truly believe we all deserve to go to hell, why are you not voting “hell” for the 13 year old boy? I understand why you would give the girl another chance. Even the Chief. But for the 13 year old boy, all because of one simple error in translation? What about all the “beautiful” things out of the Bible, like God sacrificing his own son, the boy was fully aware of these, and he still rejected God! So when you say that you believe everybody deserves to go to hell, do you truly believe that? Why does your heart tell you that the girl, the Chief and even the boy should get another chance? Because the heart is deceitful? Or because at the end of the day, we all know right from wrong, and yet you choose to believe that which you do not really believe and on which you could not act yourself; That we all deserve to go to hell!!! So Hell for everyone equals justice, but you could never ever get yourself to accept this justice and act in accordance with that which you believe you perceive to be just; That is because you do not believe this to be just in the first place! Ultimately I do believe it would be Gods job to offer us a perfect unadulterated word to believe in in the first place; And I think he did, by giving us a conscious. The ability to feel empathy. Yet you will insist that the unadulterated word is scripture instead. But even the most conservative schoolars agree on the facts that there are many epistles attributed to Paul which Paul never knew and certainly did not write. We know that there are many alterations in scripture that have grave theological consequences, like the comma Johanneum. How do we know which version/translation/interpretation is the true and infallible word of God? As I have demonstarted with the hardening of Pharaos heart, it is indeed possible to only know ones entire life a version that is wicked without ever coming across the ”actual true meaning” of scripture, and than to accept it as righteous. When it really is wickedness!

I believe that the only thing that evolves is their theories.

@Bomtombadi1

23 күн бұрын

Yes! Because scientific endeavour involves challenging what we know and building upon knowledge. It’s a shame you’re too much of a coward to do the same for your nonsensical and infantile religious beliefs. You’re here often, but too fragile an ego to engage in any discussion.

@doubledocable

22 күн бұрын

Underrated comment

@Bomtombadi1

22 күн бұрын

@@doubledocable not really underrated at all.

@doubledocable

22 күн бұрын

@@Bomtombadi1 It is. OC's 100% right

@Bomtombadi1

22 күн бұрын

@@doubledocable tell us something we don’t know. That’s called scientific endeavour. What’s the problem? You mad because you can’t keep up and would prefer not to learn?

Samurai crab is an interesting story. It does prove that atheists are really good at creating fairy tales and urban legends. Anything but being scientific. 😂

@jockyoung4491

25 күн бұрын

Since atheism and science have nothing to do with each other, I'm sure that can happen.

@SavedbyGraceAlone1962

25 күн бұрын

@@jockyoung4491 Science and evolution are the religions of woke secular leftist atheists, along with abortion and climate change. And you seem to be quite the zealot, in fact they could name you high priest.😂

@JuanManuel-ep8do

25 күн бұрын

Exactly it just proves that theists can believe anything from an ignorant theist clown

@statutesofthelord

25 күн бұрын

@@jockyoung4491 jocky, Nice to see the Holy Spirit is still pricking your conscience today.

@nathancook2852

24 күн бұрын

@@SavedbyGraceAlone1962 "Science and evolution are the religions of woke secular leftist atheists, along with abortion and climate change" - You can say this as often as you like, it doesn't make it true. It just makes you look more ignorant.

Many will sadly face eternal seperation from God, because of these lies told by those professing themselves to be wise. Very sad.

@razark9

24 күн бұрын

A god willing to condemn someone for understanding science is not a god worthy of worship anyway.

@philhart4849

24 күн бұрын

"Many will sadly face eternal seperation from God," I am eternally separated from your God. It is a fiction, you see.

@blainvance409

23 күн бұрын

@@philhart4849 Hi Phil, can I ask which Bible translation you read to come to that conclusion. I use the King James 1611.

@blainvance409

23 күн бұрын

@razark9 only those who reject the Son of God, Jesus Christ will be condemned. Science and the Bible mesh quite nicely once you have dug up the truth. Don't ever stop digging.

@razark9

23 күн бұрын

@@blainvance409 So accepting the overwhelming scientific consensus behind things like BBT, theory of evolution and the undisputable fact of a very, very old Earth is not a salvation issue to you then? :)

Even if the Samurai Crab story were true, it would be proof of selective breeding by the fishermen, lol.

@jockyoung4491

25 күн бұрын

Selective breeding is evolution.

@troywalstra9300

25 күн бұрын

​@jockyoung4491 so you argee with eugenics then. Good to know.

@magikdust2095

25 күн бұрын

​@@jockyoung4491not really... yes evolutionists have lumped selective breeding and natural selection into their theories and ideology to "prove" their theories of evolution, but actual evolution is one kind of species turning into another kind of species, so a bird turning into a lizard, not a wolf turning into a dog. A wolf and a dog are of the same kind of species. A wolf has all the genetic material for a dog in their genetic code, but a bird does not have the genetic information to turn into a lizard in their genetic code. Evolution is one species adding to their genetic code in order to turn into a completely different species, of a completely different kind of species. Selective breeding and natural selection doesn't actually add anything to the genetic code of the kind of species, it only brings out various traits that were already in the original genetic code. Evolutionists have tried lumping natural selection and selective breeding into their theory of evolution to trick people into believing that they have "proof" of evolution. We can clearly see the effects of selective breeding and natural selection within a generation or two, but actual evolution is supposed to take millions of years. There is no actual proof of actual evolution, where one kind of species turns into another kind of species (like a bird turning into a lizard)... at least none that hasn't been debunked or misinterpreted (like partial bones found that they misinterpret until they find out later that they were wrong).

@jonathanguyot624

25 күн бұрын

@@jockyoung4491 no it is adaptation

@jockyoung4491

25 күн бұрын

@@jonathanguyot624 Adaptation is evolution. That's the whole point. Natural selection is the primary driver of evolution. It is the only way design can be improved. Evolution is 4 billion years of improving design with natural sletion.

“I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science.... It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaws and holes as sound parts.” -C. Darwin

@jockyoung4491

25 күн бұрын

As it certainly did in 1859. This isn't 1859.

@velkyn1

25 күн бұрын

nice to see a fake quote from cultists.

@jockyoung4491

25 күн бұрын

Darwin really did say that, but he was talking about a specific surmise about a specific question in plant evolution. The people who fed you that quote purposely took it out of context and implied he was talking about his entire theory. That's the dishonesty of creationist apologetics. But you could have looked it up yourself before copying it.

@jomiguides

25 күн бұрын

I mean... to he fair, it isn't a fake quote. However, who knows what it's referencing. ​ You seem to think they're a cult member which would imply that you have a bias and are likely a member of the evolutionists of the modern day church of darwin. Not ragging on you, but at least disclose your religious affiliation beforehand. @@velkyn1

@Moist._Robot

25 күн бұрын

@@jockyoung4491 Correct.

God is the creator of all things. May Jehovah name be praise🙏🙏🙏

@shadowman8787

25 күн бұрын

Praise His holy name!!!

@AMC2283

25 күн бұрын

so what do you need this guy for?

@nathancook2852

24 күн бұрын

Who created your god?

@bigbabatunde1218

24 күн бұрын

​@@nathancook2852So, you're another one that wilfully misunderstands, belligerently misunderstands who and what God is. Where's your evidence for 'evolution' as taught?

@bigbabatunde1218

24 күн бұрын

​@@AMC2283Who said anything about "need'?

I was taught the peppered moths example, and my response even then was, “yeah, but no dna was created.” Extinction doesn’t cause new speciation!

@sciencerules2825

24 күн бұрын

That is simply wrong. The genetic evidence shows the mutation which first produced the dark (carbonaria) variation happened around 1819. The mutation was so beneficial in the soot covered environment by the 1870's natural selection cause the dark form to make up over 90% of the moth population. See the paper *The industrial melanism mutation in British peppered moths is a transposable element*

@jockyoung4491

24 күн бұрын

DNA doesn't have to be created for adaptation to occur. At least not in the short term. The mutation that caused the color variation occurred sometime in the past. A species would eventually run out of variation if it wasn't replenished. Fortunately mutations are very common. Extinction doesn’t directly cause new speciation, but it does open opportunites for new species to fill the void. So it may increase the likelihood that any new species would be successful.

@JTamilio

24 күн бұрын

@@jockyoung4491 My point was these are given as evidences of microevolution - now as evolutionary pressure. However, speciation keeps needing to happen from existing DNA bandwidth from similar, let’s just call them “kinds,” of animals/insects. We have yet to observe a mechanism that causes new genetic material beneficial to the organism. The common mutations also don’t create new viable types of organisms - just similar kinds with less likelihood of propagation, even within the context of evolutionary pressure stories (like the wood frogs, for example).

@sciencerules2825

24 күн бұрын

@@JTamilio _We have yet to observe a mechanism that causes new genetic material beneficial to the organism._ FFS I just gave you a verified example of exactly that. Do you guys have any morals or honesty at all??

@Bomtombadi1

23 күн бұрын

You also likely failed the class

As someone who subscribes to believing in the theory of evolution through natural selection, I still appreciate these videos that talk about debunking or destroying the evidence for evolution. The reasons being that this really gets me thinking, and gets me to research and learn more about all of these evidence and any other evidence there is for evolution via natural selection and then truly understand where some evidence are wrong or weak, and which other evidence are strong and true.

@Video81501

24 күн бұрын

Natural selection gets called evolution, but it's not. It's just variation within a kind. Selecting from combinations already present in the genome. Not adding new information to it. All examples of mutations are destructive, removing rather than adding information.

@gravity_well5627

23 күн бұрын

Good job keep an open mind and not joining the scoffers. Search for the truth and you will find it.

@Yakomoe

23 күн бұрын

I like turtles

@Bomtombadi1

23 күн бұрын

@@Video81501natural selection is one of several mechanisms which drive evolution.

@mrfuriouser

23 күн бұрын

So give us a "strong and true" example here.

I like how he keeps on tearing up those 'useless' expensive atheism 'bibles', I like it 😂😂😂

Outstanding video, as usual! God bless you, AIG Canada.

@razark9

24 күн бұрын

More anti-science propaganda, as usual.

I love listening to you, GOD bless

This channel having just 106K subscribers is criminally absurd. Canadians need to go back to their fundamental doctrines, if they want to reverse the damage being done to this country. Excellent material, thank you Calvin!

Thank you! It is so wonderful to be affirmed. It gets old being on the side getting battered all the time! You are a servant of our Creator!!!

Literally had a Bill Nye ad play at the start of this video 😅

@FRN2013

24 күн бұрын

I recommend ad block plus

@ceciliacrocker390

23 күн бұрын

Bill Nye gives me a weird vibe...🙄

@waterboy239

23 күн бұрын

Bill Nye your mom's a guy

So if I understand, the samurai do not come from monkeys like we do, but from crabs? Boy never would have expected...

Very informative, thanks for sharing!

Thanks to Answers in Genesis I'm a firm Young Earth Creationist. Keep up the great work.

@tobias4411

18 күн бұрын

Old Tjiikko 🌴, 9550 years old.

@Bomtombadi1

16 күн бұрын

Thanks to AIG, you choose to remain stupid and brag about it. Congratulations!

@bigsammcbam6123

12 күн бұрын

​@@Bomtombadi1Someone doesn't have to be a young Earth creationist to observe and understand the amount of holes in evolutionary theories and the insurmountable gulf between what evolutionists claim and what evolutionists can prove with evidence.

@Bomtombadi1

12 күн бұрын

@@bigsammcbam6123 what holes are in evolutionary theory, and what’s the “gulf” between the claims and the evidence?

@sciencerules2825

12 күн бұрын

@@bigsammcbam6123 Hey bigbagaturds why do you keep switching back and forth between your sockpuppets?

Samurai evolved from Samurai crabs.

Love your work, Calvin!

@calvinsmith7575

25 күн бұрын

Thanks!

4:22 Boy, they really took advantage of people without chemistry knowledge! This process has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Supposedly showing the process of change and time. But his diagram has little to do with proving time. Other than how long the process takes this process to 'separate' the water. This diagram is a separator. It separates the two molecules that form H²O(water) 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen. Oxygen evaporates in this process leaving the 2 parts hydrogen. Talk about major gaslighting!😳

Pretty good... Good work brother.

The easiest way to debunk naturalism is to simply shine a light on origin of life; it has so many paradoxes and it hides behind astronomical difficulties that is simply not rational to believe happened by itself on a rock, when professionals in a lab cannot produce the results to satisfaction. Panspermia only pushes the problem back, and adds more problems. Evolution is only observed up until the level of species. Everything else is presumed and arrived with extrapolation. I accept there being a naturalistic theory, however when the most essential part to the theory is consumed with paradoxes and astronomically rare achievements, do not bombastically present it as fact. It is abductive reasoning at best, and also employs a god of the gaps argument. Humans share DNA with fruit flies, sea sponges and bananas. What resemblance do we have? That we are all carbon based life. To suggest that humans are relatives to primates because we are close in DNA is an assumption. The difference between primates and a fruit fly should be where we draw the similarity with primates and humans, as we ALL share the same excluded DNA. If we are 98% Chimp, then we are also 60% fruit fly, chicken and banana. Work that flawed logic out, because it's what the naturalists use. I will not take naturalism seriously until they figure out the origin of life. Here are some quotes; Richard Dawkins "it only appears to be intelligently designed" - in reference to the complexity of biology. Stephen Benner "with our understanding of physics, life originating on earth is impossible, but don't give up the faith" - in reference to origin of life research Lee Cronin "there appears to be something outside the cell" - in reference to origin of life and creating life in a lab. Psalm 14:1 The fool says in his heart "there is no God". Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. We are almost at the end of the 6000 Jewish timeline. We are but a few years away from a 2000 year anniversary of Christs death. Christ, who was born 4000 years after the fall of Adam. This book, this silly book that the atheists claim is all fiction, is being played out in front of our eyes in the world today. The book of Revelation was written 2000 years ago, and it's contents are being set up for today and the next decade. It's not the right time to be an atheist, Gods spirit is said to be poured out upon the earth in the last days. We are in those last days. How many conversions are we seeing lately? Jesus Christ is coming back very soon.

@halodude4481

25 күн бұрын

I have to reply so this gets seen.

@lmoelleb

25 күн бұрын

How is not knowing the origin a life a valid reason to believe in your god, but not knowing the origin of lightning and thunder was an jnvalid reason to believe in Thor? How exactly do you get from "I do not know" to "I do not know, therefore God" without making the same mistake the Vikings did?

@nathancook2852

24 күн бұрын

Evolution deals with the diversification of life, not how it began...

@CipherCrypto-mf8oq

24 күн бұрын

@@lmoelleb Because life shows evidence of intricate design, whereas lightning and thunder do not . NO creationist says "I do not know, therefore God," this is an atheist straw man. A superman and his hammer would also be designed articles in spacetime, so if Thor existed he also would have to have a creator. So lets not pretend that the Creator of the universe is equivalent to "gods" with arbitrary physical characteristics and limited powers.

@lmoelleb

24 күн бұрын

@@CipherCrypto-mf8oq how do I measure this design to validate your claim that there is evidence of it?

Beautiful Video!

@nathancook2852

24 күн бұрын

Full of lies and misrepresentations, like always.

@lukejones5272

Күн бұрын

@@nathancook2852 I'm genuinely interested in hearing you explain your ideas. Which points in the video would you call dishonest?

For anybody interested in the image in the thumbnail: This is a Heike Crab, said to have the faces of the angry spirits of the Heike clan after their defeat at Danno Ura to the Minamoto clan in Imperial Japan. Read Ladcadio Hearne’s “the tale of Mimi Nashi Hoichi” for a great retelling of the legend.

nice to see carl sagan being called out as just another great storyteller.

The samurai crab was never offered as proof of evolution, it was an example of human guided selection. Every domesticated plant and animal is an example of this. Evolution is the same except it is guided by natual selection. There are countless examples of this too, for starters read Origin of Species.

@SavedbyGraceAlone1962

22 күн бұрын

Origin of Species - one of the biggest hoaxes ever perpetrated on mankind.😂

@ClemTec

21 күн бұрын

You're talking about adaptation. It never changes an organism to another.

@HangrySaturn

21 күн бұрын

@@ClemTec Adaptation IS evolution genius.

@astrawboiii1853

20 күн бұрын

@@HangrySaturnEvolution is an ameoba turning into a pig after a million of years, adaptation is there is already a pig, black pink brown, horned, strong, fat, lean, carnivore, herbivore, depending on the place.

@astrawboiii1853

20 күн бұрын

@@HangrySaturnEvolution is an ameoba turning into a pig after a million of years, adaptation is there is already a pig, black pink brown, horned, strong, fat, lean, carnivore, herbivore, depending on the place.

Spam that like button

@logicalatheist1065

25 күн бұрын

It's the "who's ignorant" button

@villagecrystalstone2003

25 күн бұрын

👍

@statutesofthelord

25 күн бұрын

@@logicalatheist1065 It is not possible, by definition, for anyone to truly be an Atheist.

@logicalatheist1065

25 күн бұрын

@@statutesofthelord that's false, where did you hear that?

@statutesofthelord

25 күн бұрын

@@logicalatheist1065 logical, Do you know that there is no God?

Imagine the very first mammal in an evolutionary scenario. The first female species who by sheer inexplicable chance was born with the genetic mutations that endows it with the ability of breast development, hormones and secretory timing, milk production and the specific neuro-imprinting that gives it a very strong compulsion to nurse it's young. The first progeny of this mammalian species also has to have the behavior to seek it's mother's breast, have the suck reflex and the right enzymes to digest milk. Now, if only there was a first male mammal with the exact corresponding compatible mutations to fertilize that very first female, this would clinch it for the existence of this species.

@sciencerules2825

20 күн бұрын

"The first person to speak French... *who did they speak it with????"* 😂😂🤣🤣😅😅

@catherinecook3359

17 күн бұрын

So it's not the evidence that devides us, it's the interpretation of the evidence..one that knows God and sees the evidence, and one that hates God and I marines the evidence. I understand.

@burnttoast2790

16 күн бұрын

So in short, you're literally the type of idiot who thinks a lizard laid an egg that hatched into a chicken. _Nobody_ is suggesting that this is who that works. In reality, what you'd see is some point on a color gradient. Any line you draw between the two end-points will be arbitrary.

@bigsammcbam6123

8 күн бұрын

​@@burnttoast2790Acolytes of evolution ironically have no evidence for evolution but believe it anyway.

Thank you!

Super series debunking so-called evidence for evolution!

@jockyoung4491

25 күн бұрын

Except that it doesn't.

@bigbabatunde1218

24 күн бұрын

​@@jockyoung4491It does. Bring evidence for 'evolution' not evidence for your double down.

@jockyoung4491

24 күн бұрын

@@bigbabatunde1218 The evidence for evolution is readily available all over the internet. Why are you unaware of it? Nobody is going to MAKE you believe it. If you want to actually know what science has discovered, go find out. If you just want to plug your ears to convince yourself that your story is true (without evidence), then go right ahead and do that. Ignorance is a choice.

@razark9

24 күн бұрын

IF by debunking you mean misrepresenting or outright handwave dismissing it for purely religious reasons.

@bigbabatunde1218

24 күн бұрын

@@jockyoung4491 It's not evidence for 'evolution' though it's fabricated myth making. You telling others to go find evidence and to make the case for 'evolution' themselves is beyond poor.

created organisms adapt and common descent cannot be proven scientifically.

@jockyoung4491

25 күн бұрын

Adaptation has been demonstrated. Common descent is inferred.

@HS-zk5nn

25 күн бұрын

@@jockyoung4491 "Common descent is inferred." exactly. thus not observed nor demonstrated. science requires direct observational evidence.

@jockyoung4491

25 күн бұрын

@@HS-zk5nn No, it does not. Inductive inference is foundation for science and any other form of rational thought. Even if you don't think the strength of evidence for something is sufficient, that doesn't prove it is NOT true. And since you are not aware of most of the evidence, you can't really judge.

@HS-zk5nn

25 күн бұрын

@@jockyoung4491 "Inductive inference is foundation for science and any other form of rational thought. " inductive inference can only occur after observational evidence is gathered first.

@jockyoung4491

25 күн бұрын

@@HS-zk5nn I agree. That is why I have been studying the observational evidence for evolution for decades. The evidence is endless. The combination of paleontolgy, genetics, and embryology cannot be explained by any oher theory besides biological evolution.

Give them this theory-spin: Perhaps samurai are turning into crabs. 🤔 😆

Great video, Calvin. The peppered moth story is one of the poorest examples of all. I debated an AI chat bot about this not long ago, and it started off claiming it was one of the best examples of mutations adding functional information. By the end of the debate, the AI admitted that it was really just an example of natural selection of genes that were already present in the moths.

@sciencerules2825

23 күн бұрын

That is simply wrong. The genetic evidence shows the mutation which first produced the dark (carbonaria) variation happened around 1819. The mutation was so beneficial in the soot covered environment by the 1870's natural selection cause the dark form to make up over 90% of the moth population. See the paper *The industrial melanism mutation in British peppered moths is a transposable element.*

@Jewonastick

23 күн бұрын

You debated a chat bot...... For fuq sake

@mattbrook-lee7732

23 күн бұрын

No one has ever claimed that it was anything but natural selection of traits that were already present.

@jockyoung4491

22 күн бұрын

The variation may well have been already present at the time, but where did it come from originally? It had to have come from mutation at some point in the past.

@strategywizard

22 күн бұрын

@@jockyoung4491 Nobody is claiming mutations don't occur.

Not sure this guy should bang on too much about fairy tales?

@jockyoung4491

25 күн бұрын

They don't see the irony.

@anaquaduck5252

24 күн бұрын

@@jockyoung4491 Thats ironically ironic. Love the magic pond scum story, so much imagination.

@jockyoung4491

24 күн бұрын

@@anaquaduck5252 There is no magic pond scum story. But there is a "God said poof and the universe magically popped into existence" story.

@dooglitas

24 күн бұрын

@@jockyoung4491 " But there is a "God said poof and the universe magically popped into existence" story." I've never heard such a story except from blasphemous atheists. No Christian believes that the universe magically popped into existence. However, atheists believe that life magically popped into existence for no reason from rocks.

@anaquaduck5252

24 күн бұрын

@@jockyoung4491 Sure, there is. Miller/Urey was in the vid. Your bias is showing. How come Oort clouds can pop into existence (without evidence) but God can't. Free your mind a bit and think outside your tiny bubble.

Where's the part where proof for evolution is destroyed?

@jethroscooter7214

21 күн бұрын

See Palestine, how can you destroy something has never existed?

@taylorthetunafish5737

21 күн бұрын

@@jethroscooter7214 What about palestine?

@connorallgood0922

21 күн бұрын

@@taylorthetunafish5737 He's making an analogy saying just how Palestine has never existed so it can't be destroyed, evolution has never existed so it can't be destroyed.

@sciencerules2825

21 күн бұрын

@@connorallgood0922 Evolution wasn't invented. Evolution was discovered through empirical observation.

@taylorthetunafish5737

21 күн бұрын

@@connorallgood0922 Palestine happens to be a real place. Evolution happens to be real. Therefore it is not an analogy.

I feel sorry for all those who teach evolution , because Hell is going to be especially hard on them !

The theory of evolution and the fantasy of creation...

@reidveryan9414

24 күн бұрын

Something greater intelligently making something lesser (creationism) or nothing through mindless randomness creating everything (evolution)? What is more logical to you?

@anttisalminen1110

24 күн бұрын

​@@Mario_Sky_521agreed, a black hole squeezes everything into just nothing

@jockyoung4491

24 күн бұрын

@@Mario_Sky_521 Of course things are not made perfectly. They are made the way the forces of nature allow them to be made. But scinece is not "fantasy". Science is a process of rational thought, and it makes evolution obvious.

@anttisalminen1110

24 күн бұрын

​@@Mario_Sky_521cheers, I gues I was thinking of the most complex aggregation of matter, brain vs black hole, but maybe a black does not contain matter, something like that

@Gdjgcjvj

23 күн бұрын

​@@anttisalminen1110 the universe is consistent in that it is moving from order to chaos, tell me why do you believe that the total form of chaos which is literally nothing became order?

"Overwhelming facts of evolution."😂😂😂

@jockyoung4491

25 күн бұрын

Yes there are. Calvin has successfully refuted maybe 3 facts out of the many millions collected as evidence by hundreds of thousands of biologists over the last 150 years. And he hasn't even tried to show that evolution CAN'T be true.

@AMC2283

25 күн бұрын

today you're concerned about facts like your superstitions are based on any?

@SavedbyGraceAlone1962

25 күн бұрын

@@AMC2283 I don't believe in superstitions, unless you can provide facts or evidence that I do. I'll wait....

@AMC2283

25 күн бұрын

@@SavedbyGraceAlone1962 you’re comment is clearly championing an anti evolution video that concludes religion instead

@SavedbyGraceAlone1962

25 күн бұрын

@@AMC2283 Dis-belief in the theory of evolution does not correlate to belief in superstitions. But it's typical for woke secular establishment-owned brainwashed leftist atheists to draw conclusions without evidence.

Humnnn, anyone ever think maybe the samurai copied the crab? You know that actually would make more sense .... derp

God bless you sir 🙏

None of these things have any bearing on the validity of evolution whatsoever. We can, however, DESTROY the Christian creation myth by pointing out the impossibility of 6-day creation - one fact alone does this: The Universe was in existence billions of years before the Earth was formed. This is a provable fact - 6-day creation debunked. Awkwaaaard.

@bigga5406

23 күн бұрын

Sooo you’re saying God couldn’t have created everything? Or you’re saying God doesn’t exist at all? Bold assumption.

@ShallowsPaul

23 күн бұрын

@@bigga5406 I'm saying the alleged true word of god is not true at all. If you're saying the god myth is true, then that's a far bolder assumption than any I may have made. I'm not making any bold assumptions, though - it's a known fact that the Universe is billions of years older than the Earth, therefore the creation myth is nonsense. Are you rejecting the actual age of the Earth? - now that would be a bold denial. I never said 'a god couldn't create everything' - I don't rule out the possibility of a god; plus, you can make anything real with fiction. Imagination knows no bounds. Facts, however, debunk the existence of this particular god character. Sorry.

@cosmictreason2242

23 күн бұрын

It wasn't though... 🤫

@ShallowsPaul

23 күн бұрын

@@cosmictreason2242 Are you another one of those cultists who deny facts? The Earth has an age that has been determined - in the mid-20th century, as it happens. We also know that the Universe is much older than the Earth - 6-day creation debunked. It's undeniable. Your mythology was debunked a long, long time ago, and here you are ignorantly unaware. Sad.

@cosmictreason2242

23 күн бұрын

@@ShallowsPaul you just keep saying that, instead of giving reasons for it, making me think you don't actually know why you're supposed to think that

'This video destroys evolution!' Evolution: Still here.

@KenJackson_US

25 күн бұрын

No. It's still junk science that makes a mockery of biology.

@jockyoung4491

25 күн бұрын

And will always be. They really don't get that.

@tobias4411

25 күн бұрын

​@@KenJackson_USYour ignorance of science is not an argument against it.

@KenJackson_US

25 күн бұрын

@@tobias4411 No, I have knowledge. I was gently asking you a rhetorical question to help open your eyes. Calling me ignorant is a mechanism to hide behind. You must know microbe-to-man evolution is a myth.

@KenJackson_US

25 күн бұрын

@@tobias4411 No, I have knowledge. I was gently asking you a rhetorical question to help open your eyes. Calling me ignorant is a mechanism to hide behind.

Corrupting our faith. Insightful

An evolution theory believer tried to convince me that the fact that men have nipples is absolute proof of evolution.

@cractrick9225

6 күн бұрын

Why do men have nipples? God's plan 😂

@cractrick9225

6 күн бұрын

The ultimate proof of evolution to Christians is to ask if they belive in micro evolution ( most will say yes because there is direct observable evidence) then say well that's a form of evolution aka proof and evidence of evolution.

Too bad we can't see evolution happen in front of our own eyes... O shit we do, bacteria mutate very fast and we can litteraly see evolution

@sciencerules2825

21 күн бұрын

Yeah but to creationists it doesn't count unless we see a giraffe evolve into a rutabaga in real time. 😃

@luish1498

21 күн бұрын

«bacteria produce bacteria« BS like that is the answer from uneducate persons . they keep the same script all the time. like « if we came from monkeys why there still monkeys» LOL

@sarahdegree4835

21 күн бұрын

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that just adaptation or micro evolution because that's happening on a VERY small scale so its just little changes in microbiology

@samburns3329

21 күн бұрын

@@sarahdegree4835 You're wrong. When you have genetic mutations creating new features and spreading through a population due to natural selection, that's evolution. It's still evolution even when happening in _E coli._

@jockyoung4491

21 күн бұрын

@@sarahdegree4835 That IS evolution. Creationists will try to till you that MACRO evolution is something different and illogical. They are lying. I have been studying evolution of 40 years, and I can swear to you from the bottom of my heart, they are lying. There is nothing illogical about evolution, or it would not be so universally accepted among biologists. Scientists aren't stupid.

Just more proof that scientism is a religion. They have their holy books, their priests, and their dogma. They believe in something that cannot be proven, but they have faith. And if anyone dissents, they are excommunicated.

@rwatson2609

24 күн бұрын

@RedFoxwithTubeSocks-hi7jj I have to laugh at your user name, but yes, them Zealot militant Athiests. hahaha

@razark9

24 күн бұрын

Are you a flat earther too? Flat earthers say the same exact same thing verbatim. You can't adress the science, so science has to be a religion too. Typical creationist ''honesty'' on display right there.

@jockyoung4491

24 күн бұрын

Just more proof that creationism is a religion. They have their holy books, their priests, and their dogma. They believe in something that cannot be proven, but they have faith. And if anyone dissents, they are excommunicated.

@rwatson2609

24 күн бұрын

I don't think the original poster is a flat earther, but more exactly, there is concern that scientism is only studying the material realm and has obviously not considered the supernatural realm, which as a religious person is more than half of the puzzle pieces that should be considered.

@razark9

23 күн бұрын

@@rwatson2609 Because science is exclusively the study of the natural world. It doesn't have access to testing, prodding and experimenting on the supernatural lol. Until it can, it should under no circumstances be considered science or crammed into science.

Ok, let's take this step by step. Evolution is the change in genetic material of a population over time. Now you might say where is the change ? Well, let's use Dinosaurs as an example. The Dinosaurs families descended from a common ancestor. If we look in the Triassic we see that there are small dinosaurs that look very similar to each other and to other archosaurs indicating a common ancestor. Now what we don't see are more derived forms like T.rex, Triceratops, Allosaurus, Apatosaurus, Spinosaurus, Argentinasaurus. They descended from a population of these early Dinosaurs. Now to disprove evolution show me the more derived forms living in the Traissic. That goes for the mammals as well, show me the mammoth and Smilodon living in the Traissic or anywhere in the Mesozoic. That goes for the other eras as well, show me Dinosaurs in the Carboniferous or the Permian. That's also true for marine life. You had giant icthyosaurs swimming around in the Traissic oceans but when you go to early periods like the Jurassic and the Cretaceous you see an entirely different fauna. Another example is the Megalodon, its teeth are only found in rocks that are from late Miocene to early Pleistocene. So to again disprove evolution show me the giant icthyosaurs in other periods or show me Meg teeth in the Jurassic or the Createous. That's how you would start to disprove evolution.

Does anyone know if there are educational resources to go along with these videos? I teach high school science at a Christian school and would love to incorporate this next year!

@samburns3329

21 күн бұрын

If you think this horsecrap counts as science I pity your poor students.

@therick363

21 күн бұрын

Could you elaborate on what it is you want to teach them?

@luish1498

20 күн бұрын

what class you « teach«?

@morganren2977

6 күн бұрын

Well.. Theres a bunch of kids that will grow up not majoring in the scientific field. Maybe they can cut my grass one day.

@therick363

6 күн бұрын

Sooo that’s a dodging and running away from you then?

Sure, science sometimes changes and improves upon its hypotheses based on new evidence discovered. That is what separates science from religion. Science makes its conclusions based on the evidence. Religious conclusions are a priori established, and preachers like Smith filter evidence to support his predetermined beliefs. What he views as a weakness of evolution is actually is great strength over religion in seeking truth. If you want truth, you don't look at evidence having already made up your mind. That is exactly what Smith and other preachers do, and their bias undermines the veracity of their analysis.

@gregb8488

25 күн бұрын

Jesus Christ is the truth. I assume by religion you mean God (the real one). Science is not separated, it's just a creation of God. It's limited to this material world because we fell into sin.

@patmacd330

25 күн бұрын

@iremon ... don't atheists do exactly the same?

@calvinsmith7575

25 күн бұрын

'Science makes its conclusions based on the evidence.' You mean the evidence that has been overturned? Shouldn't 'science' then abandon its former conclusion - evolution?

@iriemon1796

25 күн бұрын

@@calvinsmith7575 There is new evidence supporting evolution all the time, and there has been no credible evidence for abandoning the theory of evolution.

@jockyoung4491

25 күн бұрын

@@calvinsmith7575 No, because no evidence against evolution has ever been found. And hundreds of thousands of biologists find new evidence for evolution every day. Are you afraid to look at it?

Humans have wisdom teeth needed to be removed. If we are made in God's image, who is God's dentist?

@anaquaduck5252

24 күн бұрын

God is Spirit, but we resemble Him in certain ways. It has nothing to do with molars or whatever fancy name they give to teeth.

@bigbabatunde1218

24 күн бұрын

Most people don't have bother with wisdom teeth. Malformations are what happens when the design gets interfered with. Dentists like to make work for themselves also. You'll never meet a poor dentist. Those individuals die millionaires.

@ngabacletus9677

24 күн бұрын

Dawkins

@burnttoast2790

24 күн бұрын

@@bigbabatunde1218 Many people don't, only by pure luck. Our jaws objectively don't have enough room for our wisdom teeth, and evolution from a longer-jawed ancestor is the only logical explanation.

@anaquaduck5252

24 күн бұрын

@@burnttoast2790 is life from non-life logical. Surely not.

1:20 its a whole genus some species came first some came later they have differences but they have some characters which keep them together as a group though by humans it was still selection same can happen in nature 4:30 not simply that and also development of first cells itself would have taken a few million years,we have protien rich fat bubbles but its abiogenesis not evolution you went off topic 8:08 evolution in action but not in progress how does that sentence even makes sense and obviously a mild colour change is not gonna change thier species but sometimes new colours pop up like blue eyes or red hair these are recent mutations thats why rare 9:06 we still dont know what each strand of DNA does but we can look at it and tell that they look similar 11:51 they are similar but not 98% , and you trust some scientists over others isnt that biased and also obviously thier is a big difference in brain 13:48 10 million years is a lot of time it must be another genus maybe they got exctinct or went back in water or THEY were the transitional fossils and tiktaaliks and them must be really close maybe they just evolved at different times untill now whatever you said did not disprove anything 13:55 so a species cant evolve to fly because someone already did, where logic? 15:12 it can have so many contexts like how we now have better kingdom classifications or new relations or old relations cut off but must be random christian scientist you chose to believe over others 15:58 we have proof you are not accepting it, the bats(just adaptation),dog breed(man made),those moths(just colour change) at what point is it considered evolution for you, if you are thinking of turtles with wings than sorry evolution can never be proven

@venkatasaikiranborra5394

24 күн бұрын

Thanks for this. I was confident that there were counters to all the points the gentleman in the video provided, but I wasn't sure.

"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool" - Voltaire

@calvinsmith7575

19 күн бұрын

April fools day began when the first atheist declared 'there is no God'... : )

@OgdenCrimmcramer8162

19 күн бұрын

@@calvinsmith7575 For creationists every day is Fools Day.

@jameshale6401

18 күн бұрын

So which one are you Atheisss is a religion And if evo was true Evo made christians get over it

@tobias4411

18 күн бұрын

@@jameshale6401 Atheism a religion? Wait.. Is not-collecting stamps a hobby? :-)

@jameshale6401

18 күн бұрын

@@tobias4411 i wish i could buy people like you for what your worth And sell you for what you think your worth

Maybe theists should show th evidence for their stupid god, instead of talking about something they don't understand

@IslandUsurper

25 күн бұрын

Is there any you’d actually accept, or would you just deny any fact that doesn’t fit your beliefs?

@calvinsmith7575

25 күн бұрын

Maybe evolutionists could start showing real evidence of their story? : )

@KrisMaertens

25 күн бұрын

Fun fact for believers,your almost an atheist Atheists reject 3000 gods Believers reject 2999 gods

@jockyoung4491

25 күн бұрын

@@calvinsmith7575 What do you think scientists do all day? They collect real evidence for evolution. If you are ignorant of what scientists are saying, whose fault is that? It would take you 10 minutes to look up some of the evidence for evolution on the internet.

@therick363

25 күн бұрын

@@calvinsmith7575keep showing disrespect and lying

Brilliant

What "kind" of animal is a hyena?

The story of Darwinian evolution with its emphasis on randomly occurring genetic mutations, is useful for explaining changes within a species that contribute to its survival however, it is useless to explain the arrival of a species.

@OgdenCrimmcramer8162

25 күн бұрын

What stops a species from changing enough to be considered a new species?

@jockyoung4491

25 күн бұрын

ALL changes are within species. No individual ever gives birth to a different species. Evolution is small chnages over thousands if generations, WITHIN species.

@jonathanguyot624

25 күн бұрын

@@OgdenCrimmcramer8162 auto correction embedded in the DNA is one, and ever considered you would need 2 changing specimens to a new same specie but of different gender in case to find themselves to mate and reproduce, how much worse does it make for it to happen...

@OgdenCrimmcramer8162

25 күн бұрын

@@jonathanguyot624 That is wrong since we have numerous empirically observed examples of speciation occurring. Your claim of simultaneous gender requirements for speciation would get you flunked out of a 5th grade biology class. 😆

@jonathanguyot624

24 күн бұрын

@@OgdenCrimmcramer8162 ok then name one empirically observed speciation, still waiting...

Seeing design everywhere but determined to claim mindless processes as the method for how it got there rather than the obvious answer that God created everything for HIS glory.

@annieoaktree6774

25 күн бұрын

Seeing *apparent* design everywhere but determined to claim some supernatural Djinn POOFED all life into existence while ignoring the huge amount of scientific positive evidence life evolved.

@DaysofElijah317

25 күн бұрын

@@annieoaktree6774 adaptation does not prove macro evolution- give one example where a mutation added new information.

@nathancook2852

25 күн бұрын

@@DaysofElijah317 Point mutations add new information. I believe that HIV resistance is a point mutation.

@nathancook2852

25 күн бұрын

@@DaysofElijah317 And the moths he mention even got added information when they color mutation happened.

@DaysofElijah317

24 күн бұрын

@@nathancook2852 the moth already had the ability for the two different colors and pollution didn’t make them change that whole narrative is debunked. HIV is killing peoples and isn’t a beneficial mutation bottom line you have no real world examples where things are gaining new abilities through mutation. Life is proving out the opposite everything is wearing down. But everywhere scientists look they find a universe particularly put together and balanced organisms incredibly suited for their environments. Everywhere patterns of design and mathematical marvels that you want to say random chance created even though you don’t have evidence and the math is against you. Make one wonder why the the most obvious answer is being ignored-that a supreme intelligence was behind it all.

I could swear AiG destroyed evolution with their last video. Why do they need to do it again?

@cosmictreason2242

23 күн бұрын

Gotta make sure it doesn't come back. Double tap

@jockyoung4491

21 күн бұрын

@@cosmictreason2242 It never went anywhere. Biological evolution is, and will always be, accepted scientific fact. Deal with it.

@cosmictreason2242

20 күн бұрын

@@jockyoung4491 it isn't. Deal with it

Are the Huxleys mentioned in this video related to Aldus Huxley? I had a childrens book of his called The Crows of Pear Blossom. It is a good story, and seems innocent

@jockyoung4491

22 күн бұрын

Yes, Aldous and Julian Huxley were both grandsons of Thomas Huxley.

Unbelieveable amount of ignorance. Anyone who is tempted to believe this guy should educate themselves. This is just insanity.

@user-xo9tm5ky3z

21 күн бұрын

An unbelievable amount of ignorance?? That statement borders on an absolute and absolute come from ignorance. You are clearly an atheist, but as an atheist you should also be aware that there are no absolutes. I would like to know what exactly, since he's using quotes from actual atheists, where you see the ignorance in the statements. Do you know why Australian opal is so expensive? It isn't simply its Origins that make it expensive, but the fact you can hardly any natural opal that does not have organic inclusions. Now, evolutionists say that opal takes millions of years to form. Part of this process is the culmination of non-organic elements that coalesce over time to form these stones. This culmination took time as the ancient oceans that covered most of Australia disappeared. In many of these Stones they find twigs, straw, insects, worms, and other organic material. There's a problem with that however, because I know for a fact there is nothing in the composition of opal, no matter where it comes from, that can act as a preservative. If as an atheist you have to accept that these stones take millions of years to form, then you're also going to have to accept that the organic material that are often found trapped in it's a matrix waited around for the same length of time it would take for each molecule to form enough of the hardened material to completely entomb whatever organic material that happened to fall into the inorganic material while it was in a liquid state. In other words; the organic material without any signs of decomposition, sat around millions of years until the stone completely formed. What complicates matters for the ridiculous amount of time applied to this process, is that the stones are often found with sedimentary rock encasing the opal itself. So there's another few hundred million years in addition to the formation of the opal which couldn't be encased in sedimentary rock until after it already hardened. Do you see the conundrum here? This isn't a question between creationism and evolutionism... this is a question of logic; if you have to believe that opal takes millions of years to form, you're also going to have to believe that organic material with no means of preservation, waited around millions of years without decomposing, while the inorganic elements of this Stone, molecule by molecule, hardened around it. You would have to be a fucking moron to believe that. The only logical conclusion for the reason why we find organic material in opal, is that the opal formed before any significant process of Decay could take place in the organic material trapped inside. People that think that because you believe in evolution, that your somehow smarter than everyone else, is also proving to be false. A smart person thinks for himself. A dumb person let someone else do the thinking for them, which is what most of you do.

@sciencerules2825

21 күн бұрын

@@user-xo9tm5ky3z I bet you were home schooled, right? You've certainly never seen the inside of a science classroom.

@sciencerules2825

21 күн бұрын

@@user-xo9tm5ky3z _I have a 127 IQ_ More like 12.7 with the brutal scientific ignorance you've demonstrated so far. For example the 1957 Miller-Urey wasn't designed to create life and never claimed to create life. Its purpose was to investigate the natural formation of amino acids, the building blocks of life. In this it was successful. You're also a classic case of Dunning Kruger where you *think* you're a whole lot smarter and more educated than you actually are.

@sciencerules2825

21 күн бұрын

@@user-xo9tm5ky3z Why did you delete your big post where you claimed to be a super-genius and that all scientists who ever researched evolution are dumb and can't think for themselves? 😄

@jockyoung4491

21 күн бұрын

@@user-xo9tm5ky3z "A dumb person let someone else do the thinking for them" You mean like believe the Bible or else? ALL I want is for people to look at the evidence and think for themselves. Of course nobody should take my word for it. But I have been studying the evidence for evolution for 40 years, and I'm trying to find some way to persuade people to look at it seriously. So why don't you?

The fact that chickens have the genetic information to develop teeth, whether the DNA is junk or not, is still evidence of evolution.

@tobias4411

23 күн бұрын

They must say "common designer!" 😂

@westonlusk729

23 күн бұрын

So, when they had teeth, they weren't chicken, or if they gained teeth, they wouldn't be. chickens? Have you ever seen goose teeth? If they had teeth they would still have the same DNA. It would be a gene expression, just as now they have a recessive gene, and some people carry recessive genes.

@samburns3329

23 күн бұрын

@@westonlusk729 _when they had teeth, they weren't chicken_ Correct. When they had teeth they were the toothed distant ancestors of extant chickens. Unless you can explain why an omnipotent "designer" put the unexpressed genes for teeth in "designed" chickens.

@jockyoung4491

22 күн бұрын

@@westonlusk729 "If they had teeth they would still have the same DNA. It would be a gene expression" Exactly. That was the whole point of the experiment. It showed that chickens DO still have the DNA to produce teeth (or something "tooth-like"). They just don't have the signal to make the genes expressed. In mammals that signal is sent by the underlying mesoderm tissue. So they took mesoderm tissue from a mouse jaw and implanted it in a chicken. The signal thus being sent, the chicken started producing (partial) teeth.

@jockyoung4491

22 күн бұрын

@@westonlusk729 "If they had teeth they would still have the same DNA. It would be a gene expression" Exactly. That was the point of the experiment. The reason chickens don't have teeth is because they no longer get the right signal to express the DNA. In mammals that signal comes from the underlying mesoderm tissue. So when they took mesoderm tissue from a mouse jaw and implanted it in a chicken, it started forming teeth. It always had the DNA, and now it had the signal to express it.

The only thing in the universe that I see as possibly having intelligent design behind it is a living cell with all the separate jobs and duties and things that everything does in there it just doesn't make sense how any of that would have known all of their own individual jobs and interact with each other perfectly and choreographed

WOW, WILL DEFINITELY BE PRAYING THAT UNBELIEVERS WILL BE SAVED FROM THE WRATH TO COME FOR THEIR UNBELIEF. A LOT OF YOU ON HERE, YOU DON'T WANT TO BE LEFT BEHIND 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

@Wibblywobbl

21 күн бұрын

As an atheist I really hope the rapture is something that would happen.

@Jewonastick

21 күн бұрын

Instead of praying why not spend that time studying science so you'll understand that you are being lied to.

Evolution is the greatest lie ever perpetrated on humanity!

@teks-kj1nj

25 күн бұрын

Name one lie in evolution, go on , just one. I dare you.

@therick363

25 күн бұрын

Why don’t you prove it for once?

@halodude4481

25 күн бұрын

@@teks-kj1njthat we came from monkeys, that earth is millions of years old, that we evolved, that nothing made something despite one of the biggest laws of physics stating “matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed” in that case evolution itself is the biggest lie bc it breaks the laws of physics. I’m willing to have a conversation on this if you feel like it just keep it respectful so we can understand each other’s views.

@teks-kj1nj

25 күн бұрын

@@therick363 Sorry, there's no room in youtube chat to post decades of science research encompassing multiple fields of science, all confirming evolution and not one bit of tangible evidence ever found to refute it. To deny it is plain idiocy.

@tobias4411

25 күн бұрын

Baloney. You can never show that nature was created. On the other hand, we have lots of evidence for evolution; wisdom teeth in humans, men's nipples, tail bone in humans, human goose bumps, pharyngeal arches in embryos, exact same broken C-vitamine gene in both humans and chimpanzees, homologous structures, flightless island birds, trilobites only found in upper ordovician strata, bat wings, limb loss in lizards and snakes, flying squirrels, flying fishes, viviparity in lizards, activity pattern in mice to name a few.

Up next. Calvin walks us through a junk yard DESTROYING All of the latest “proof” of automobiles.

Jonathan wells has excellent books; Icons of Evolution & Zombie Science, that cover this topic well.

@Moist._Robot

23 күн бұрын

Yes and they’ve all been rightly dismissed as pseudoscience. Most creationist disinformation uses them as a source.

Please ask me any and all questions about evolution.

@Moist._Robot

24 күн бұрын

What’s your favourite creationist lie against it?

@LordMathious

24 күн бұрын

@@Moist._Robot I like the false idea that mutations don't add any new information. Every mutation is new information. That is, by a mutations very definition.

@sciencerules2825

24 күн бұрын

@@LordMathious The claim "mutations always lose information and never gain it" is one of the dumbest creationist assertions of all time for the simple reason: whatever one mutation can do another later mutation can *undo.* If the mutation AAG --> AAC is a *loss* of information then the reverse mutation AAC --> AAG must be a *gain* of information *by definition.* 🙂

@Moist._Robot

24 күн бұрын

@@LordMathious Yeh that’s a good one. I went through many of Kent Hovind’s a few years ago. The Sahara desert is the largest desert in the world and is still growing today. It’s been dated back to around 4400 years ago. The time of the flood. If the earth is millions of years old, Why aren’t there any deserts larger than the Sahara desert? Ha ha. There’s a lot in here. The dating of the Sahara was based on the carbon dating of fossilised pollen underneath the dunes. The source he used did indeed date it to that age but also said it first started to change 13,000 years ago based on the same data, in the same paragraph. He forgot to mention that. Then he’s assuming all deserts are growing??? No they’re not. The Sahara is growing because of a wind blowing into the interior of Africa blowing the sand dunes inland. The oldest desert is over 55 million years old on the west coast of Africa. The skeleton coast. Hilarious.

@LordMathious

24 күн бұрын

@@sciencerules2825 That's a fantastic point and an example I will certainly use.

This is idiotic.

@calvinsmith7575

25 күн бұрын

The story of evolution? For sure...

@FilipCordas

25 күн бұрын

Don't insult idiots, this young earth creationism you even idiots understand YEC is ridiculous.

@therick363

25 күн бұрын

@@calvinsmith7575keep on demonstrating lying and disrespect

If you don't like evolution, just make up your own story of creation. Oh wait...

@calvinsmith7575

25 күн бұрын

If you don't like creation, just make up your own story of evolution. Oh wait...

@halodude4481

25 күн бұрын

That goes both ways as said by Calvin lol

@jockyoung4491

25 күн бұрын

@@calvinsmith7575 Except that the story of evolution isn't made up. It is a description of what actually happens.

@statutesofthelord

25 күн бұрын

@@jockyoung4491 jocky, you have been called out for lying like this before. The fact is "Evolution hasn't been observed while it's happening."

@jockyoung4491

25 күн бұрын

@@statutesofthelord I have never lied on here. And that Dawkins quote does not mean what yiou think it does. In fact, you have NO IDEA what he was trying to say or in what context, do you? If you wanted to know, you would take the five minutes necesary to look it up. But you don't want to let go of your talking point that "one time, somewhere, one scientist said something in some unknown context, so that MUST be the conlcusion of all of science." That kind of dishonesty is not very Christian.

The best thing to come from Canada since Bret Hart and the Calgary Flames Stanley Cup winning team.

@OgdenCrimmcramer8162

25 күн бұрын

...or Lanny McDonald's cookie duster. 😉

@calvinsmith7575

25 күн бұрын

George St Pierre is definitely up there : )

@nathancook2852

24 күн бұрын

Don't insult most Canadians like that.

The more i watch your videos, the more i see that internet catholics are acting like a cult

@bigsammcbam6123

20 күн бұрын

Is he a catholic? It's not their copyrighted arguments regardless.

@0i7PX72Nga

18 күн бұрын

Seems like you have had a bad run in with catholics ?

I just wish Calvin would spend the same energy and time debunking the theory of Resurrection.

@samburns3329

23 күн бұрын

Won't happen. There's not near the same money in it as Calving gets for lying about evolution.

@connorallgood0922

21 күн бұрын

If you care to debunk it, go ahead. The truth is we have countless witnesses who were willing to be tortutred and murdered for what they saw. Would you die for the claim that Buddhism was the real religion?

@sciencerules2825

21 күн бұрын

@@connorallgood0922 Actually you have a book claiming there were eyewitnesses. You Fundies never seem to get that part right.

@user-xp4fm2st8u

21 күн бұрын

@connorallgood0922 I have NO idea where you got this misinformation from. The only people who saw "visions" of the risen Christ are Peter and Paul. And there is very little evidence and no corroborating evidence for that! Show me the proof of your ridiculous statement! Many people may have been martyred ( much later) for what they BELIEVED was true ( see Jim Jones and David Koresh), BUT that DOES NOT make what they believed in TRUE. The world has plenty of flat- earthers and those who swear they were abducted by Aliens.

@connorallgood0922

20 күн бұрын

@@user-xp4fm2st8u If you have any ounce od intellectual dignity you'd do accurate research before maing claims about the lack of evidence of another persons position. The fact is that there were hundreds of people from the time when Jesus was crucified who claimed to have seen Jesus resurrected. It isn't just Christian sources either, Jewish officials of that era wanted to keep their poor attempt at guarding the tomb a secret, hence why the body of Jesus has never been presented to any group of people after his death, which would be an obvious move for the Jews who were in control of the tomb to do in order to end the entire Christian movement they were fighting to hard to end. No where did I say that makes the event true, but it makes it a hell of a lot more credible.Also, the difference between the resurrection and flat-earthers or people claiming to be abducted by aliens is that one group was willing to die for their beliefs, the others just like to go on TV talking about the aliens or trying to proove the Earth is flat and failing. Good luck getting more than 5 flat earthers to be ready to be martyred for their belief.

The difference between science and religion is pretty simple. Religion can only explain what has already happened, and it usually involves "god works in mysterious ways". Science can not only explain what has happened, but can make predictions. In all of human history, when science says X and religion says Y, religion has a 100% track record of being wrong. But, if you cant get motivated to learn anything, just pull up the bible, and you instantly know everything.

@James-rz1xo

23 күн бұрын

this is the most ignorant shit ive read in a while

@babs_babs

21 күн бұрын

religions aren’t 100% wrong they’re broken clocks

@HangrySaturn

21 күн бұрын

@@James-rz1xo Oh? Please, demonstrate how it is ignorant.

@James-rz1xo

21 күн бұрын

@@HangrySaturn dude get real, there’s no way to even unpack the bullshit you just said. But let’s start with “religion has a 100% track record of being wrong”. And the idea that science can explain what has already happened 😅😂 you mean it can propose theories*** to explain. Gee that sounds familiar

@HangrySaturn

21 күн бұрын

@@James-rz1xo _"religion has a 100% track record of being wrong"_ This is correct. Do you want me to supply you with examples? _"you mean it can propose theories*** to explain."_ Yep, and you accept most of them. It's only evolution that you don't because you think it is the only one that contradicts the Biblical narrative.

It's amazing how some people are so weak- minded that when tbey find out that it wasn't Santa but dad who provided the Christmas gifts, they have to get snide and abandon the true story behind the celebration of Christ's birth and God simply because a loving parent provided the gifts which was a tradition started by a saint. Their "intellectualism" apparently hangs on a thread.

@cractrick9225

20 күн бұрын

What did any of that have to do with anything lol. You just strawman attacked an entire group then said there intellectualism is hanging from a thread lol Btw how do you know when christ was born?

@katpoohtoo

20 күн бұрын

@@cractrick9225 Obviously you didn't listen to the whole video. An atheist lost his faith because he found out it was his dad, and not Santa, who placed the Christmas gifts under the tree. That is not being intellectual. And intellectualism is something atheists like to hide behind even when it's false.

3:45 Samurai crabs ? Sounds silly.

Ah yes mentioning the origin of life once again shows a creationist that doesn't understand the process of evolution, which is the diversification of life rather than it's origin

@bigbabatunde1218

24 күн бұрын

'Evolution', if true, must have had a beginning point. You have no evidence for origin of life or 'evolution' as taught. A double failure for your side.

@ngabacletus9677

24 күн бұрын

So how did life come about?

@Floodedarea-ed3bm

24 күн бұрын

@ngabacletus9677 we don't know, it's irrelevant to evolution. It's a hypothesis, whereas evolution is a scientific theory

@ngabacletus9677

24 күн бұрын

@@Floodedarea-ed3bm 🤣

@jockyoung4491

24 күн бұрын

@@ngabacletus9677 What Flooded said was exactly correct, so what does a juvenile little smiley face contribute to the conversation?

How backwards are you to call evolution a fairytale but then state that you do believe in wizards and magic...

@mizmera

25 күн бұрын

The wizards and magic is exactly what evolution and the big bang is. You are correct in that.

@tims5268

25 күн бұрын

@@mizmerayou think evolution is ‘wizards’? Meanwhile the King James Bible mentions wizards 11 times. It’s you guys that buy that nonsense. No magic or wizards required in evolution.

@Nickleotide

25 күн бұрын

😂 thanks for the laugh. I hope one day you will be adult enough to not use supernatural reasons as an excuse to not study science, which granted, is harder then coming up with some magical explanation ​@@mizmera

@mizmera

25 күн бұрын

@@tims5268 lol. Lets see some wizardry... 1. Have you EVER witnessed in real life, or even an experiment NOTHING turning into something? Answer truthfully and we move to the next wizardry.

@mizmera

25 күн бұрын

@@Nickleotide lol. Can you imagine saying that to a scientist. Lol. See if you can answer my question I posed to your friend...

Off topic: Where can I get a suit like that?

@sciencerules2825

24 күн бұрын

Find a time machine and travel back to the 1950's.

@user-ex4wx1rj7s

24 күн бұрын

Not really off topic. It's probably the most interesting thing about this video.

@markomus1

24 күн бұрын

@@user-ex4wx1rj7s I mean if you've heard it a thousand times, sure. But I've only heard these once or twice before that I can think of, so I found it well put together and succinct--a good resource of facts to keep at one's fingertips for when the world says there's an abundance of evidence. I mean...if all these have been retracted by the "scientists," then it's beating a dead horse, but the point is essentially that 1) these tired old arguments fall flat, sure, but 2) "scientists" of today's era are still doing much of the same thing. The most honest ones, of course, actually will admit that the ORIGIN of life itself is still a black box when it comes to origin of life research.

I’m skeptical about evolution and it’s time scale, but Im still perplexed when it comes to dogs and all the different dog breads, also cows and domesticated animals. But I’m sure there is something I’m not considering.

@Bomtombadi1

23 күн бұрын

Yes, that evolution happens, and the artificial selection you’re talking about is an example of a sort of directed evolution.

@Jewonastick

23 күн бұрын

I always encourage anyone to be skeptical.... But when you are denying some of the most well substantiated science in favor of your religious beliefs you're just playing it wrong

The origin of life is only a mystery to those that absolutely deny the Bible. I was a teenager about 13 or 14 I was curious about where we come from but By a sincere prayer asking if GOD & JESUS was real, & the impatience of being a teen I waited as best as I could as A teen & nothing happened...... Until 3 months had gone by, Then when I least expected It I got MY Prayer Answered & it Scared the hell out of me because then I had a KNOWLEDGE of my own Guilt & everything else I heard & learned about GOD & THE LORD Came rushing back to my memory. & It was the UNDERSTANDING of Christ & his forgiveness that helped soften the FEAR of my guilt, I still am a Wretch But I now have a comfort that exists that Keeps me going

@jockyoung4491

21 күн бұрын

You are talking about faith. That has nothign to do with science. Evolution is purely about science.

@bigsammcbam6123

20 күн бұрын

​@@jockyoung4491Post some 'scientific' evidence then for evolution. You haven't so far.

Calvin, more nonsense, how unexpected. Evolution is real, it happened, and is still happening, get over it!

@OgdenCrimmcramer8162

25 күн бұрын

He has to keep up the lies to keep the donations coming in. It's his livelihood.

@OldColonyPiper-or3kq

25 күн бұрын

Science is real ! And ever evolving 🤣😂

@calvinsmith7575

25 күн бұрын

Except all the evidence for it has vanished... : )

@mirandahotspring4019

25 күн бұрын

@@calvinsmith7575 Tens of thousands of peer reviewed published papers available and thousands of biology textbooks still in print. I'd say there is plenty of evidence. The fossil evidence alone is enough, and it hasn't vanished.

@jockyoung4491

25 күн бұрын

@@calvinsmith7575 "Except all the evidence for it has vanished" OK, you HAVE to know that one is a lie. Is that what you think it takes to keep your audience from thinking for themselves?

As a Christian, do you really think Jesus appreciates you lying like that?

@v1e1r1g1e1

24 күн бұрын

''In the beginning, God created...'' What part of that CHRISTIAN truth don't you understand? You need to be careful: you're using God's name in vain.

@raymoss706

24 күн бұрын

@@v1e1r1g1e1 I understand that what you call "truth" is a claim not based on any evidence. "In the beginning, God created" is basically the start of every religious dogma, written in every religious book of every religion.

@tobias4411

24 күн бұрын

OEC vs YEC, always entertaining 😂. But you can agree in one thing, namely to disagree.

@calvinsmith7575

23 күн бұрын

What exactly did I lie about. Especially considering everything I mentioned has been confirmed by evolutionists. 😄

@jockyoung4491

22 күн бұрын

@@calvinsmith7575 The "all" in the title is an obvious and intentional lie, and you know it.

Evolution is a process of change and adaption by living organisms to their environment all according to Yahweh's Perfect Plan for His creation. Praise Yahweh.

@bigsammcbam6123

12 күн бұрын

Why do you prefer 'Yahweh' over Jehovah? Some components of evolution possibly being true of sorts doesn't equate to evolution as taught by evolutionists as being true. Very different indeed. Even some prominent evolutionists have poured scorn on the mainstream evolutionary paradigm. Here's an 'evolutionary' biologist letting slip.... *"Although random mutations influenced the course of evolution, their influence was mainly by loss, alteration, and refinement...* *Never, however, did that one mutation make a wing, a fruit, a woody stem, or a claw appear. Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies.* *No evidence in the vast literature of heredity changes shows unambiguous evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographical isolation of populations, leads to speciation."* Lynn Margulis. And this from her..... *"The accumulation of genetic mutations were touted to be enough to change one species to another....No. It wasn’t dishonesty. I think it was wish fulfillment and social momentum. Assumptions, made but not verified, were taught as fact."* Lynn Margulis Evolutionary Biologist and Geneticist. Yes, it was dishonest for evolutionists to make claims about evolution and especially mankind's alleged 'evolution' when they collectively had no evidence to support it. The mainstream scientific community are still doing it to this day. Also........ *"It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science for there is no way of putting them to the test."* Dr Colin Patterson It's well known that the fossil record is very poor as a means of explaining anything to do with alleged 'evolution'. *"Fossils may tell us many things but one thing they can never disclose is whether they are ancestors of anything else."* Dr Colin Patterson a former Senior Paleontologist at the Museum of Natural History.

The creator created the program that created all life.

Another Calvin "science" video where he mindlessly repeats the same old tired creationist lies he's been pushing for two decades. Yawn.

@jockyoung4491

25 күн бұрын

That's the reason they always use these tired old examples from 50-100 years ago. They don't seem to be aware that biology research continues all the time.

@ronniemillsap

25 күн бұрын

definitely not lies, even the evolutionists already admitted these were false hta the talked about

@annieoaktree6774

25 күн бұрын

@@ronniemillsap The video is 100% creationist lies. It's all this site ever posts.

@jockyoung4491

25 күн бұрын

@@ronniemillsap that is not always true, and even if it were, proving a handful of things false would not negate all the millions of other pieces of evidence for evolution.

@ElectricBluJay

25 күн бұрын

Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life. Believe in Him that He died for your sins and you will inherit eternal life in Heaven… Science does not exclude God, and God is not an enemy of science… God makes science possible, just as He makes us possible.

The strength of the evidence for evolution is how ALL facts and observations come together. Over 250,000 species of fossils have been found so far, all arranged in time and space in logical progression of specific intermediate traits, AND we have genetics and comparative embryology of living organisms that confirm those relationships. A theory has to be able to explain ALL of the evidence together. It is the “big picture” that makes biological evolution so universally accepted

@HS-zk5nn

25 күн бұрын

none of the evidence gathered precludes that created kinds cannot adapt. genetic evidence confirms this since simple life such as bacteria are genetically different from more complex life such as humans.

@beardsly878

25 күн бұрын

Hahahaha

@tims5268

25 күн бұрын

You won’t get anywhere, these poor people are brainwashed.

@HS-zk5nn

25 күн бұрын

scientific evidence doesnt negate that created kinds that cannot adapt. actually it supports it. even genetic evidence supports creation

@jockyoung4491

25 күн бұрын

@@beardsly878 I assumed I was addressing educated people. Was I wrong?

If you didn't go to a secular university, comment on this comment.

@lordmanatee439

25 күн бұрын

So that I know you're a limited pleb

@nathancook2852

25 күн бұрын

Yep, that's right. Calvin and his minions do go after the uneducated.

i think this debate has long had a serious problem of two parties talking past each other. Usually when an 'evolutionist' is proving 'evolution', they are pointing out the obvious differences in birds beaks or something plainly observational. Usually when a 'creationist' or 'intelligent design' theorist is disproving evolution, they are pointing out the weakness in Darwin's explanation, which is less simple to grasp. Evolution for most people today is the study of change in living things in generations and not married to Darwin's explanation. So i think Calvin should say 'Darwin's Theory' instead of 'Evolution'. It is strange those generations of scientist forgot Aristotle, "Everything that begins to exist has a cause."

@samburns3329

21 күн бұрын

Darwin's explanation is 160 years old. Science has progresses orders of magnitude since then in supporting evolutionary theory. Have you never heard of genetics?

@jockyoung4491

21 күн бұрын

Except that biological evolution is NOT Darwin's theory. Darwin is of historical interest only. Most scientists have never even read Darwin. All scientists are well aware that Darwin got quite a few things wrong. Hundreds of thosuands of biologists are collecting new evidence for evolution every day. The ONLY way to explain it all is with the modern theory of evolution. Darwin has nothing to do with it.

@450aday

21 күн бұрын

@@samburns3329 How has modern genetics supported Darwin's theory?

@luish1498

20 күн бұрын

@@450aday «How has modern genetics supported Darwin's theory?« Genetic Variation: Darwin proposed that there is variation within populations, and this variation is essential for natural selection to act upon. Modern genetics has revealed the molecular basis of genetic variation, showing that it arises from differences in DNA sequences, such as mutations, recombination, and genetic drift. Heredity and Inheritance: Darwin recognized that traits are passed from parents to offspring. Genetics has elucidated the mechanisms of inheritance, revealing that genetic information is transmitted through DNA and that variations in traits can be attributed to specific genes and their alleles. Natural Selection: Darwin's theory emphasized the role of natural selection in shaping the adaptations and diversity of species. Genetics has helped to uncover the mechanisms underlying natural selection, such as the differential survival and reproduction of individuals with favorable genetic variations. It has also provided evidence of natural selection acting on specific genes and traits. Phylogenetics and Common Ancestry: Darwin proposed that all species share a common ancestry. Modern genetics, particularly the analysis of DNA sequences, has revolutionized the field of phylogenetics, allowing scientists to construct evolutionary trees and determine the relationships between different species. This has provided strong evidence for common ancestry and the branching patterns of evolution. Experimental Evolution: Modern genetics has enabled scientists to experimentally study evolution in real-time using organisms with short generation times, such as bacteria and fruit flies. These studies have demonstrated evolutionary processes, including adaptation, genetic drift, and the emergence of new traits, providing direct evidence for Darwinian principles.

@luish1498

20 күн бұрын

@@450aday and not only genetics but also: Fossil Record: The fossil record has provided abundant evidence for the existence of extinct species and the gradual changes in species over time. Fossil discoveries have revealed transitional forms, showing the intermediate stages between different groups of organisms. This fossil evidence aligns with the concept of common ancestry and the gradual evolution of species. Comparative Anatomy: The study of comparative anatomy, which examines the similarities and differences in the structures of different organisms, has provided strong evidence for common ancestry. Homologous structures, such as the pentadactyl limb (shared limb structure with five digits) found in mammals, reptiles, birds, and amphibians, indicate a common evolutionary origin. Embryology: Comparative embryology, the study of the development of embryos across different species, has revealed striking similarities in early developmental stages, often reflecting shared ancestry. For example, the presence of gill-like structures in the embryos of different vertebrate species suggests a common aquatic ancestor. Biogeography: The distribution of species across different geographic regions provides evidence for evolution. The patterns of species distribution often align with the concept of common ancestry and the migration and diversification of species over time. For instance, the distribution of similar species on different continents (e.g., marsupials in Australia) can be explained by the breakup of ancient landmasses and subsequent isolation.

Both moths already existed

@OgdenCrimmcramer8162

25 күн бұрын

No they didn't. Science has identified the specific mutation which produced the dark (carbonaria) form around 1819. Before then only the light form existed. See the paper *The industrial melanism mutation in British peppered moths is a transposable element.*

@mattbrook-lee7732

23 күн бұрын

No-one ever claimed otherwise

evolution changes one species into another, color changes of a species is called adaption

@jockyoung4491

25 күн бұрын

No, evolution does not change one species into another. No individual has ever given birth to a different species. Eveolution happens in many small logical steps over thosuands of generations.Adaptation is evolution.

@MutantBuzzard

25 күн бұрын

The alleged common ancestor of cats and dogs was a species of small, insect-eating mammals known as Miacids, which allegedly lived approximately 55-60 million years ago.

@venkatasaikiranborra5394

24 күн бұрын

Not quite. What you described was speciation, which is an example of evolution. However, that alone isn't evolution. There is also microevolution where heritable genetic and phenotypic changes occur from generation to generation.

@MutantBuzzard

24 күн бұрын

@@venkatasaikiranborra5394 can u share examples of of what you claim and any explanation of what the dif is? and many what causes it? because everywhere you find k9s you also find felines which would seem to rule out the environment as the cause.

@jockyoung4491

24 күн бұрын

@@MutantBuzzard I'm not sure what you are asking, but the common ancestor of cats and dogs (or any other two groups) is inferred by at least 2 different lines of evidence that can't contradict each other. We can look at when species that are clearly either dogs or cats first showed up in the fossil record (the ancestor has ot be before that), and we can compare the genomes of the two groups and use molecular clock methods to estimate when they diverged. The genetic method usually gives an older date, as would be expected.

Thanks for debunking those lies. God bless you!

@Bomtombadi1

23 күн бұрын

What lies? Evolution?

@sleric3

23 күн бұрын

@@Bomtombadi1 yes

@Moist._Robot

23 күн бұрын

@@sleric3 He hasn’t debunked anything here. For instance, how has he debunked Tiktaalik towards the end of this video? Other than admitting that earlier prints have been found from ten million years earlier.

@sleric3

23 күн бұрын

@@Moist._Robot I still wonder how people believed that those crabs have evolved to look like Japanese. Unbelievable stuffs!

@tobias4411

23 күн бұрын

The Theory of Evolution has not been debunked and will never be. It's one of the most impactful concepts of modern science. It is supported by abundant evidence, observations, and testable hypotheses, allowing us to predict outcomes, changes, and impacts. A theory is the highest level of explanation for facts in science.

I have one human induced proof of evolution that is however..........Texas would hold "rattlesnake" roundups in Spring....large numbers of people would go out in the prairies and capture as many rattlesnakes as possible (these would then be killed or used as food, etc....) trouble the majority of snakes caught would sound their warning rattles......those that were largely silent and hidden were less likely to be caught.....soooooo...by the constant weeding out of the alarm sounding rattlers, the silent ones are becoming the dominant sort of snake....giving no warning before they strike! Not good!

what about convergent evoloution ? why does a doedicurus have armor plating and a club at the end of their tail JUST like ankylosaurs had millions of years before, explain that and i'm gonna convert to christianity

@calvinsmith7575

23 күн бұрын

Common designer.

@HangrySaturn

21 күн бұрын

​@@calvinsmith7575 You have no way of determining that. So your answer is invalid.